`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 93000-93036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27446]



[[Page 93000]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2024-0078]


New Car Assessment Program Final Decision Notice--Crashworthiness 
Pedestrian Protection

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

ACTION: Final decision notice.

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

SUMMARY: This final decision notice adds a crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection program to the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to evaluate 
new model year vehicles' abilities to mitigate pedestrian injuries. 
Based on its previous research, NHTSA concurs with and adopts most of 
the European New Car Assessment Programme's (Euro NCAP) pedestrian 
crashworthiness assessment methods, including the injury limits for 
test devices and the score calculation method used for impact points. 
NHTSA will identify new model year vehicles meeting a certain minimum 
safety threshold on the Agency's website and other published 
literature. This notice responds in part to the provisions in Section 
24213 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which 
requires NHTSA to incorporate measures in NCAP for evaluating the 
protection that new vehicles provide vulnerable road users like 
pedestrians.

DATES: These changes to the New Car Assessment Program are effective 
for the 2026 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact 
Ms. Christina Smith, New Car Assessment Program, Office of 
Crashworthiness Standards (Telephone: (202) 366-1810). For legal 
issues, you may contact Ms. Natasha D. Reed or Mr. Matthew Filpi, 
Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: (202) 366-2992). You may send mail 
to either of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Washington, 
DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Legal and Policy Considerations
    1. 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
    2. 2022 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) National Roadway 
Safety Strategy (NRSS)
II. Summary of Updates to NCAP
III. Background
    A. Adopted Testing Devices
    B. Adopted Test Procedures
    C. Adopted Component Scoring Method
    D. Adopted Procedure for Manufacturer-Submitted Data
    E. Verification Testing Process
    F. Adopted Vehicle Scoring Apportionment
IV. Summary of General Comments on Proposed NCAP Updates
V. RFC Comments and Agency Decision
    A. Test Zone and Markup
    1. RFC Summary
    2. Comments Received
    3. Discussion and Agency Decision
    B. Test Devices
    1. RFC Summary
    2. Comments Received
    3. Discussion and Agency Decision
    C. Test Procedure
    1. RFC Summary
    2. Comments Received
    3. Discussion and Agency Decision
    D. Data Acquisition and Reporting
    1. RFC Summary
    2. Comments Received
    3. Discussion and Agency Decision
    E. Other Comments
    1. Comments Received
    2. Discussion and Agency Decision
VI. Procedure in Detail
    A. Differences From Euro NCAP Tests and Assessment Protocols
    1. Use of the FlexPLI
    2. No FlexPLI Bumper Testing When LBRL Is Greater Than 500 mm
    3. FlexPLI Qualification Procedure and Testing
    4. Bumper Corner Definition
    5. Active Hood Detection
    6. WAD Limit
    7. Self-Reporting System
    8. NCAP Scoring Apportionment
    9. Credit Publication Process
    B. Injury Limits and Scoring Process
    1. Headform Tests
    2. Upper Legform Tests
    3. Lower Legform Tests
    C. NCAP Proposal for Awarding Credit
    D. NCAP Verification Testing
VII. Conclusion
VII. Economic Analysis
IX. Appendices
    Appendix A: Questions From RFC
    Appendix B: Supplementary Tables
    Appendix C: Vehicle Scoring and Verification Testing Example--
Passenger Car

I. Executive Summary

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) New 
Car Assessment Program (NCAP) provides comparative information on the 
safety performance of new vehicles and availability of new vehicle 
safety features to assist consumers with vehicle purchasing decisions 
and to encourage safety improvements. NCAP, like many other NHTSA 
programs, has contributed to significant reductions in motor vehicle 
related crashes, fatalities, and injuries since its launch in 1978, 
with annual passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in the United States 
falling from 32,043 to 26,325 from 2001 to 2021.\1\ Unfortunately, this 
reduction was not universal in all categories of fatalities and 
injuries with annual pedestrian fatalities increasing by 51 percent 
during the same time frame, from 4,901 to 7,388.\2\ While vehicle-to-
pedestrian crashes are not as common as vehicle-to-vehicle crashes, 
they are significantly more deadly, with an estimated 53 out of 1000 
vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes resulting in a pedestrian fatality.\3\ In 
comparison, an estimated 2.6 out of 1000 vehicle-to-vehicle crashes 
resulted in a fatality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Traffic Safety Facts 2021, ``A Compilation of Motor Vehicle 
Traffic Crash Data.'' U.S. Department of Transportation. National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    \2\ Ibid.
    \3\ Swanson, E., Foderaro, F., Yanagisawa, M., Najm, W.G., & 
Azeredo, P. (2019, August). Statistics of light-vehicle pre-crash 
scenarios based on 2011-2015 national crash data (Report No. DOT HS 
812 745). Table ES1--Yearly Average Statistics--Scenario Groups 
Based on 2011-2015 FARS and GES. Washington, DC. National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite improvements in automotive safety since NCAP's 
implementation, far more work must be done to reduce the continued high 
toll to human life both in and outside the vehicle on our nation's 
roads and to encourage safety improvements. NCAP is one of several 
NHTSA programs that advance the Agency's mission to reduce fatalities, 
injuries, and economic losses on U.S. roadways. Historically, features 
rated or otherwise included in NCAP have focused largely on the 
protection of occupants in motor vehicles. However, NHTSA has also 
recognized the importance of protecting other vulnerable road users 
(VRUs), such as pedestrians, from injury and death due to motor vehicle 
crashes. NHTSA published a request for comments (RFC) notice on May 26, 
2023 (May 2023 RFC) \4\ proposing to add a crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection program to NCAP to help address the rising number of 
fatalities and injuries to pedestrians. The RFC notice proposed largely 
adopting the devices and assessment methods used in the European New 
Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) \5\ that simulate a pedestrian 
being struck in the side by a vehicle traveling at 40 km/h (25 mph). 
However, instead of implementing a comparative rating system for 
pedestrian protection as Euro NCAP does, NHTSA proposed to initially 
identify new model year vehicles that meet a specified minimum safety 
threshold and then transition to a new

[[Page 93001]]

rating system as discussed later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 88 FR 34366.
    \5\ https://www.euroncap.com/en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received over 2,800 comments on the May 2023 RFC notice. 
Commenters included vehicle manufacturers, safety advocates, trade 
groups, research organizations, and individuals. Commenters broadly 
expressed support for NHTSA's focus on pedestrian safety, although many 
comments did not directly respond to the questions asked in the notice.
    After careful consideration of all comments received and applicable 
regulatory considerations, NHTSA is largely adopting the May 26, 2023, 
proposal with some updates based on comments received. This NCAP update 
will test vehicles using four test devices used in Euro NCAP Pedestrian 
Testing Protocol, Version 8.5: adult and child headforms 
(representative of the weight of an adult and child head), the 
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) upper legform, and the Flexible 
Pedestrian Legform Impactor (FlexPLI) lower legform.\6\ The test 
devices simulate body regions commonly injured in vehicle-to-pedestrian 
crashes and have successfully been used in Euro NCAP. This update also 
adopts the majority of Euro NCAP's pedestrian crashworthiness 
assessment methods, including the injury limits for each test device 
and the method in which scores for each impact point are calculated. 
For pedestrian crashworthiness, NHTSA also deviates from its 
longstanding practice of giving NCAP credit for crashworthiness 
features based on testing conducted by NHTSA. Historically, NHTSA would 
give credit in NCAP and assign ratings based on testing conducted by 
the agency, not data provided by manufacturers. Similar to the Agency's 
current NCAP crash avoidance credit system, vehicle manufacturers will 
provide data to demonstrate their vehicle models' performance when 
subjected to the pedestrian impact tests. NHTSA will perform 
verification tests on select vehicles to corroborate manufacturers' 
data. In the Agency's experience, this methodology has proven effective 
at driving improvements in safety performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The terms ``headform'' and ``legform'' are used to describe 
the pedestrian head and leg test devices, which are general 
representations of human heads and legs. The head and leg test 
devices are described in greater detail later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is not implementing a comparative rating system for 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection at this time and, instead, will 
identify new model year vehicles that meet a certain minimum safety 
threshold on the Agency's website and in other published literature. 
This pass-fail assessment approach is intended to be temporary and 
eventually will be replaced with a more refined comparative rating 
approach in the future when other planned updates will be implemented. 
These updates include new program elements in crashworthiness and crash 
protection as well as changes to the safety information section on the 
Monroney label--as described in the NCAP roadmap.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/ncap-roadmap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Legal and Policy Considerations

    NHTSA established NCAP in 1978 in response to Title II of the Motor 
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972. At that time, the 
program provided consumers with frontal impact crashworthiness 
information to assist them in their vehicle purchasing decisions. Over 
the years, NHTSA has expanded the type of safety information provided 
to consumers and now publishes side impact crashworthiness, rollover 
propensity, and advanced technology information. As vehicle safety and 
consumer interest evolves, so, too, do the components of NCAP.
    In finalizing its decisions for this notice, in addition to 
comments received, the Agency sought to address requirements in the 
2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, enacted as the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, and the U.S. Department of Transportation's 
National Roadway Safety Strategy initiative. These considerations are 
described below.
1. 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL)
    Section 24213(b) of the BIL requires NHTSA to add information about 
VRU safety to NCAP to (i) determine which technologies shall be 
included, (ii) develop performance test criteria, (iii) determine 
distinct ratings for each technology, and (iv) update the overall 
vehicle rating to incorporate the new technology ratings in the public 
notices.
    In response to these requirements, NHTSA published an RFC in March 
2022 that proposed, among other things, adding Pedestrian Automatic 
Emergency Braking (PAEB) to NCAP. By applying the established inclusion 
criteria in the adoption of PAEB technology and the applicable test 
procedures and evaluation criteria included in the March 2022 notice, 
two of the four requirements for the Vulnerable Road User Safety 
portion of Section 24213(b) will be met upon the publication of this 
final decision notice.
    Further, in May 2023, the Agency published an RFC notice proposing 
to update NCAP by providing consumers with information about 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection of new vehicles. This final 
decision notice adds crashworthiness pedestrian protection safety 
technology evaluations into NCAP. As this notice identifies the 
specific technologies for inclusion and describes the performance test 
criteria NHTSA will use to evaluate these technologies, it further 
fulfills parts (i) and (ii) of Section 24213(b) of the BIL with respect 
to VRU safety.
    NHTSA will fulfill the remaining requirements of Section 24213(b) 
when it proposes and finalizes a new rating system for the crash 
avoidance technologies in NCAP, updates the current crashworthiness 
rating program, and proposes and finalizes an overall vehicle rating 
that incorporates crash avoidance and crashworthiness technology 
evaluations.
2. 2022 U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) National Roadway Safety 
Strategy (NRSS)
    DOT published the NRSS in January 2022. The NRSS announced key 
planned departmental actions aimed at significantly reducing serious 
roadway injuries and deaths to reach the Department's long-term zero 
roadway fatalities goal. At the core of the NRSS is the department-wide 
adoption of the Safe System Approach, which focuses on building layers 
of protection to both prevent crashes from happening and minimize harm 
when crashes do occur.
    With respect to NCAP, the NRSS supports program updates emphasizing 
safety features protecting people both inside and outside the vehicle. 
These safety features may include consideration of pedestrian 
protection systems, better understanding of impacts to pedestrians 
(e.g., specific considerations for children), and automatic emergency 
braking and lane keeping assistance to benefit bicyclists and 
pedestrians. The program also works to identify the most promising 
vehicle technologies to help achieve NRSS's safety goals, such as 
alcohol detection systems and driver distraction mitigation systems. In 
addition, the NRSS includes a 10-year roadmap for the program and lists 
as a key departmental action the initiation of a rulemaking to update 
the vehicle Monroney label.\8\ As part of that

[[Page 93002]]

process, the Agency may also consider including information on features 
that mitigate safety risks for people outside of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Monroney label, often referred to as the ``window 
sticker,'' is a label affixed to new automobiles containing the 
manufacturer's suggested retail price and other consumer information 
as specified at 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233. Notably, the Monroney label 
contains safety rating information generated under NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's final decision notice presents NHTSA's continuing actions 
towards the implementation of this broad, multi-faceted safety strategy 
for NCAP that includes improved road safety for VRUs.

II. Summary of Updates to NCAP

    A brief summary of the updates to NCAP included in this final 
decision notice is provided below.

A. Adopted Testing Devices

    NHTSA will test vehicles using four test devices historically used 
in Euro NCAP: adult and child headforms (representative of the mass of 
an adult and child head), the Transportation Research Laboratory (TRL) 
upper legform, and the Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor (FlexPLI) 
lower legform, discussed in detail in section VI below. The Agency will 
also adopt most of Euro NCAP's pedestrian crashworthiness test and 
assessment methodology,9 10 including the injury limits for 
each test device and the methods used for calculating scores for each 
impact point.\11\ NHTSA will identify new model year vehicles that meet 
a certain minimum safety threshold on the Agency's website and in other 
published literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) (October 
2018), Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 8.5.
    \10\ European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) (June 
2020), Euro NCAP Pedestrian Protocol--Vulnerable Road User 
Protection, Part 1-- Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 10.0.3.
    \11\ For a summary of the differences between Euro NCAP's 
assessment protocols and NHTSA's procedure, see Table B1 in Appendix 
B. These difference are also described in more detail later in this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Adopted Test Procedures

    The adopted pedestrian protection testing will evaluate the 
potential risk of head, upper leg, lower leg, and knee injuries to 
pedestrians hit by the front of vehicles. The agency expects that 
vehicles that score well in these tests will do so by using designs 
that absorb energy, reduce hard points of contact, and include a front-
end profile that will cause less injury to a pedestrian in a crash.
    The crashworthiness pedestrian protection test procedures described 
in this final decision notice consist of standardized instructions to 
(1) prepare a vehicle for testing, (2) conduct impact tests using 
various test devices, and (3) assess a vehicle's performance based on 
the result of the impact tests. Vehicles will first be prepared by 
measuring and marking the front end of the vehicle in a prescriptive 
way to locate the test boundaries and impact points on the vehicle. 
Points on the hood for the specific ``Wrap Around Distance'' 
measurements are marked, as shown in Figure 1.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Wrap Around Distance'' (WAD) is a distance 
measurement made using a flexible tape measure along the front of 
the vehicle, as shown below in Figure 1. One end of the tape is held 
at ground level directly below the bumper. The other end is wrapped 
around the front end of the vehicle and held taut while in contact 
with a point on the hood or windshield.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.003

Figure 1: Wrap Around Distance (WAD) 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The impact points will be marked on a 100 mm by 100 mm grid on the 
hood, windshield, and surrounding components for the head impact tests; 
in a line along the hood (or bonnet) leading edge every 100 mm for the 
impact tests at a WAD of 775 mm (WAD775) using the TRL upper legform; 
and in a line along the front bumper every 100 mm for the lower leg to 
bumper impact tests using the FlexPLI.
    NHTSA is adopting the Euro NCAP procedure for preparing and 
launching a test device at a marked impact point--specifically, the 
adult and child headforms for the hood and windshield area points, the 
TRL upper legform for the WAD775 points, and the FlexPLI for the bumper 
impact points.

C. Adopted Component Scoring Method

    The vehicle's performance will be scored based on the resulting 
injury assessment values from each impact test. For the TRL upper 
legform and FlexPLI impacts, the scoring will be based on a sliding 
scale between the

[[Page 93003]]

highest value of an injury measure (resulting in a score of 0) and the 
lowest value of the injury measure (resulting in a maximum score). For 
the headform impacts, the scoring will be based on discrete ranges of 
Head Injury Criteria (HIC15) values resulting in a score of 
either 0.000, 0.250, 0.500, 0.750, or 1.000 points. The scores from 
each group of component tests (headform, upper leg, and lower leg) will 
be combined to provide a crashworthiness pedestrian protection score 
for the tested vehicle.
    A summary of the tests using the four adopted test devices is shown 
in Tables 1-3, including applicable WAD and injury assessment values. 
The Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User Protection, 
Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 10.0.3, June 2020 
document further describes the injury limits and scoring process for 
the crashworthiness pedestrian protection impact tests outlined in this 
notice. Details for each of these tests, devices, and impact locations 
can also be found in Euro NCAP's Pedestrian Testing Protocol Version 
8.5, October 2018, and certain details are discussed later in this 
notice.

            Table 1--Adult and Child Headform Testing Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Adult headform      Child headform
                                         test                test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity.................  40 km/h...........  40 km/h.
Impact Angle (From Horizontal)..  65 deg............  50 deg.
WAD.............................  * 1500/1700-2100    ** 1000-1500/1700
                                   mm.                 mm.
HIC15 (Maximum Score)...........  650...............  650.
HIC15 (Zero Score)..............  1700..............  1700.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Points rearward of the bonnet rear reference line (BRRL) between
  WAD1500 and WAD1700 and up to WAD2100 are assessed using the adult
  headform.
** Where the bonnet rear reference line is between WAD1500 and WAD1700,
  points forward of and directly on the bonnet (hood) rear reference
  line (BRRL) are assessed using the child headform. Where the BRRL is
  rearward of WAD1700, the child headform is used up to and including
  1700 mm.


               Table 2--Upper Legform Tests at WAD 775 mm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity...........................  20-33 km/h *.
Sum of Forces (Maximum Score).............  5000 N.
Sum of Forces (Zero Score)................  6000 N.
Bending Moment (Maximum Score)............  285 Nm.
Bending Moment (Zero Score)...............  350 Nm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The exact impact velocity is calculated based on the vehicle's
  geometry.


                  Table 3--FlexPLI Lower Legform Tests
   [For bumpers with lower bumper reference line \14\ 500 mm or less]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Velocity...........................  40 km/h.
Ground Clearance..........................  75 mm.
Tibia Bending Moment (Maximum Score)......  282 Nm.
Tibia Bending Moment (Zero Score).........  340 Nm.
Medial Collateral Ligament (MCL)            19 mm.
 Elongation (Maximum Score).
Medial Collateral Ligament (MCL)            22 mm.
 Elongation (Zero Score).
Anterior and Posterior Cruciate Ligaments   10 mm.
 (ACL/PCL) Elongation *.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ACL and PCL elongations act as modifiers. If the stated limit is
  exceeded, that impact is awarded zero points regardless of the MCL or
  Tibia results.

D. Adopted Procedure for Manufacturer-Submitted Data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The lower bumper reference line is the geometric trace 
between the bumper and a straight edge at a 25-degree forward 
incline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to receive crashworthiness pedestrian protection credit, a 
manufacturer must submit the results from its own testing to NHTSA in 
accordance with NHTSA's specified procedures.\15\ NHTSA will accept 
predicted (simulated) results for the head and leg impacts on condition 
that the manufacturer also provides evidence of physical impact testing 
to verify the models used for the predicted data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This submission form will be specified at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Verification Testing Process

    NHTSA is implementing a verification testing process for the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection program similar to that used for 
the crash avoidance testing program in NCAP.\16\ For each new model 
year, NHTSA will select and acquire vehicles for NCAP testing. For its 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection verification testing, NHTSA will 
select and test 10 head impact points and all necessary upper leg and 
lower leg impact test locations on each vehicle.\17\ The resulting NCAP 
data for head impacts will be compared to the manufacturer's submitted 
test data results to determine any needed

[[Page 93004]]

correction factor to apply to the entire head impact test data set.\18\ 
The NCAP data for the upper leg and lower leg tests will replace the 
manufacturer's provided data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The NCAP crash avoidance safety testing program highlights 
vehicles equipped with certain advanced driver assistance system 
technologies if the vehicles meet NHTSA's system performance test 
criteria. Unlike the NCAP crashworthiness safety program, the crash 
avoidance safety program uses test data reported by vehicle 
manufacturers to determine whether a vehicle meets system 
performance criteria set forth under NCAP and awards credit as 
applicable. Each year, a certain number of advanced driver 
assistance systems are selected and tested to verify system 
performance as part of the NCAP crash avoidance safety testing 
program.
    \17\ NHTSA will utilize the concepts of symmetry and adjacency 
to determine the impact test points for upper leg and lower leg 
impact testing across the vehicle width. To reduce test burden, the 
test assumes that a vehicle's front end is symmetrical, and thus the 
test result on a specific point on one side of the vehicle will also 
be applied to the corresponding point on the other side of the 
vehicle. Likewise, an untested point would receive the same score as 
the lowest scored adjacent point.
    \18\ The correction factor is determined based on the process 
described in Euro NCAP's Assessment Protocol--VRU Protection v-
10.0.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Adopted Vehicle Scoring Apportionment

    The overall crashworthiness pedestrian protection score will 
combine the results from the headform tests, the upper legform tests, 
and the lower legform tests with a maximum score of 36.000 points. The 
scoring distribution is as follows: 18.000 points (50 percent) are 
allocated to test results using the adult and child headforms, 9.000 
points (25 percent) are allocated to the test results using the TRL 
upper legform, and 9.000 points (25 percent) are allocated to the test 
results using the FlexPLI (Table 4).\19\ For vehicle models that 
receive an overall score of 21.600 (60 percent) or greater, the Agency 
will grant credit by providing a checkmark (or similar notation) on its 
website, http://www.NHTSA.gov. An example scoring calculation is 
provided in Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NHTSA proposed in the RFC a scoring apportionment that 
aligned with the relative frequency of AIS 3+ injuries to the body 
regions in the U.S. Out of possible 36.0 points, 13.5 were allocated 
to head impacts, 13.5 points for lower leg impacts, and 9.0 points 
for upper leg impacts. NHTSA revised the scoring apportionment in 
this final decision notice to provide more emphasis on head impacts 
and approach alighment with Euro NCAP's current scoring 
apportionment. Details of the justification are provided in Section 
VI.

                 Table 4--Scoring Apportionment Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                 Body region                   Apportionment    possible
                                                    (%)          points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head........................................               50     18.000
Upper Leg...................................               25      9.000
Lower Leg...................................               25      9.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

    NHTSA's NCAP supports the Agency's mission to reduce the number of 
fatalities and injuries that occur on U.S. roadways by providing 
important vehicle safety information to consumers to inform their 
purchasing decisions. Over the years, NCAP has periodically expanded 
the scope of the safety information the program provides to consumers, 
including through the incorporation of various advanced driver 
assistance system (ADAS) technologies in NCAP, including automatic 
emergency braking, and highlighted those technologies (via the Agency's 
website) if they meet NHTSA's system performance criteria. In May 2023, 
the Agency published an RFC proposing to expand the NCAP program by 
providing consumers with information about crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection for new vehicles to spur protection for those outside of the 
motor vehicle, with a particular focus on pedestrian safety.
    The proposal included the addition of a testing program simulating 
a pedestrian being struck in the side by a vehicle traveling at 40 km/h 
(25 mph), with data gathered to assess injury potential to the 
pedestrian's head, upper leg, and lower leg. The proposed test and 
evaluation procedures included the use of four pedestrian test device 
impactors: adult headform, child headform, the TRL upper legform, and 
the FlexPLI lower legform. NHTSA proposed to carry out testing in the 
manner described in the Euro NCAP pedestrian test protocols,\20\ with 
some differences explained in the RFC notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ https://www.euroncap.com/en/for-engineers/protocols/vulnerable-road-user-vru-protection/. See ``Pedestrian Test 
Protocol'' Version 8.5 and Part I of the ``Assessment Protocol--
VRU'' Version 10.0.3. Part II of the ``Assessment Protocol'' and the 
``AEB VRU Test Protocol'' do not apply and are not part of this 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the procedure outlined in the RFC notice, vehicles 
would first be prepared by measuring and marking the front end of the 
vehicle in a prescriptive way to locate the test boundaries and impact 
points on the vehicle. The boundaries for testing with different 
impactors would be established at discrete WAD measurements.
    The impact points would be marked on a 100 mm by 100 mm grid on the 
hood, windshield, and surrounding components for the head impact tests; 
in a line along the hood (or bonnet) leading edge every 100 mm for the 
upper legform impact tests; and in a line along the front bumper every 
100 mm for the FlexPLI lower legform impact tests. The test procedures 
would provide instructions on how to prepare and launch the test 
devices at the predetermined impact points--specifically, the adult and 
child headforms for the hood and windshield area points, the TRL upper 
legform for the hood leading edge points, and the FlexPLI for the lower 
leg impact points. Finally, the procedures would describe how a vehicle 
is scored based on the resulting measurements collected from each 
impact test.
    In general, the proposed test protocols for hood impact tests using 
the adult and child headforms and the impact tests using the FlexPLI 
and the TRL upper legform are similar to that of Euro NCAP. However, 
the May 2023 RFC proposed some adjustments to the Euro NCAP testing 
protocol to better reflect pedestrian protection provided by the front 
end of vehicles in the U.S., improve test practices, and align with the 
self-reporting aspect of the proposed crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection program.
    NHTSA invited comments on the proposed test procedures and their 
applicability to the new U.S. vehicle fleet, test zone markup 
procedure, biofidelity and maintenance of test impactors, scoring 
method, and pass/fail assessment. The following sections provide 
details of certain aspects of the proposal for which comments were 
sought.

IV. Summary of General Comments on Proposed NCAP Updates

    NHTSA received over 2,800 comments from vehicle manufacturers, 
safety advocates, trade groups, research organizations, and individuals 
in response to the May 2023 RFC notice. While many comments were not 
direct responses to the questions asked in the notice, they broadly 
expressed support for NHTSA's focus on pedestrian safety. Many 
commenters urged NHTSA to incorporate more VRU-focused safety 
initiatives beyond crashworthiness pedestrian protection into NCAP, 
including driver direct visibility evaluation and information 
pertaining to vehicle weight. Commenters also urged NHTSA to include 
safety measures for VRUs other than pedestrians, including bicyclists, 
wheelchair users, and people on scooters. Additionally, many commenters 
emphasized the importance of pedestrian crash avoidance systems such as 
PAEB and other ADAS technologies.
    Many comments from private citizens and advocacy groups such as 
America Walks, AARP, Action Committee for Transit (ACT), Center for 
Auto Safety (CAS), National Safety Council (NSC), Advocates for Highway 
and Auto Safety (Advocates), and the National Association of City 
Transportation Officials (NACTO) shared similar sentiments for 
increasing stringency, updating the 5-star rating system and the 
Monroney label, implementing a matching Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (FMVSS), and voicing dissatisfaction with the manufacturer 
self-reporting system. Advocacy groups recommended directing research 
to improve understanding of female injury tolerances and representative 
test devices, testing at increased impact speeds, and aligning test 
layout and

[[Page 93005]]

procedures to maximize the tested area of vehicles. In general, the 
advocacy groups and individual citizens who provided comments were 
supportive of NHTSA's decision to include a crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection program within NCAP.
    Vehicle manufacturers and groups representing vehicle 
manufacturers, including the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto 
Innovators), Automotive Safety Council (ASC), Ford Motor Company 
(Ford), General Motors (GM), American Honda Motor Company (Honda), 
Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai), Rivian Automotive (Rivian), Tesla, and 
Volkswagen Group of America (VW), recommended harmonizing with Euro 
NCAP procedures to the greatest extent possible. These comments 
included such recommendations as the adoption of the advanced 
pedestrian legform impactor (aPLI) in the long term, test device 
qualification procedures, test zone layout, test procedures, 
documentation, point apportionment, and results reporting. Overall, the 
vehicle manufacturers that provided comments were supportive of NHTSA's 
decision to include a crashworthiness pedestrian protection program 
within NCAP.
    The Agency has summarized the sections of the RFC, comments from 
the public, and the Agency's responses to those comments into the 
following categories: test zone and markup, test devices, test 
procedure, data acquisition and reporting, and other comments. These 
summaries, comments, and NHTSA's responses are discussed in the 
remainder of this notice.

V. RFC Comments and Agency Decision

A. Test Zone and Markup

1. RFC Summary
    NHTSA requested comments on specific test zone details and markup 
procedures for the vehicles to be tested. The U.S. vehicle market 
differs from the European vehicle market; therefore, NHTSA raised 
questions concerning some of these potential differences. As a response 
to design trends caused by the Euro NCAP test protocol, NHTSA also 
requested comments on how the bumper test width is defined. Before 
delving into specific comments, the Agency believes that outlining some 
key details regarding the test zone and markup is important. Further 
detail on bumper corner definition, WAD limit, vehicles with a lower 
bumper reference line (LBRL) \21\ greater than 500 mm, and artificial 
interference is provided in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The LBRL is defined as the geometric trace between the 
bumper and a straight edge at a 25-degree forward incline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Bumper Corner Definition
    For the lower legform impact tests, the FlexPLI is launched 
parallel to the travel direction of the vehicle. The intended impact 
points are spread laterally along the vehicle's bumper test zone. The 
bumper test zone extends across the front of the vehicle to either the 
bumper corners on each side or the full width of the bumper beam, 
whichever is larger.
    There are currently two existing procedures for determining the 
bumper corners: (1) the 60-degree angle method specified in Euro NCAP 
and (2) the corner gauge method specified in European regulation UN ECE 
R.127, ``Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles 
with regard to their pedestrian safety performance'' (UNECE R127) \22\ 
and Global Technical Regulation No. 9, ``Pedestrian Safety'' (GTR 
9).\23\ Euro NCAP uses a vertical plane at a 60-degree angle to the 
vehicle's centerline to mark the bumper corner (as shown in Figure 2). 
Euro NCAP then compares this width to that of the bumper beam, a load 
bearing structure underlying the fascia, then tests the larger of the 
two areas. In Europe, the use of the 60-degree angle method has 
resulted in a design trend in which ``touch points'' are molded into 
the lower portion of the fascia to contact the 60-degree plane in a 
manner that could reduce the bumper test area. NHTSA found that in some 
vehicle designs, the bumper test area is reduced to as little as 40 
percent of the vehicle width when using the 60-degree angle method. 
When the bumper test area is reduced in this manner, a smaller portion 
of the vehicle's front end is tested for pedestrian protection. From a 
safety perspective, a larger bumper test area is preferred as it allows 
the Agency to determine the crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
performance for more of the vehicle's front end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 
Regulation No. 127, ``Motor Vehicles Pedestrian Safety 
Performance.''
    \23\ https://unece.org/transport/standards/transport/vehicle-regulations-wp29/global-technical-regulations-gtrs.

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

[[Page 93006]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.004

Figure 2: 60-Degree Angle Method Specified in Euro NCAP

    In contrast, UNECE R127 and GTR 9 regulations use a corner gauge 
method, which employs a corner gauge device as shown in Figure 3. The 
corner gauge method identifies the corner of the bumper by locating the 
outermost point of contact with the gauge when it is moved parallel to 
a vertical plane with an angle of 60 degrees to the vertical 
longitudinal center plane of the vehicle, as illustrated in Figure 4. 
UNECE R127's definition of the bumper test area also includes a 
specification to ensure that the entire width of the stiff bumper beam 
is included in the test area. In the May 2023 RFC notice, NHTSA stated 
that it tentatively plans to use the corner gauge method and bumper 
beam width comparison procedure for the bumper corner definition.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.005


[[Page 93007]]



Figure 3: Bumper Corner Gauge 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Reproduced from GTR 9 Amendment 2 Figure 5B.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.006
    
Figure 4: Determination of Bumper Corner With Corner Gauge 
25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Reproduced from GTR 9 Amendment 2 Figure 5C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As originally brought to NHTSA's attention by GM, trucks and other 
large vehicles with exposed metal bumpers may warrant additional 
consideration based on the bumper test zone determination procedure 
above. For vehicles with exposed bumpers, NHTSA requested comments on 
whether the full width of the exposed bumper should be tested, or if 
the same corner definition method as non-exposed bumpers should be 
used. These exposed bumpers are often stylized and may be swept back at 
the outboard edges. These characteristics would likely result in 
inaccurate measurements when impacted with the FlexPLI if the impact 
angle is greater than 60 degrees. For vehicles with non-exposed 
bumpers, NHTSA proposed using the corner gauge method and bumper beam 
width test procedure.
b. WAD Limit
    As previously mentioned, the term ``Wrap Around Distance'' (WAD) is 
a distance measurement made using a flexible tape measure along the 
front of the vehicle. One end of the tape is held at ground level 
directly below the bumper. The other end is wrapped around the front 
end of the vehicle and held taut and in contact with a point on the 
hood or windshield. The maximum WAD in Euro NCAP's Pedestrian Testing 
Protocol Version 8.5 for an adult male is 2100 mm. However, UNECE R127 
Feb 2023 amendments include increasing the WAD limit from 2100 mm to 
2500 mm. Additionally, these amendments include tests on the parts of 
the windshield that are within this limit. Euro NCAP's most recent 
version of its testing protocol, Version 9.1, has also increased the 
maximum WAD to 2500 mm. In the RFC, NHTSA requested comment on whether 
NCAP should also raise the WAD limit to account for pedestrians who may 
overshoot the vehicle when struck at a higher speed. This change would 
assess the vehicle's ability to provide protection to VRUs in a wider 
variety of crashes.
c. Vehicles With LBRL Greater Than 500 mm
    The LBRL is the lower boundary of significant points of contact 
between a pedestrian leg and the bumper when a vehicle's front bumper 
makes contact with a pedestrian. The LBRL is determined with a 700 mm 
long straight edge held at a 25-degree angle from the vertical against 
the front of the vehicle, as illustrated in Figure 5. The FlexPLI has a 
poor kinematic response when testing a vehicle with an LBRL greater 
than 500 mm.\26\ If a FlexPLI test is conducted on such a bumper, the 
legform's lack of an upper body structure could result in a condition 
where, upon impact, it is redirected groundward with very little tibia 
bending and knee displacement, thus leading to an artificially high 
test score. Such kinematics do not accurately represent a human-to-
vehicle interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See ``Rationale for limiting the lower legform test,'' 
paragraph 99 of GTR 9.

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

[[Page 93008]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.007

Figure 5: Marking the Lower Bumper Reference Line (LBRL) 27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedistrian Testing Protocal V8.5 Figure 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Euro NCAP performs bumper impact tests on vehicles with an LBRL 
greater than 500 mm using the TRL upper legform. For vehicles with an 
LBRL of 425 mm to 500 mm, Euro NCAP gives the manufacturer the option 
of using either the TRL upper legform or the FlexPLI. However, for 
vehicles with an LBRL of 425 mm to 500 mm, NHTSA proposed to only use 
the FlexPLI.\28\ Additionally, the Agency proposed not testing bumper 
locations where the LBRL is greater than 500 mm for lower leg impacts, 
instead assigning a ``default red, no points'' score.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ NHTSA noted in May 2023 RFC that the option to test with 
either legform (as permitted by Euro NCAP) could lead to conflicting 
or misleading scores since the test parameters and test devices used 
to generate the scorings are not the same. The Agency believes that 
to provide consumers with comparative vehicle safety information, 
vehicles should be subjected to the same test devices, testing 
protocals, and evaluation methods.
    \29\ Note that some vehicles may have portions of the LBRL 
greater than 500 mm and some portions less than or equal to 500 mm. 
For those vehicles, the portions were the LBRL is less than or equal 
to 500 mm would still undergo testing, and the portions that have 
LBRL greater than 500 mm would receive the ``default red, no 
points'' score.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Artificial Interference in High-Bumper Vehicles
    Euro NCAP employs an impact test along the bonnet (or hood) leading 
edge with the TRL upper legform impactor known as the Upper Legform to 
WAD775mm Test.\30\ The WAD775 test, which is conducted at a WAD of 775 
mm, simulates a pedestrian's upper leg and hip wrapping around the 
front end of the vehicle in the transition area between the bumper and 
the hood. Because the pedestrian's hip wraps around the front end of 
the vehicle, the upper legform impactor is set up to strike the vehicle 
perpendicular to a line connecting the internal bumper reference line 
(IBRL) \31\ (shown in Figure 6) and a point representing WAD930 as 
shown in Figure 7. These tests are conducted at an impact velocity 
between 20 and 33 km/h (12 and 21 mph). Maximum points are awarded for 
forces below 5 kN and bending moments below 280 Nm. The test setup is 
shown in Figure 7. Vehicles with higher front ends tend to have lower 
impact angles (relative to horizontal) and higher impact speeds with 
more energy. Vehicles with lower front ends tend to have higher impact 
angles (relative to horizontal) and lower impact speeds with less 
energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Euro NCAP Pedistrian Testing Protocal V8.5 Section 11, 
``Upper Legform to WAD775mm Tests'' for instructions for carrying 
out the upper legform to WAD775 test. https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/41769/euro-ncap-pedestrian-testing-protocal-v8.5.201811091256001913.pdf.
    \31\ The IBRL height is identified where a vertical plance 
contacts the bumper beam up to 10mm into the profile of the bumper 
beam.

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

[[Page 93009]]

Figure 6: Internal Bumper Reference Line 32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 15.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.008

Figure 7: Upper Legform to WAD775 Test Setup 33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Copyright Euro NCAP 2018. Reproduced with permission from 
Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol V8.5 Figure 29.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.009

    When testing a high-bumper vehicle, the WAD775 mark may appear on 
the grille of the vehicle, well below the bonnet leading edge. It could 
lead to a condition in which either the top or bottom edge of the TRL 
upper legform impactor would ``catch'' a protruding vehicle component, 
such as the top edge of the bumper--as shown in Figure 8. When this 
condition occurs, the impactor may glance off the component in such a 
way that it can absorb a significant amount of impactor energy without 
registering a significant moment or force in the instrument. NHTSA 
proposed repositioning the upper legform 50 mm away from 
the WAD775 target to avoid situations where artificial interference 
occurs.

[[Page 93010]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.010

Figure 8: Example of Upper Legform to WAD775 Glancing Blow

2. Comments Received
a. Bumper Corner Definition
    Humanetics, Honda, Tesla, Auto Innovators, Advocates, and 
individual members of the public supported the use of the corner gauge 
method for determining a vehicle bumper's corners. The ASC, Rivian, and 
Autoliv supported the Euro NCAP 60-degree angle method. The Center for 
Automotive Safety Research (CASR) noted that the corner gauge method 
and the Euro NCAP 60-degree angle method will usually result in the 
same location for the corner definition. Tesla reiterated the point 
that NHTSA made in the RFC, which is that the corner gauge method 
mitigates the effect of design trends of the lower portion of the 
fascia that could result in a significantly reduced bumper test area 
when using the Euro NCAP 60-degree angle method. Rivian stated that the 
Euro NCAP 60-degree angle method is the most effective method, and 
harmonization with other NCAPs is beneficial. Auto Innovators stated 
that the corner gauge method ensures pedestrians will be protected in a 
larger bumper test zone. Additionally, Auto Innovators supported 
NHTSA's combined proposal of using the corner gauge method and bumper 
beam width procedure as it enables the evaluation of a larger test zone 
and aligns with UNECE R127-02. Humanetics, Honda, Rivian, Consumer 
Reports, Tesla, and CASR also agreed that the combined approach of 
using the corner gauge method and bumper beam width procedure is 
logical.
    When evaluating exposed bumpers, ASC, Honda, Autoliv, and Auto 
Innovators supported using either the 60-degree angle method or the 
corner gauge method instead of testing the full bumper width. Auto 
Innovators stated that performing the lower leg impact test at the 
extreme width of any vehicle creates potential issues in terms of 
impactor response and durability and increases the possibility of 
glancing blows. Auto Innovators further stated the corner gauge method 
would be preferable to the 60-degree angle method for exposed bumpers. 
ACT, Rivian, CASR, and individual members of the public supported 
testing the full bumper width of exposed bumpers. ACT stated that 
pedestrians may be hit by any part of the bumper, and thus, the entire 
bumper should be evaluated. Multiple commenters stated that special 
considerations should not be given to exposed bumpers, and 
harmonization with the Euro NCAP should be prioritized.
b. WAD Limit
    Regarding the WAD limit, many commenters supported an increase from 
the proposed 2100 mm to 2500 mm to harmonize with Euro NCAP and promote 
increased safety for other VRUs such as bicyclists whose heads may 
impact the bonnet/hood in a different location if struck. The ASC 
stated the increased WAD limit of 2500 mm would have the additional 
benefit of ``providing protection at higher speeds when [the impacted 
individual] overshoots the bonnet and lower windshield areas.'' 
Conversely, several commenters, including Honda, Hyundai America 
Technical Center, Inc. (HATCI), and Auto Innovators, agreed with 
NHTSA's proposed WAD limit of 2100 mm. These commenters argued a WAD 
limit of 2100 mm is reasonable and appropriate for the U.S. market, 
especially considering the complementary effects of PAEB, which has the 
effect of reducing vehicle speeds prior to impact with pedestrians. 
HATCI further explained that reducing vehicle speed prior to impact 
with a pedestrian results in a lower likelihood of the pedestrian 
striking the vehicle at higher WAD locations.
c. Vehicles With LBRL Greater Than 500 mm
    Many advocacy groups, including AAA, AARP, ACT, CAS, and Consumer 
Reports, recommended not granting credit to vehicles with an LBRL 
greater than 500 mm, as the existing test procedure does not accurately 
gauge crashworthiness.
    Vehicle manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway 
Safety (IIHS) largely opposed the automatic zero score on vehicles with 
an LBRL greater than 500 mm, claiming it would disincentivize the 
development of pedestrian safety features altogether on vehicles with 
LBRL greater than 500 mm. Honda noted that it would be nearly 
impossible for vehicles with LBRL greater than 500 mm to earn an 
overall 60 percent score because that would require near maximum scores 
for the head tests (proposed in the RFC to be a 37.5 percent 
contribution) and upper leg tests (proposed in the RFC to be a 25 
percent contribution). Honda stated that automakers would be 
disincentivized from providing pedestrian protection in any area for 
these vehicles since they would be unlikely to earn the overall minimum 
score (60 percent) for pedestrian protection credit.

[[Page 93011]]

    Many automobile manufacturers including Auto Innovators, GM, Honda, 
and HATCI recommended testing with the aPLI, stating that the aPLI 
behaves in a more biofidelic manner than the FlexPLI for this test. 
Honda noted that adopting the aPLI legform would allow testing vehicles 
with LBRL greater than 500 mm and thereby eliminate the issue it raised 
about the proposal disincentivizing pedestrian protection features in 
these vehicles. CASR and GM recommended testing with the upper leg 
impactor to harmonize with Euro NCAP.
d. Artificial Interference in High-Bumper Vehicles
    Regarding NHTSA's question about repositioning the upper legform 
50 mm from the WAD775 target when artificial interference 
is possible, nearly all commenters expressed opposition due to a lack 
of repeatability or reproducibility of the procedure. Of the nine 
commenters that submitted a response to this question, seven were 
automakers or groups representing automakers. Ford further explained 
its stance that the allowance of this repositioning would introduce 
subjectivity when test laboratories define the impact points. This 
subjectivity would lead to discrepancies which would require additional 
testing to resolve conflicts, according to Ford. Honda agreed with 
adjusting the upper legform position, with the stipulation that ``clear 
definitions of this situation must be included in the protocol.'' 
Otherwise, Honda agreed with the other commenters that there would be 
discrepancies and conflicts among test laboratories. Additionally, 
multiple commenters, including HATCI and GM, suggested NHTSA conduct 
further analysis to determine the existence and extent of this 
artificial interference.
    Two commenters, CASR and Advocates, agreed with the concept of 
NHTSA's proposal. CASR stated that the Agency should adjust testing 
heights when artificial interference is present ``to ensure that 
injurious locations are adequately assessed.'' Advocates expressed 
concern that automakers would intentionally incorporate features into 
their vehicle front end designs to cause artificial interference to 
inflate their crashworthiness pedestrian protection ratings.
3. Discussion and Agency Decision
a. Bumper Corner Definition
    NHTSA has decided to use the corner gauge method (as used in GTR 9 
and UNECE R127) as proposed in the RFC. The corner gauge method 
mitigates the effect of design trends of the lower portion of the 
fascia that could result in a significantly reduced bumper test area 
when using the Euro NCAP 60-degree angle method. NHTSA agrees with 
commenters stating that the corner gauge method is more likely to 
result in a larger bumper test area. A larger bumper test area is 
preferable because it allows for evaluation of a greater portion of the 
vehicle for crashworthiness pedestrian protection.
    Most comments concerning the general procedure for determining the 
bumper test zone agreed that the bumper width using the corner 
definition should be compared to the bumper beam width, and the larger 
of the two widths should be used as the bumper test zone. The hard 
bumper beam width will be compared to the bumper width using the corner 
gauge method, and the larger of the two widths will be used as the 
bumper test zone. This methodology aligns with Euro NCAP in that both 
bumper beam width and bumper fascia width will be taken into account 
when determining the bumper test zone, and most commenters agreed that 
harmonization is best when possible. The only difference between this 
method and Euro NCAP is that Euro NCAP uses the 60-degree angle method 
in conjunction with the bumper beam width procedure. However, as 
discussed above, NHTSA determined the corner gauge method is preferable 
to the 60-degree angle method. Therefore, NHTSA will use the corner 
gauge method in conjunction with the bumper beam width procedure to 
determine the bumper test zone as proposed in the RFC.
    For vehicles with an exposed bumper, using the corner gauge method 
would always result in the full width of the bumper beam as the bumper 
test width. While pedestrians may be impacted by any part of the 
exposed bumper like some commenters stated, testing the curved edges 
using the current methods would likely not result in meaningful data 
that could be used to improve pedestrian safety. Therefore, in the case 
of a vehicle with an exposed metal bumper, NHTSA will use the corner 
gauge method to determine the corner location and bumper test width. 
This method provides a consistent approach with vehicles without an 
exposed bumper and prevents NHTSA and test laboratories from performing 
wasteful impact tests where the data may not be useful.
b. WAD Limit
    NHTSA has decided to use a WAD limit of 2100 mm as originally 
proposed. As discussed below, NHTSA acknowledges there are potential 
benefits to an increased WAD limit of 2500 mm, but ongoing research 
must be completed before implementing this increased WAD limit for 
NCAP.
    While some commenters agreed with NHTSA's proposed WAD limit of 
2100 mm, most requested that NHTSA increase the WAD limit to 2500 mm to 
harmonize with Euro NCAP and provide increased protection for other 
VRUs. NHTSA agrees with the commenters that a WAD limit of 2500 mm 
would likely benefit non-pedestrian VRUs, such as bicyclists, as their 
heads tend to be higher off the ground than pedestrians. NHTSA also 
agrees with ASC's comment that an increased WAD limit may provide 
improved protection for VRUs impacted at slightly higher speeds as 
their heads may overshoot the WAD2100 limit. However, as impact speeds 
increase, so does the likelihood that a pedestrian's head overshoots 
the vehicle's hood and windshield entirely, especially in vehicles with 
lower front ends. Conversely, as mentioned by multiple commenters, the 
increased adoption of PAEB is expected to reduce vehicle speeds prior 
to impact with pedestrians.\34\ These reduced impact speeds will also 
reduce the likelihood of the pedestrian's head impacting the hood or 
windshield beyond the WAD2100 limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See NHTSA's final rule adopting a new Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard to require automatic emergency braking (AEB), 
including pedestrian AEB (PAEB), systems on light vehicle. 89 FR 
39686 (May 9, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vehicles in the U.S. market are often larger and equipped with 
higher bumpers than European vehicles. These differences result in 
unique challenges from a testing perspective. NHTSA is conducting 
research to determine unique impact scenarios for bicyclists with 
vehicles in the U.S. NHTSA will use the results of this research to 
develop or enhance existing test procedures to assess the performance 
of vehicle front end structures (including the windshield area) in 
mitigating injuries and fatalities in crashes with bicyclists. 
Therefore, NHTSA will move forward with the proposed WAD limit of 2100 
mm at this time, but the Agency will consider increasing to a WAD limit 
of 2500 mm in the future once relevant test procedures are developed.
c. Vehicles With LBRL Greater Than 500 mm
    NHTSA has decided to automatically issue a score of zero for any 
lower legform test points on a vehicle where the LBRL is greater than 
500 mm. The Agency is not aware of any existing countermeasures that 
would improve

[[Page 93012]]

the lower leg safety of vehicles with an LBRL greater than 500 mm when 
tested with the FlexPLI. It should be noted that test points where the 
LBRL is below 500 mm will still be tested using the FlexPLI, even if 
those above 500 mm on the same vehicle will not be tested.
    Multiple commenters raised concerns that an automatic zero score 
would disincentivize manufacturers from providing pedestrian protection 
because it would be nearly impossible for them to achieve the 60 
percent minimum passing score without any points for the lower leg 
impact tests. As explained in detail later in this notice, NHTSA is 
adjusting the scoring apportionment for head, lower leg, and upper leg 
impacts to better account for injury severity. This updated scoring 
apportionment results in a lower apportionment for lower leg impact 
tests (25 percent) and a higher apportionment for head impact tests (50 
percent). The updated scoring would make it possible for vehicles with 
LBRL greater than 500 mm to obtain overall pedestrian protection credit 
(60 percent), even with an automatic zero score for the lower legform 
tests. Therefore, manufacturers of vehicles with LBRL greater than 500 
mm may develop vehicle designs that improve pedestrian protection for 
the upper leg and head impacts to obtain pedestrian protection credit.
    NHTSA is conducting research on the suitability of the aPLI for 
evaluating vehicle designs to mitigate pedestrian lower extremity 
injuries. The Agency will also research the use of aPLI for assessing 
lower extremity injuries on vehicles with LBRL greater than 500 mm. As 
noted in the NCAP roadmap,\35\ NHTSA plans to consider testing with 
aPLI starting with model year 2030 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/ncap-roadmap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Artificial Interference in High-Bumper Vehicles
    NHTSA has decided not to allow test laboratories the option of 
repositioning the upper legform 50 mm from the WAD775 
target when artificial interference is present, or to conduct multiple 
impacts within a 50 mm range from the WAD775 target. The 
concerns about repeatability and reproducibility raised by automakers 
are valid, and NHTSA agrees that an objective definition for artificial 
interference is necessary. However, as NHTSA determined while testing a 
2015 Ford F-150,\36\ when artificial interference occurs, it results in 
artificially low impact values in the upper legform impactor. The 
Agency wants to ensure the results of these impact tests are accurate 
but needs both a clear definition of the problem and a repeatable, 
reproducible solution to account for this situation. NHTSA will 
continue to evaluate the causes and effects of artificial interference. 
After these evaluations, the Agency may decide to further define the 
condition and develop a repeatable and reproducible procedure to 
address artificial interference during the tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Suntay, B., & Stammen, J. (2019, May). Technical evaluation 
of the TRL pedestrian upper legform (Report No. DOT HS 812 659). 
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Test Devices

1. RFC Summary
    NHTSA requested comments on test devices, their qualification 
schedule, and maintenance procedures that may affect the FlexPLI's 
performance. NHTSA also requested comments on the existence of female-
specific test devices. Details regarding the test devices are grouped 
into four categories: female-specific test devices, upper legform 
humidity tolerance, FlexPLI qualification procedures and testing, and 
FlexPLI biofidelity.
a. Female-Specific Test Devices
    The TRL upper legform and the FlexPLI are based on a 50th 
percentile average adult male in both mass and stature. These legforms 
are the most current anthropomorphic legforms available that have been 
thoroughly researched and reviewed by NHTSA. NHTSA requested 
information on whether other legforms that represent smaller adult 
females are available, the injury criteria and test procedures 
associated with them, and the safety need for such legforms.
b. Upper Legform Humidity Tolerance
    NHTSA has previously investigated the repeatability and 
reproducibility of the TRL upper legform by performing qualification 
testing and vehicle impact testing.\37\ During this testing, NHTSA 
found that the foams used in the upper legform are sensitive to changes 
in temperature and humidity. Therefore, NHTSA requested comment on 
potentially using a tighter humidity tolerance than other existing 
international standards to improve lab-to-lab consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2019-0112-0007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. FlexPLI Qualification Procedures and Testing
    Regarding the FlexPLI, UNECE R127 specifies two dynamic 
qualification tests--a Pendulum test and an Inverse Impact test, in 
addition to a series of quasi-static tests. In UNECE R127, the dynamic 
qualification tests are performed before and throughout a test series, 
while the quasi-static tests are performed on an annual basis. Euro 
NCAP only specifies the dynamic Inverse Impact test and the quasi-
static tests. NHTSA requested information on the Pendulum and Inverse 
dynamic tests as well as the quasi-static tests and how often they 
should be performed.
d. FlexPLI Biofidelity
    NHTSA proposed the FlexPLI as a biofidelic impactor but requested 
additional information on the FlexPLI's biofidelity. Previous comments 
that NHTSA has received suggested that the FlexPLI demonstrates reduced 
biofidelity in oblique loading conditions (e.g., where there is 
curvature in the vehicle profile).
2. Comments Received
a. Female-Specific Test Devices
    NHTSA did not receive any comments identifying female-specific 
impactors. Humanetics, Honda, and GM specifically noted that such 
impactors do not currently exist. Autoliv stated that other factors 
such as gait cycle and knee position have greater effect on injury risk 
than the pedestrian's gender, stating ``ideal representation of the at-
risk population includes more than pedestrian gender or stature.'' 
Several commenters including Auto Innovators and Honda recommended 
using the aPLI in place of the FlexPLI, stating that the aPLI is more 
biofidelic. Advocacy groups including the NSC, AARP, and VERITY Now 
recommended developing additional pedestrian test devices to better 
represent the diversity of the human population, including smaller 
stature adults and older adults.
b. Upper Legform Humidity Tolerance
    The commenters that discussed the humidity tolerance, including 
Auto Innovators, Honda, Rivian, VW, and Tesla, recommended harmonizing 
with Euro NCAP guidelines, which use the UNECE R127 guidelines of 10 to 
70 percent humidity. CASR noted that it aims to certify between 10 and 
55 percent humidity for its testing because it has ``found issues 
meeting requirements at humidity levels above 55 percent.'' Humanetics 
also responded, stating it certifies its upper legform to the same 10 
to 70 percent

[[Page 93013]]

range used in UNECE R127 and Euro NCAP.
c. FlexPLI Qualification Procedures and Testing
    Most commenters discussing FlexPLI qualification recommended using 
both the quasi-static test and inverse test at different frequencies. 
Humanetics and Honda recommended performing the quasi-static test after 
each disassembly or once annually, and the inverse test after every 30 
vehicle impacts. Humanetics also recommended performing the pendulum 
test after every 10 vehicle impacts but noted that between the inverse 
test and the pendulum test, the inverse test is more important. Honda 
recommended performing the inverse test before each test series and 
after a maximum of 10 impacts. HATCI and GM recommended harmonizing 
with Euro NCAP, which performs the inverse test every 20 impacts 
(maximum) or every 12 months and static certification tests annually. 
UNECE R127 also includes the pendulum test (which Humanetics 
recommended).
d. FlexPLI Biofidelity
    All commenters discussing FlexPLI biofidelity except for Honda 
commented that the FlexPLI is sufficiently biofidelic, though they also 
recommended the aPLI over the FlexPLI. These commenters stated the 
benefits of the aPLI are increased biofidelity and/or harmonization 
with other NCAPs. Many commenters supported adopting the FlexPLI as a 
temporary measure and adopting the aPLI in the long term.
3. Discussion and Agency Decision
a. Female-Specific Test Devices
    The TRL upper legform and the FlexPLI are the most current 
anthropomorphic legforms available that have been thoroughly researched 
and reviewed by NHTSA. No female-specific legform impactors were 
identified by any commenters. NHTSA will proceed as proposed with the 
TRL upper legform and the FlexPLI. As noted earlier, NHTSA is 
conducting research on the suitability of the aPLI for evaluating 
vehicle designs to mitigate pedestrian lower extremity injuries, with 
plans to introduce this device in NCAP tests in the future. The current 
aPLI is representative of a 50th percentile male lower extremity. NHTSA 
will consider similar devices representing a range of male and female 
pedestrian sizes in the future.
b. Upper Legform Humidity Tolerance
    Most commenters supported a humidity range of 10 to 70 percent for 
the TRL upper legform tests. NHTSA recognizes the importance of 
international harmonization when possible; therefore, NHTSA will 
proceed with a humidity range of 10 to 70 percent to harmonize with 
Euro NCAP. Nevertheless, NHTSA will monitor upper legform performance 
in cases where humidity levels are between 55 and 70 percent and will 
consider the possible need for a tighter humidity tolerance.
c. FlexPLI Qualification Procedure and Testing
    After taking the received comments into account, NHTSA has decided 
to proceed with the test schedule outlined in Table 5, which prescribes 
the inverse impact test after every 20 impacts, the quasi-static tests 
once per year, and only requires the pendulum test if any lower 
performance limits are exceeded. This schedule aligns with Euro NCAP, 
except for the use of the pendulum test if any lower performance limits 
are exceeded.\38\ NHTSA is choosing to use the pendulum test in these 
instances to accommodate labs that do not have a dedicated inverse 
testing fixture, since they would need to be reconfigured to perform 
the inverse impact test during vehicle testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For Euro NCAP, the inverse impact test is used when any 
lower performance limits are exceeded.

             Table 5--FlexPLI Qualification Testing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Align with Euro
           Test mode                   Frequency              NCAP?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inverse Impact Test...........  After every 20 impacts  Yes.
Quasi-static Tests............  Every 12 months.......  Yes.
Pendulum Test.................  If testing exceeds any  No.
                                 lower performance
                                 limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. FlexPLI Biofidelity
    While many commenters noted the aPLI is more biofidelic than the 
FlexPLI, all commenters who did so also found the FlexPLI to be an 
acceptable interim solution while NHTSA works to implement the aPLI in 
a future action. As noted in NHTSA's NCAP roadmap,\39\ the Agency plans 
to begin testing with the aPLI starting with model year 2030 vehicles, 
pending necessary research and analysis, as it is designed to provide 
more biofidelic upper leg injury measurements than the FlexPLI, which 
will be more important for assessing vehicles with taller front ends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/ncap-roadmap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Test Procedure

1. RFC Summary
    NHTSA requested comments on Euro NCAP's test procedures and 
documentation, including test speed, permitted models and simulation 
software, active hoods, and scoring calculation and points allocation. 
Comments regarding these test procedures are categorized into four 
groups: apportionment of scoring, test speeds, documentation, and 
active hood detection. A brief discussion providing more detail on each 
of these groups is discussed below.
a. Apportionment of Scoring
    In the RFC, NHTSA proposed a scoring method that differed from the 
Euro NCAP scoring method regarding points apportionment. The proposed 
points apportionment, referred to as the \3/8\th, \3/8\th, \2/8\th 
scoring method, included a maximum of 13.5 out of 36 points (37.5 
percent) for head impacts, 13.5 out of 36 points (37.5 percent) for 
lower leg impacts, and 9 out of 36 points (25 percent) for upper leg 
impacts.\40\ The proposed scoring method is based on the relative 
frequency of AIS 3+ injuries \41\ in the U.S. and the proportion of 
those pedestrian injuries across body regions.

[[Page 93014]]

NHTSA requested comment on whether injury severity should be 
prioritized over injury frequency in this calculation, or whether any 
other changes should be considered to the proposed \3/8\th, \3/8\th, 
\2/8\th scoring for head impacts, lower leg impacts, and upper leg 
impacts, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol v10.0.3 used a scoring 
distribution of 24 out of 36 points (66.7 percent) for head impacts, 
6 out of 36 points (16.7 percent) for lower leg impacts, and 6 out 
of 36 points (16.7 percent) for upper leg impacts.
    \41\ The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is a 6-point ranking 
system used for ranking the severity of injuries. AIS 3+ Injuries 
means injuries of severity level 3 (serious), 4 (severe), 5 
(critical), and 6 (fatal) according to the Abbreviate Injury Scale. 
www.aaam.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Test Speeds
    The Euro NCAP test procedures are representative of a pedestrian 
crossing the street and being struck in the side by a vehicle traveling 
at 40 km/h (25 mph). NHTSA requested comments on whether U.S. NCAP 
should maintain the 40 km/h test speed to harmonize with Euro NCAP or 
consider other test speeds based on an analysis of crashes in the U.S. 
market.
c. Documentation
    NHTSA proposed adopting the Euro NCAP crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection test devices, test procedures, and some (though not all) of 
the scoring methods. Between the December 2015 notice and the May 2023 
RFC, there were several updates to Euro NCAP procedures. In the May 
2023 RFC, NHTSA proposed adopting the following test procedures and 
versions:
    (1) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 8.5, October 
2018.
    (2) Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User Protection, 
Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 10.0.3, June 2020.
    (3) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point Selection, V2.1, October 
2017.
    (4) Euro NCAP Film and Photo Protocol, Chapter 8--Pedestrian 
Subsystem Tests, V1.3, January 2020.
    (5) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 008, Windscreen Replacement for 
Pedestrian Testing, Version 1.0, September 2009.
    (6) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 019, Headform to Bonnet Leading 
Edge Tests, Version 1.0, June 2014.
    (7) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 024, Pedestrian Human Model 
Certification, V2.0, November 2019.
    In the RFC, NHTSA requested comments on whether any changes or 
other considerations needed to be taken into account before adopting 
these documents. One notable change between this list of documents and 
the list of documents NHTSA proposed in 2015 is the replacement of 
Technical Bulletin (TB) 013 with TB 024 (item 7 above). Both of these 
documents discuss computer models used to validate active hoods for 
head-to-hood impact tests. NHTSA requested comment on TB 024 and its 
relevance to U.S. NCAP.
d. Active Hood Detection and Deployment
    One mitigation strategy used to lower risk of pedestrian injury is 
the use of active hood technology. An active hood system is designed to 
lift the hood upwards when the vehicle detects an impact with a 
pedestrian. This action increases the distance between the hood and any 
rigid components that may be present in the engine bay or front trunk. 
To allow active hoods to be deployed during pedestrian testing, 
manufacturers must be able to prove that their active hood systems 
trigger on leg-to-bumper impact at multiple points along the vehicle's 
bumper. In its RFC, NHTSA proposed using the full vehicle bumper test 
zone for active hood detection testing.
    To trigger the active hoods during testing, Euro NCAP currently 
uses the Pedestrian Detection Impactor 2 (PDI-2) legform. However, 
NHTSA noted that the Informal Working Group for Deployable Pedestrian 
Protection Systems (IWG-DPPS) was investigating the use of FlexPLI in 
place of the PDI-2. NHTSA requested comments on whether the PDI-2 
legform or the FlexPLI should be used for the active hood detection 
testing.
2. Comments Received
a. Apportionment of Scoring
    There was little support from commenters for NHTSA's proposed 
scoring apportionment of \3/8\th, \3/8\th, \2/8\th for head, lower leg, 
and upper leg impacts, respectively. Most commenters, including ACT, 
Auto Innovators, GM, HATCI, Honda, Humanetics, and IIHS, recommended 
the Agency place additional emphasis on head impact performance to 
better reflect injury severity. IIHS referenced multiple studies which 
have shown that the head is the most commonly injured body region in 
seriously or fatally injured pedestrians in the U.S., United Kingdom, 
Germany, and Japan. Autoliv and Consumer Reports concurred with the 
proposed apportionment but recommended monitoring in case the Agency 
needs to adjust further, noting the distribution should be based on the 
risk for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ injuries. However, HATCI 
commented that ``focusing on AIS 3+ diminishes the large percentage of 
AIS 4+ and fatal injuries that may be affected by the headform test.''
    ASC proposed an apportionment that more closely modeled Euro 
NCAP's, stating: ``Like Euro NCAP, ASC proposes that points should 
emphasize head protection as first priority . . . .'' Similarly, Rivian 
recommended a scoring apportionment to align with Euro NCAP more 
closely. ASC, Rivian, and public citizens all suggested a scoring 
apportionment of 50 percent for head impacts. Auto Innovators 
recommended an apportionment with even greater weighting for the head 
(61.1 percent). Auto Innovators' recommended apportionment applied the 
findings of the Department of Transportation's publication on the Value 
of a Statistical Life to the relative frequency of U.S. pedestrian 
injuries based on injury severity level.
    In January 2023, Euro NCAP increased the percentage of points 
required to obtain a 5-star VRU safety rating from 60 percent to 70 
percent of the maximum. NSC recommended that NHTSA should also increase 
the minimum passing score from the proposed 21.600 points (60 percent) 
to 25.200 points (70 percent) to align with the current Euro NCAP 5-
star rating for VRU safety.
b. Test Speeds
    All of the automakers and many other industry groups who commented, 
including Auto Innovators, ASC, Consumer Reports, Autoliv, and CASR, 
agreed that the proposed test impact speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) is 
reasonable and sufficient for U.S. NCAP. Most commenters emphasized 
that this speed allows for harmonization with Euro NCAP and other NCAPs 
globally, where pedestrian fatalities have decreased over time. GM, 
HATCI, VW, and Auto Innovators also mentioned that the complementary 
benefits of PAEB provide further justification that the impact test 
speeds do not need to be increased beyond 40 km/h (25 mph).
    Honda noted that current test devices are only proven to be 
biofidelic up to 40 km/h (25 mph), and IIHS recommended NHTSA complete 
further research into updated test devices and methods before 
considering increased test speeds. Humanetics suggested NHTSA should 
perform additional research to determine how vehicle designs optimized 
for higher test speeds would perform at lower test speeds for 
pedestrian protection.
    Other commenters, including advocacy groups and individual members 
of the public, stated that NHTSA should increase the test impact speeds 
for pedestrian protection. Salud America stated test speeds up to 35 
mph (56 km/h) should be considered; an additional 20.2 percent of 
fatalities occur between 25 and 35 mph. Many advocacy groups and public 
citizens argued the test speeds should be increased to the highest 
levels possible. CAS stated the tests ``should be

[[Page 93015]]

conducted at the highest speeds allowed by the technical limitations of 
test equipment.'' In its comment, NACTO referenced a recent study that 
found, among other things, more than three quarters of the 60 most 
dangerous corridors for pedestrians in the U.S. have speed limits of 30 
mph or higher.\42\ NACTO stated the test speeds should therefore be 
increased but did not indicate a suggested target speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ https://jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/1825.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Documentation
    Most commenters supported NHTSA's plan to use the documents and 
test procedures as outlined in the RFC, which included:
    (1) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 8.5, October 
2018.
    (2) Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User Protection, 
Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 10.0.3, June 2020.
    (3) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point Selection, V2.1, October 
2017.
    (4) Euro NCAP Film and Photo Protocol, Chapter 8--Pedestrian 
Subsystem Tests, V1.3, January 2020.
    (5) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 008, Windscreen Replacement for 
Pedestrian Testing, Version 1.0, September 2009.
    (6) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 019, Headform to Bonnet Leading 
Edge Tests, Version 1.0, June 2014.
    (7) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 024, Pedestrian Human Model 
Certification, V2.0, November 2019.
    Most automakers suggested NHTSA follow the discussions of Euro NCAP 
and implement any updates to these documents as they are released to 
maximize harmonization. Specifically, IIHS stated that ``it seems 
illogical to choose an outdated set of protocols to assess future 
vehicles.'' The updated documents that IIHS referenced are the Euro 
NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol and the Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol, 
which include updates such as the new lower leg impactor (aPLI) and 
increased WAD limit of 2500 mm. GM provided a specific recommendation 
concerning TB 019, requesting that it be incorporated into the overall 
testing procedure instead of remaining a standalone document.
    Regarding TB 024, all commenters who responded were in favor of 
using its models and methods to calculate head impact times when 
evaluating active hoods. Many commenters also emphasized that doing so 
would harmonize with Euro NCAP. In VW's opinion, ``[t]he TB 024 method 
has proven its feasibility over the span of time it has been in effect 
in Europe.'' Autoliv encouraged NHTSA to follow the next steps being 
discussed for Euro NCAP updates, including looking at the full body 
motion of pedestrians. According to Autoliv, ``higher velocity of the 
head at impact and assessing the neck and thorax injuries . . . cannot 
be assessed with spherical impactor testing.''
d. Active Hood Detection and Deployment
    All commenters who provided input on the active hood detection area 
agreed that the detection area should correspond to the full bumper 
test width as defined for the lower leg impact tests.
    Regarding the option of using the PDI-2 legform or the FlexPLI 
impactor, Honda, Rivian, Autoliv, and Tesla all agreed that the PDI-2 
is the preferred testing device. Rivian specified that the PDI-2 has a 
lower mass, which allows for better detection of smaller stature adults 
and children. Auto Innovators stated that the manufacturer should have 
the option to choose which test device is more representative of the 
populations it intends to address. Auto Innovators also encouraged 
NHTSA to ``consider the finding of the IWG-DPPS and conduct any 
additional research necessary to determine whether the PDI-2 is an 
accurate surrogate for smaller stature pedestrians, or whether there is 
a need to consider alternate options.'' In contrast, VW stated ``the 
FlexPLI would be the better choice of the two options,'' but did not 
provide further justification.
3. Discussion and Agency Decision
a. Apportionment of Scoring
    NHTSA has decided to increase the proportion of points for head 
impacts to align more closely with the Euro NCAP scoring apportionment. 
NHTSA agrees with commenters' assertion that more emphasis should be 
placed on head impacts due to the higher severity of head injuries 
compared to lower leg and upper leg injuries. Several commenters 
offered suggestions for various scoring apportionments based on body 
region, but the general consensus among commenters was to increase the 
proportion of points for head impacts. As ASC included in their 
comment: ``Like Euro NCAP, ASC proposes that points should emphasize 
head protection as first priority . . . .'' However, it should be noted 
that Euro NCAP recently reduced the points allocated to head impact 
testing from 24 points (66.7 percent) in the Assessment Protocol--VRU 
v10.0.3 to 18 points (50 percent) in v11.3. While this revised value is 
less than Euro NCAP's previous apportionment, it remains higher than 
the apportionment NHTSA proposed in the RFC for head impacts (13.5 
points, or 37.5 percent).
    A higher proportion of points allocated to head impacts aligns with 
what the advocacy groups and consumers stated they expect to see from a 
consumer information program. Additionally, it aligns with requests 
from automakers by adjusting the apportionment based on injury severity 
while also bringing the scoring more in line with Euro NCAP.
    Therefore, NHTSA has decided to adjust the scoring apportionment as 
follows: (1) the adult and child head impact test results will 
contribute 50 percent of the available points for a maximum component 
score of 18.000 points; (2) the upper leg impact test results will 
account for 25 percent of the available points for a maximum component 
score of 9.000 points; and (3) the lower leg impact test results will 
cover 25 percent of the available points for a maximum component score 
of 9.000 points (Table 6). This scoring apportionment roughly aligns 
with the Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--VRU v11.3 scoring of 18 points 
for head impacts (50 percent), 9 points for knee/tibia impacts (25 
percent), 4.5 points for femur impacts (12.5 percent), and 4.5 points 
for pelvis impacts (12.5 percent).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Since NHTSA will be utilizing the FlexPLI instead of the 
aPLI, it will not be measuring impact values specifically for the 
pelvis. The TRL upper legform will be used to account for the same 9 
points that Euro NCAP distributes between the femur and pelvis 
measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has also decided to keep the proposed minimum score to 
achieve credit as 21.600 out of the available 36.000 points (60 
percent). While Euro NCAP recently increased its threshold to 70 
percent, it also simultaneously implemented other changes to its 
program that NHTSA did not propose. For example, Euro NCAP now uses the 
aPLI impactor in addition to the points allocation changes mentioned 
earlier. Thus, the two programs are not directly comparable in their 
current states. Additionally, as detailed in the NCAP roadmap, NHTSA 
plans to implement a new rating system beginning with MY 2028 vehicles. 
Pedestrian Protection credit acknowledged via a checkmark is 
anticipated to last for two model years (MYs 2026 and 2027) as a result 
of the new rating system. During this limited timeframe, if the minimum 
passing score is set too high, few vehicles may receive credit in the 
near term and vehicle manufacturers will not have sufficient time to 
make adjustments to

[[Page 93016]]

meet the standard. This could result in the detrimental outcome of 
consumers losing the ability to successfully differentiate between 
vehicles as intended by the NCAP program. As such, a minimum score is 
appropriate at this initial stage of the crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection testing program. The Agency anticipates revisiting the 
apportionment of this scoring system as the NCAP VRU rating system 
develops.

                 Table 6--Scoring Apportionment Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
                 Body region                   Apportionment    possible
                                                    (%)          points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head........................................               50     18.000
Upper Leg...................................               25      9.000
Lower Leg...................................               25      9.000
                                             ---------------------------
    Total Points............................  ...............     36.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Test Speeds
    Regarding test speeds, NHTSA has decided to use test impact speeds 
that simulate a pedestrian being struck in the side by a vehicle 
traveling at 40 km/h (25 mph) as proposed in the RFC. Most automakers 
supported harmonizing with Euro NCAP and maintaining 40 km/h (25 mph) 
impact test speeds, while most advocacy groups and the general public 
supported increasing the test speeds to higher levels. One 
justification provided by the advocacy groups for testing at higher 
speeds is that U.S. roads typically have higher speed limits, and 
people typically drive faster than the posted speed limits. Further, 
the advocacy groups noted that more fatalities occur at impact speeds 
greater than 40 km/h (25 mph). NHTSA agrees with the commenters that 
fatalities do typically occur at higher speeds (70 km/h (43.5 mph) on 
average), but the practicability of designing a vehicle front end to 
achieve a high score becomes increasingly difficult as the impact speed 
increases due to the energy dissipation required. The target impact 
speed of 40 km/h (25 mph) was selected in part because the majority of 
pedestrian collisions occur at this speed or less. Further, as NHTSA 
determined in the December 2015 RFC, test speeds above 40 km/h (25 mph) 
are not warranted due to the changing dynamics of a pedestrian-vehicle 
interaction as vehicle speeds increase. More specifically, increased 
impact speeds result in an increased likelihood of the pedestrian's 
head overshooting the vehicle's hood and windshield. No commenters 
provided any data or insight into possible solutions to this inherent 
problem in terms of testing or scoring.
    NHTSA also agrees with the commenters who expressed that the 
proliferation of PAEB would tend to decrease the impact speed of 
vehicles with pedestrians.\44\ For vehicles equipped with a PAEB system 
traveling at speeds above 40 km/h (25 mph), an impact with a pedestrian 
may still occur as the vehicle slows down to speeds at or below 40 km/h 
(25 mph) if the PAEB system engages but is unable to fully stop the 
vehicle. Additionally, NHTSA agrees with commenters that harmonization 
between U.S. NCAP and other NCAPs globally is beneficial when possible. 
The Agency will therefore use test impact speeds to simulate a 
pedestrian being struck in the side by a vehicle traveling at 40 km/h 
(25 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See NHTSA's final rule adopting a new Federal Motore 
Vehicle Safety Standard to require automatic emergency braking 
(AEB), including pedestrian AEB (PAEB), systems on light vehicle. 89 
FR 39696 (May 9, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Documentation
    NHTSA will maintain and update its own test procedures 
independently for U.S. NCAP. However, the Agency has decided to adopt 
the Euro NCAP crashworthiness pedestrian protection test devices and 
general test procedures as proposed in the RFC as a basis for its own 
protocols. Some of the documents have been updated to newer versions; 
NHTSA will use some, but not all, of the updated versions for U.S. 
NCAP. The documents that NHTSA will use for the crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection program are listed below.
    (1) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 8.5, October 
2018. NHTSA has decided not to use the updated Version 9.1 at this 
time. As discussed above, NHTSA will use a WAD limit of 2100 mm for 
U.S. NCAP. Additionally, the Agency will not use the aPLI for leg 
impact tests but will instead use the FlexPLI for lower leg impact 
tests.
    (2) Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User Protection, 
Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 10.0.3, June 2020. NHTSA 
has decided not to use the updated Version 11.4 at this time. As 
explained by the discussion above on the aPLI, NHTSA will use the 
FlexPLI to evaluate lower leg impacts.
    (3) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point Selection. Due to the 
differences in scoring systems and data submission, NHTSA will create a 
similar scoring sheet specific to the crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection program implemented in U.S. NCAP.
    (4) Euro NCAP Film and Photo Protocol, Chapter 8--Pedestrian 
Subsystem Tests, V1.4, July 2023. This is the updated version compared 
to V1.3, which NHTSA had proposed in the RFC. The updates in V1.4 did 
not affect Chapter 8, so the procedure is the same as what NHTSA 
proposed in the RFC. Therefore, NHTSA will use V1.4.
    (5) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 008, Windscreen Replacement for 
Pedestrian Testing, Version 1.0, September 2009. This is still the 
current version used by Euro NCAP, so NHTSA will use it as well.
    (6) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 019, Headform to Bonnet Leading 
Edge Tests, Version 1.0, June 2014. This is still the current version 
used by Euro NCAP, so NHTSA will use it as well.
    (7) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 024, Pedestrian Human Model 
Certification, V4.0, January 2024. NHTSA has analyzed the updates for 
v3.0 and v4.0 of TB 024 and determined the most recent version (v4.0) 
is acceptable for the U.S. NCAP.
    NHTSA will continue to monitor Euro NCAP's updates to these test 
procedures. In response to GM's comment about embedding TB 019 into the 
Pedestrian Testing Protocol, NHTSA will organize all test protocols and 
documents into a single package, similar to those published for NCAP's 
other crashworthiness tests.
    All commenters supported the use of the models and methods in TB 
024 to calculate head impact times to evaluate vehicles with active 
hoods. Using TB 024 harmonizes with Euro NCAP and most commenters 
agreed these methods and models are currently the most widely accepted 
in the industry. Therefore, NHTSA has decided to apply the models and 
methods of TB 024 for evaluating vehicles with active hoods. 
Additionally, NHTSA analyzed the updates to TB 024 between v2.0, which 
was current at the time of the RFC, and v4.0, which is the most recent 
version. The Agency determined that the most recent version, v4.0, is 
acceptable for U.S. NCAP and will harmonize with Euro NCAP by adopting 
this version.
d. Active Hood Detection and Deployment
    All commenters who provided input on the active hood detection area 
agreed with NHTSA's proposal to use the entire vehicle bumper test 
width as defined for the lower leg impact tests. Thus, the Agency will 
implement this plan as proposed.
    NHTSA has decided to use the PDI-2 for pedestrian detection testing 
with active hoods. Almost all of the commenters agreed that the PDI-2 
is the

[[Page 93017]]

preferred impactor for active hood detection. As noted by multiple 
commenters, there are pros and cons for both the PDI-2 and the FlexPLI 
when used for active hood detection. The PDI-2 has a lower mass than 
the FlexPLI, which means it is more difficult for a vehicle to detect 
contact. It also better represents a child or small stature adult, like 
Rivian stated in its comment.
    NHTSA has followed the findings of the IWG-DPPS regarding research 
and comparisons between the PDI-2 and FlexPLI for active hood 
detection. The IWG-DPPS noted that the FlexPLI could represent a 
pedestrian surrogate that can be used for the sensing verification of a 
DPPS but can only represent a limited range of typical load cases.\45\ 
In comparison, the PDI-2 is a more conservative impactor as it 
represents the hardest to detect (HTD) case for active hood detection. 
According to a summary table in the IWG-DPPS report, the PDI-2 would be 
the first choice as a pedestrian representative. However, the report 
also states that while the PDI-2's ``very conservative and demanding 
requirements seem appropriate for consumer tests, it sometimes 
underestimates the loads that are emanated from a pedestrian onto a 
sensing system.'' \46\ These conservative and demanding requirements 
make it a good choice as a pedestrian representative for NCAP as they 
lead to a more stringent test and higher level of safety. Taking this 
into account with the support from the commenters, NHTSA has decided to 
use the PDI-2 for active hood detection in its crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection program. Additionally, use of the PDI-2 for 
active hood detection harmonizes the U.S. NCAP procedure with Euro 
NCAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Oliver Zander et al. 2023. ``Development of a Standard for 
Deployable Pedestrian Protection Systems (DPPS) for Amendments to UN 
Global Technical Regulation No. 9 and UN Regulation No. 127.'' Paper 
Number 23-0144 of 27th ESV conference proceedings. 2023.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ensure full deployment at 
impact. Upon request, manufacturers are expected to provide information 
to NHTSA explaining the basic operational characteristics of their 
active hood sensor system.

D. Data Acquisition and Reporting

1. RFC Summary
    NHTSA requested comments on data recording and presentation, such 
as self-reporting of impact test results by vehicle manufacturers, how 
those test results are used during verification testing, and 
publication of results. Comments regarding data acquisition and 
reporting are summarized into four categories: manufacturer-reported 
data, correction factors during verification testing, publication of 
results, and optional vehicle features that affect testing and scoring. 
A brief discussion providing more detail on each of these groups is 
discussed below.
a. Manufacturer-Reported Data
    NHTSA proposed to initially operate its crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection program in a fully self-reported manner. Vehicle 
manufacturers would be expected to report all predicted head, upper 
leg, and lower leg impact test data to NCAP to receive crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection credit for their vehicles. This methodology 
aligns with NCAP's current crash avoidance program, in which 
manufacturers provide data to indicate whether each vehicle model 
passes various ADAS tests. Unlike Euro NCAP, where manufacturers may 
assign some head impact points on the hood as ``blue points'' \47\ 
where the head impact performance measure is unpredictable, NHTSA's 
proposal did not permit assigning blue points on the hood and required 
the manufacturer to self-report with sufficient data that its vehicle 
meets the NCAP performance criteria to receive crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection credit. Further, Euro NCAP does not require 
automakers to submit any data for lower leg and upper leg impacts and 
only requires the automakers to submit HIC15 or color data 
for all grid locations, excluding blue points. NHTSA requested comments 
on what kind and how much data should be collected from manufacturers 
in the verification process. Primarily, the Agency inquired whether 
simulated data should be allowed and how this data should be validated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Blue points are those where pedestrian protection 
performance measure is unpredictable, as indicated by the test 
results provided by the manufacturer. In Euro NCAP, blue grid points 
are limited to the following structures: plastic scuttle, windscreen 
wiper arms and windscreen base, headlamp glazing, and break-away 
structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Correction Factors During Verification Testing
    NHTSA proposed to use the manufacturer's supplied predicted head 
impact test data in conjunction with the data collected during the 
Agency's verification testing to calculate the head sub-score, similar 
to the process used by Euro NCAP. The resulting NCAP data would be 
compared to the manufacturer's predicted data to determine a correction 
factor to apply to the entire head impact test data set. NHTSA 
requested comment on the proposal to adjust submitted head impact test 
values by a correction factor calculated based on the actual test 
results.
c. Publication of Results
    As the Agency is still considering the best approach to convey 
vehicle safety information on the Monroney label and developing a new 
rating system that will include several planned NCAP updates, NHTSA did 
not propose changes to the Monroney label. NHTSA requested comment on 
whether a checkmark on the NHTSA.gov website would be adequate for 
informing consumers of which vehicles achieve the minimum score in the 
pedestrian protection tests.
d. Optional Vehicle Features That Affect Testing and Scoring
    Currently, NHTSA reports vehicle safety ratings on a per-model 
basis, with separate ratings for different drivetrains due to 
differences in rollover resistance. For the crash avoidance testing 
program, vehicles that are equipped with an ADAS technology as standard 
equipment are noted as such, as are vehicles that have the same 
technology as optional equipment. For the crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection program, NHTSA anticipates that trim lines or options that 
change the ride height of the vehicle, the clearance under the hood, or 
the shape of the headlights or bumper may have significant effects on 
the outcome of the crashworthiness pedestrian protection tests. NHTSA 
requested comment on how credit should be assigned in the event that 
multiple trim levels and options affect the outcome of the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection tests.
2. Comments Received
a. Manufacturer-Reported Data
    Vehicle manufacturers largely agreed that simulated test results 
should be acceptable with varying degrees of NHTSA oversight or 
physical testing for validation. Most of the commenters that supported 
simulated data, including

[[Page 93018]]

Humanetics, Honda, Rivian, and Autoliv, agreed that some level of 
physical test validation would also be necessary. Some commenters, such 
as GM and Auto Innovators, highlighted the fact that allowing 
automakers to self-report simulated data would provide a cost-effective 
method to get as much information to consumers as quickly as possible. 
Auto Innovators suggested the automakers should be able to self-report 
the results of either physical testing or Computer-Aided Engineering 
(CAE) modeling. Some commenters, including Hyundai, VW, and CASR, 
recommended harmonizing with Euro NCAP procedures, which undertake 
verification testing on all vehicles.
    AAA, ACT, and individual members of the public recommended only 
accepting physical tests. AAA stated that ``only physical test results 
can provide insight into how well a system actually protects 
pedestrians.''
    Most respondents, including AAA, Autoliv, and Auto Innovators, 
recommended comprehensive test results should be available on an ``as 
needed'' basis. Honda recommended using the predicted grid color map 
from Euro NCAP while HATCI recommended the same, with additional 
details provided as necessary. CAS recommended requiring that 
manufacturers submit full test reports, including full data traces, 
photos, and videos.
b. Correction Factors During Verification Testing
    Most commenters, including Autoliv, Honda, and Auto Innovators, 
agreed with NHTSA's proposal for adjusting the manufacturer-provided 
head score by using a correction factor. Honda added that this approach 
``has also been demonstrated to be successful with other NCAPs.'' GM 
specified its view that hardware data provided by an OEM which follows 
the ``Assessment Protocol'' process should be accepted by NHTSA without 
additional verification. However, GM added that ``predicted'' data, 
such as CAE data, could be subject to a verification test.
c. Publication of Results
    Most commenters expressed support for adopting a 5-star system with 
several automakers and auto industry groups, including Auto Innovators, 
Honda, GM, HATCI, and Consumer Reports, supporting the proposed system 
as a sufficient temporary measure. Consumer Reports surmised that a 
comparative rating system would better allow consumers to make informed 
decisions. A large number of commenters, including Autoliv, NACTO, 
WalkMedford, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies 
(NAMIC), ASC, CAS, NSC, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 
and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), recommended 
including the ratings on the Monroney label.
d. Optional Vehicle Features That Affect Testing and Scoring
    There was not much agreement among commenters on how to account for 
vehicle options that may affect crashworthiness pedestrian protection. 
Auto Innovators, Honda, and HATCI recommended clarifying which trim 
levels were tested since differences in trim levels may result in 
different performance. Humanetics and ACT recommended optional features 
be independently assessed. When optional features cannot be 
independently assessed, AAA recommended assigning credit to the worst-
performing model while Autoliv recommended assigning credit to the 
highest-selling model. CAS and Consumer Reports recommended assigning 
credit to the worst-case configuration.
3. Discussion and Agency Decision
a. Manufacturer-Reported Data
    In the near term, the Agency has decided to move forward with its 
plan to accept self-reported data from vehicle manufacturers for its 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection program. NHTSA will accept self-
reported data for head, upper leg, and lower leg crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection tests as initially proposed. This data may be in 
part derived from CAE/simulation data. As several commenters have 
mentioned, requiring physical test data for every impact point is 
overly burdensome for manufacturers. This burden is magnified when 
considering the various options and trim levels which may affect 
vehicle performance.
    However, as Humanetics, Rivian, IIHS, and others suggested, 
physical testing of selected test points is necessary to validate CAE 
results. Thus, it is NHTSA's expectation that vehicle manufacturers 
perform some level of physical impact testing on a production-level 
vehicle before submitting performance data that has been generated via 
simulation. This methodology aims to avoid imposing infeasible 
requirements while also maintaining program integrity. The Agency also 
hopes that these reasonable requirements will encourage manufacturer 
participation.
    NHTSA acknowledges the apprehension voiced by NACTO and others 
regarding uncertainty in self-reported data standards. While the use of 
NHTSA-generated data is ideal, the Agency's limited resources do not 
currently allow for testing of all models that could receive credit as 
meeting NCAP's criteria. Thus, self-reported data will be accepted to 
provide as much information to the consumer as possible. NHTSA will 
thoroughly review all data submitted.
    Because of the lack of NHTSA-contracted laboratories currently 
available, the Agency does not find it practicable at this time to 
require their use for validation of simulated data. Thus, for this 
program stage, manufacturer-provided physical test data collected to 
validate any supplied simulation data may originate from either in-
house or third-party test laboratories. It is important to note that 
all NHTSA-sponsored verification testing will be performed at a NHTSA-
contracted laboratory under Agency supervision. NHTSA is considering a 
plan to require vehicle manufacturers to use NHTSA-contracted 
laboratories for all impact testing in the future. This requirement is 
currently enforced for NCAP's optional testing program; under this 
provision, vehicle manufacturers fund desired testing, but NHTSA 
oversees test setup, test conduct, and data quality control.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 52 FR 31691.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA will require predicted head and leg response data values to 
provide credit for acceptable crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
performance. Specifically, NHTSA will require actual or predicted 
HIC15 for each headform grid point, actual or predicted 
upper legform bending moment and force for each bumper impact location, 
and actual or predicted lower legform tibia bending moment and MCL and 
ACL/PCL elongations for each bumper impact location. Manufacturers will 
submit this information to NHTSA in a standardized format, to be 
detailed at a later date. This is an additional requirement beyond 
NHTSA's original proposal, which only sought to receive predicted score 
``bands'' for each head impact grid point and every upper and lower leg 
impact location. Although HATCI expressed concerns regarding the 
confidentiality of internal design processes, the Agency reasons that 
receiving more specific information will increase the transparency of 
self-reported data, thereby increasing the Agency's confidence in the 
data received. The Agency hopes to alleviate the concerns of those who 
questioned the validity of self-reported, CAE-generated data. The 
predicted data

[[Page 93019]]

received from manufacturers will be treated as confidential and 
individual self-reported values will not be released to the public, 
similar to how self-reported data is handled currently for crash 
avoidance NCAP. NHTSA will convert the data received to predicted score 
``color bands'' and proceed with scoring self-reported data as proposed 
in the May 2023 RFC.
    As noted earlier, vehicle manufacturers must provide evidence that 
a production-level vehicle has undergone physical impact testing. At 
this time, NHTSA will not require a specific number of impacts to 
verify simulated data submitted, but the manufacturer must identify 
which points received physical testing and which were predicted using a 
simulation. A test report detailing the findings of the vehicle 
manufacturer's validation testing must be generated before submission 
of the aforementioned predicted test data to the Agency. Additionally, 
an identifying test report number must accompany the test data received 
for each vehicle model under consideration for credit. The 
comprehensive report, along with time-stamped supplementary videos, 
will be made available to the Agency for review upon submission of data 
for each vehicle model, if and when it is requested by NHTSA. The 
Agency may choose to implement more stringent physical impact 
requirements in the future to verify simulated data if it is deemed 
necessary.
b. Correction Factors During Verification Testing
    NHTSA has decided to move forward with the proposed correction 
factor method. For the headform tests, NHTSA will perform physical 
tests at 10 head impact locations. The results of these tests will be 
compared to the results submitted by the vehicle manufacturers at the 
corresponding impact locations and a correction factor will be 
calculated from this comparison. This correction factor will be applied 
to all manufacturer-submitted head impact results for the vehicle model 
to calculate new results, which will then be used to determine the 
vehicle's final head sub-score.
    For the upper and lower legform tests, NHTSA will perform all 
necessary impact tests to characterize full bumper crashworthiness 
performance. Principles of symmetry and adjacency will be employed to 
efficiently cover the full bumper width unless the manufacturer 
supplies information detailing why this should not be assumed. This 
NHTSA-generated legform test data will replace the manufacturer-
submitted data in the vehicle's scoring calculations.
c. Publication of Results
    To expedite implementation, NHTSA will continue with the plan to 
identify vehicle models that meet crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
testing requirements (achieve 60 percent of all points possible) on the 
Agency's website. This is intended to be a temporary system that will 
be replaced with a more detailed comparative rating system in the 
future. This comparative rating system will be implemented with the 
projected updates to the Monroney label as described in the NCAP 
roadmap.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/ncap-roadmap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Optional Vehicle Features That Affect Testing and Scoring
    As part of its annual vehicle information collection activities, 
the Agency will request information regarding predicted performance 
differences between trim lines and any optional features offered.\50\ 
NHTSA will supply this information to the public when it conveys 
performance results for each vehicle model. Several commenters 
supported this approach, including Honda and HATCI. Given the myriad of 
features and options available on today's vehicle fleet, it is 
difficult for the Agency to determine which vehicle trims within a 
model will perform differently from others. NHTSA considered following 
Euro NCAP's protocol, which is to receive data for only the most 
popular variant and apply this result to all variants within the model. 
However, this method may not be the most appropriate, as it could grant 
credit to vehicles that are considerably different in terms of 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection performance. As the initial 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing program moves forward, 
NHTSA will review test data to determine whether this is the most 
appropriate approach to provide information to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ NHTSA receives similar information in support of its 
crashworthiness and crash avoidance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Other Comments

1. Comments Received
    Some topics were discussed by several commenters despite NHTSA's 
not specifically requesting comments on them. The two most-discussed 
topics were (1) 49 CFR part 581, ``Bumper Standard'' (part 581) \51\ 
requirements conflicting with crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
design, and (2) adoption of the aPLI as opposed to the FlexPLI for the 
lower leg impact tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Part 581 establishes requirements for the impact resistance 
of vehicles in low-speed front and rear collisions. The purpose of 
this standard is to reduce physical damage to the front and rear 
ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low-speed collisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Conflict With Part 581
    NHTSA had previously received comments from manufacturers that 
incorporating lower leg bumper testing based on Euro NCAP would be 
difficult due to conflicts with the bumper damageability requirements 
outlined in 49 CFR part 581.
    In response to the May 2023 RFC, Honda and HATCI expressed concern 
about part 581 damageability requirements competing against 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection designs. Auto Innovators 
recommended that NHTSA modify part 581 damageability requirements to 
better accommodate crashworthiness pedestrian protection designs. GM 
recommended more research into the feasibility of passing both part 581 
and crashworthiness pedestrian protection requirements.
b. Adoption of the aPLI
    Many commenters encouraged NHTSA to adopt the aPLI, the latest 
pedestrian crash testing tool representing a 50th percentile male leg. 
It features a Simplified Upper Body Part (SUBP) that simulates the 
upper body mass, allowing enhanced kinematics for assessing knee, upper 
leg, and lower leg injuries. The aPLI was approved for use by Euro NCAP 
in TB 029 published in July 2023 and many commenters recommended that 
NHTSA adopt the aPLI for U.S. NCAP to harmonize with Euro NCAP 
procedures. Commenters also noted that the aPLI can be used in tests 
where the FlexPLI may experience difficulty, such as on curved bumpers 
and vehicles with an LBRL greater than 500 mm.
2. Discussion and Agency Decision
a. Part 581 Issues
    The Agency stated in the May 2023 RFC that it has examined 
potential conflicts between the part 581 requirements and pedestrian 
crashworthiness leg impact testing. NHTSA concluded that vehicles 
should be able to meet both part 581 requirements and receive a non-
zero score in the Euro NCAP lower legform tests. As discussed in the 
May 2023 RFC, NHTSA has tested vehicles that meet the part 581 
damageability requirements and receive non-zero

[[Page 93020]]

scores on FlexPLI legform testing. The example provided in the RFC was 
a 2016 hatchback passenger car that NHTSA tested, which obtained a 
result of 4.41 out of 6.00 points (73.5 percent) for lower leg impact 
testing. As such, NHTSA does not believe the new pedestrian protection 
program will contradict the part 581 damageability requirements.
b. Adoption of the aPLI
    While NHTSA concurs with commenters regarding the use of the latest 
testing tools, the Agency has not yet thoroughly evaluated the aPLI. 
Thus, NHTSA will adopt the FlexPLI as a temporary solution while it 
conducts the required analysis for the aPLI. The FlexPLI has 
historically been used in Euro NCAP testing and is adequately 
biofidelic. Given the urgent need for crashworthiness pedestrian 
protection testing, NHTSA's immediate adoption of the FlexPLI in NCAP 
testing will prompt more rapid improvement in pedestrian protection 
than waiting to adopt the aPLI.\52\ Additionally, NHTSA anticipates 
that manufacturers and test facilities are familiar with the FlexPLI, 
which will smooth the adoption process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ As indicated in NHTSA's NCAP roadmap (https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/ncap-roadmap), the Agency plans to use the 
aPLI for NCAP starting with MY 2030 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Procedure in Detail

A. Differences From Euro NCAP Tests and Assessment Protocols

    As previously stated, NHTSA will use the Euro NCAP testing protocol 
as a basis from which to conduct its assessment on all selected 
vehicles, including pickup trucks and large SUVs. For the most part, 
the procedures of Euro NCAP Testing Protocol v8.5 are applicable to all 
vehicles eligible for testing under U.S. NCAP (vehicles with a gross 
vehicle weight rating less than or equal to 4,536 kg, or 10,000 lb.). 
However, some adjustments to the Euro NCAP testing protocol are needed 
to align with the self-reporting aspect of U.S. NCAP, to better reflect 
pedestrian protection provided by the vehicle's front end, and to 
improve test practices. These noteworthy changes are outlined in the 
following subsections.
1. Use of FlexPLI
    While Euro NCAP has replaced the FlexPLI with the aPLI for its 
lower leg impact tests in its most recent testing protocol (v9.1), 
NHTSA will use the FlexPLI for U.S. NCAP testing while it completes 
further analysis on the aPLI. As discussed previously, the Agency will 
perform its own testing, research, and evaluations prior to making a 
decision to adopt the aPLI. To prevent a delay of the crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection program, NHTSA will use the FlexPLI for lower leg 
impacts.
    At the time of the May 2023 RFC, Euro NCAP was using its VRU 
Testing Protocol v8.5, which specified that manufacturers could choose 
whether to use the FlexPLI or the TRL upper legform for vehicles with 
an LBRL greater than or equal to 425 mm and less than or equal to 500 
mm. Euro NCAP has since updated its VRU Testing Protocol to v9.1, which 
no longer allows manufacturers this option due to the adoption of the 
aPLI. NHTSA will not allow manufacturers the option to choose the TRL 
upper legform for vehicles with an LBRL greater than or equal to 425 mm 
and less than or equal to 500 mm. Instead, the FlexPLI will be used for 
all vehicles with an LBRL less than or equal to 500 mm.
2. No FlexPLI Bumper Testing When LBRL Is Greater Than 500 mm
    For vehicles that have an LBRL value of greater than 500 mm, NHTSA 
will assign a ``default red, no points'' score to the particular point 
under assessment (e.g., some bumper points may be above 500 mm and not 
tested while others may be equal to or below 500 mm and tested). The 
FlexPLI has a poor kinematic response when used to impact bumpers with 
an LBRL greater than 500 mm. Additionally, NHTSA is not aware of any 
existing countermeasures that would improve the lower leg safety of 
vehicles with an LBRL greater than 500 mm when tested with the FlexPLI.
3. FlexPLI Qualification Procedure and Testing
    As mentioned previously, differences exist between NHTSA's adopted 
FlexPLI qualification procedure/schedule and those of other entities. 
UNECE R127 specifies two dynamic qualification tests--a pendulum test 
and an inverse impact test, in addition to a series of quasi-static 
tests. In UNECE R127, the dynamic qualification tests are performed 
before and throughout a test series, while the quasi-static tests are 
performed on an annual basis. Euro NCAP only specifies the dynamic 
inverse impact test and the quasi-static tests. As shown in Table 7 
below, NHTSA prescribes the inverse impact test after every 20 impacts, 
the quasi-static tests once per year, and only requires the pendulum 
test if any lower performance limits are exceeded.

             Table 7--FlexPLI Qualification Testing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Align with Euro
           Test mode                  Frequency              NCAP?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inverse Impact Test...........  After every 20         Yes.
                                 impacts.
Quasi-static Tests............  Every 12 months......  Yes.
Pendulum Test.................  If testing exceeds     No.
                                 any lower
                                 performance limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Bumper Corner Definition
    In the Euro NCAP test protocol, the width of the lower legform test 
area is defined by the point of contact of a 60-degree plane and the 
forward-most point on the vehicle front-end. This method is referred to 
as the ``60-degree angle method.'' Alternatively, the UNECE R127 and 
GTR 9 regulations use the ``corner gauge method.'' This method 
identifies the corner of the bumper by locating the outermost point of 
contact of the gauge when it is moved parallel to a vertical plane with 
an angle of 60 degrees to the vertical longitudinal center plane of the 
vehicle. Both methods additionally specify that the outer limits of the 
bumper test zone are either defined by the bumper corners using the 60-
degree angle/corner gauge method or the outermost ends of the bumper 
beam, whichever is larger.
    As described in detail previously, NHTSA will use the corner gauge 
method instead of the 60-degree angle method for NCAP testing. NHTSA 
will also include the stipulation that if the bumper beam width differs 
from the width defined by the corners using the corner gauge method, 
the larger of the areas will be used.

[[Page 93021]]

5. Active Hood Detection
    For vehicles with active hoods, the Agency will require 
manufacturers to demonstrate that their system activates when there is 
a leg-to-bumper impact both at the vehicle centerline and as far 
outboard as the outboard end of the bumper test zone. This is the same 
requirement as in the Euro NCAP test procedure. However, NHTSA will use 
the corner gauge method discussed above when determining the outboard 
end of the bumper test zone. Like Euro NCAP, NHTSA will also use the 
PDI-2 impactor for the purpose of deploying the active hood.
6. WAD Limit
    When marking up the vehicle to be tested, Euro NCAP currently 
specifies that the WADs should be marked at 100 mm intervals from 1000 
mm to at least 2500 mm. This 2500 mm limit was an increase from 2100 mm 
when Euro NCAP introduced the VRU Test Protocol v9.0.3 in May 2023, 
replacing the Pedestrian Test Protocol v8.5. As explained in detail 
previously, NHTSA will use the WAD limit of 2100 mm for its NCAP 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection program, but it will consider 
increasing the limit to 2500 mm in the future.
7. Self-Reporting System
    In Euro NCAP, manufacturers typically self-report predicted head 
impact test data of their vehicles before Euro NCAP conducts its impact 
testing on those vehicles. However, upper leg and lower leg impact test 
data are not provided by the manufacturer. Instead, these data are 
gathered from the testing conducted by the Euro NCAP test facilities. 
U.S. NCAP will operate its program in a fully self-reported manner, 
with verification testing performed on a selection of vehicles to 
ensure accuracy--similar to the Agency's crash avoidance test 
program.\53\ Vehicle manufacturers will report all head, upper leg, and 
lower leg impact test data to NCAP to receive crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection credit for their vehicles. As mentioned earlier, 
NHTSA will accept simulated data, but it must be validated by physical 
testing on a production-level vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ NHTSA is in the process of renewing its existing approved 
information collection (OMB-2127-0629) to include collecting self-
reported data from the vehicle manufacturers for this new 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, NHTSA will require actual or predicted 
HIC15 for each headform grid point, actual or predicted 
upper legform bending moment and force for each bumper impact location, 
and actual or predicted lower legform tibia bending moment and MCL and 
ACL/PCL elongations for each bumper impact location. Manufacturers will 
submit this information to NHTSA in a NHTSA-specified standardized 
format and will include a unique test report number identifying the 
vehicle model's results. This test report, along with time-stamped 
supplementary videos, will be made available to the Agency for review 
upon submission of data for each vehicle model upon NHTSA's request.
    NHTSA will not allow the inclusion of ``blue points,'' which are 
allowed by Euro NCAP. Due to the unpredictable nature of these grid 
points, the manufacturer does not include blue points in computing the 
overall score for the head impact testing assessment submitted to Euro 
NCAP. Euro NCAP always tests the identified blue points (in addition to 
selecting grid points) and includes the head impact assessment at these 
blue points in computing the overall head impact score. For U.S. NCAP, 
for a manufacturer to self-report that its vehicle meets the NCAP 
performance criteria and receives crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
credit, the manufacturer must have sufficient data to support a 
predicted point/color value for every head grid point and every upper 
and lower leg impact test point.
8. NCAP Scoring Apportionment
    Euro NCAP recently revised the apportionment of points for scoring 
the leg and head impacts. Out of a possible 36.0 points, 18.0 points 
are allocated to head injury data, 9.0 points for lower leg injury 
data, 4.5 points for upper leg injury data, and 4.5 points for pelvis 
injury data. NHTSA proposed in the RFC a scoring apportionment that 
aligned with the relative frequency of AIS 3+ injuries to the body 
regions in the U.S. Out of a possible 36.0 points, 13.5 were allocated 
to head impacts, 13.5 points for lower leg impacts, and 9.0 points for 
upper leg impacts. As previously mentioned in the Comments and 
Discussion and Agency Decision sections, NHTSA has decided to adjust 
the scoring apportionment to provide more emphasis on head impacts, 
which are more likely to be fatal than leg injuries, while still 
maintaining the value of the legform tests. This adjustment will also 
help align with Euro NCAP's current scoring apportionment. The 
apportionment for U.S. NCAP is as follows: out of a possible 36.000 
points, 18.000 points are allocated to head impacts, 9.000 points are 
allocated for lower leg impacts, and 9.000 points are allocated for 
upper leg impacts. A comparison of each scoring method is shown below 
in Table 8.

                                     Table 8--Scoring Apportionment Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Points apportionment (out of 36.0 possible points)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Body region                                   U.S. NCAP RFC
                                   Euro NCAP (2018)         (2023)         Euro NCAP (2023)    U.S. NCAP (2024)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head............................  24.0 pts (66.67%).  13.5 pts (37.5%)..  18.0 pts (50%)....  18.000 pts (50%).
Pelvis..........................  ..................  ..................  4.5 pts (12.5%)...
Upper Leg.......................  6.0 pts (16.67%)..  9.0 pts (25%).....  4.5 pts (12.5%)...  9.000 pts (25%).
Lower Leg.......................  6.0 pts (16.67%)..  13.5 pts (37.5%)..  9.0 pts (25%).....  9.000 pts (25%).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Credit Publication Process
    In Euro NCAP, the vehicle's VRU sub-score is included in the 
vehicle's overall safety rating. At this time, NHTSA will not integrate 
the crashworthiness pedestrian protection score into its existing 
comparative rating system. To expedite implementation of this program, 
NHTSA will identify vehicle models that meet the crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection testing requirements (earning at least 21.600 out 
of 36.000 possible points, or 60 percent) on NHTSA's website.

B. Injury Limits and Scoring Process

    The injury limits and scoring process for NHTSA's crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection impact tests will

[[Page 93022]]

be largely the same as those in Euro NCAP, as outlined in the Euro NCAP 
Assessment Protocol--VRU Protection, Part 1--Pedestrian Impact 
Assessment, Version 10.0.3, June 2020. For U.S. NCAP, each group of 
component tests (i.e., headform tests, upper legform tests, lower leg 
tests) will first be scored individually; these component scores will 
then be summed to determine a crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
score for each vehicle. The exact number of impact points will vary 
depending on the geometry of a vehicle. For instance, there may be 200 
head impact points on the hood, windshield, and A-pillars; 15 upper leg 
impact points on the forward edge of the vehicle's front-end; and 15 
lower leg impact points on the vehicle's bumper area. Each impact point 
for each test device will be scored between 0 and 1 point depending on 
the resulting injury values from the impact test. Each group of 
component tests (headform tests, upper leg tests, and lower leg tests) 
will generate its own sub-score as described below. The sum of each of 
the three sub-scores will result in the final pedestrian protection 
score, as defined in the following formula: Pedestrian Protection Score 
= Head SubScore + Upper Leg SubScore + FlexPLI SubScore.
1. Headform Tests
    Each of the head impact locations on a vehicle will contribute 
equally to the component level sub-score for the head tests. Each 
impact location will receive a score between 0 and 1 based on the 
HIC15 value output from the headform impact test. Different 
ranges of HIC15 values will correspond to different colors 
and point values based on the Euro NCAP assessment protocol, summarized 
in Table 9.

                                            Table 9--Headform Scoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Color                              HIC minimum        HIC maximum           Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green..................................................  .................               <650              1.000
Yellow.................................................                650             <1,000              0.750
Orange.................................................              1,000             <1,350              0.500
Brown..................................................              1,350             <1,700              0.250
Red....................................................              1,700  .................              0.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The head impact sub-score will be calculated according to the 
following formula: Head SubScore = Apportionment of Head Impacts * (Sum 
of All Head Impact Points)/(Total Number of Head Impact Points).
2. Upper Legform Tests
    Each of the upper legform impact locations will contribute equally 
to the component level sub-score for the upper legform impacts. Each 
impact location can receive up to 1.00 point on a linear sliding scale 
between the upper and lower injury limits. This is different from the 
headform scoring method, where injury values will be put in discrete 
scoring bands. The worst-performing injury metric (one of three 
moments--upper, middle, or lower; or sum of forces) will be used to 
determine the score using the criteria shown in Table 10.

                                         Table 10--Upper Legform Scoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Component                           Minimum injury     Maximum injury     Maximum points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bending Moment (Nm)....................................                285                350              1.000
Sum of Forces (N)......................................               5000               6000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The upper legform scoring is shown graphically in Figure 9 and 
Figure 10. Injury values closer to the minimum injury values earn more 
points and injury values closer to the maximum injury values earn fewer 
points.

[[Page 93023]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.011

Figure 9: Upper Legform Bending Moment Scoring
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.012

Figure 10: Upper Legform Sum of Forces Scoring

    The upper legform impact sub-score will be calculated according to 
the following formula: Upper Leg SubScore = Apportionment of Upper Leg 
Impacts * (Sum of All Upper Leg Impact Points)/(Total Number of Upper 
Leg Impact Points).
3. Lower Legform Tests
    Similarly, each of the FlexPLI impact locations on a vehicle will 
contribute equally to the component level sub-score for the lower 
legform tests. Each impact location can receive up to 0.500 points from 
the tibia moments and up to 0.500 points from the ligament elongations, 
as shown in Table 11. The tibia score will be determined from the worst 
of the four tibia measurements--T1, T2, T3, or T4. The ligament 
elongation will be scored from the MCL as long as neither the ACL nor 
PCL exceeds the 10 mm elongation limit. If either the ACL or PCL exceed 
this limit, the overall ligament elongation score will be 0.00.

[[Page 93024]]



                                            Table 11--FlexPLI Scoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Component                           Minimum injury     Maximum injury     Maximum points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tibia Bending (Nm).....................................                282                340              0.500
MCL Elongation (mm)....................................                 19                 22              0.500
ACL/PCL Elongation (mm)................................  .................                 10  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the upper legform scoring, the Euro NCAP assessment 
protocol awards points based on a linear sliding scale between the 
upper and lower injury limits using the criteria in Figure 11 and 
Figure 12. NHTSA will be using this same linear sliding scale for the 
U.S. NCAP. Again, this is different from the headform scoring method, 
where injury values will be put in discrete scoring bands.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.013

Figure 11: FlexPLI Tibia Bending Moment Scoring
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.014


[[Page 93025]]


Figure 12: FlexPLI MCL Elongation Scoring

    The FlexPLI impact sub-score will be calculated according to the 
following formula: FlexPLI SubScore = Apportionment of FlexPLI Impacts 
* (Sum of All FlexPLI Impact Points)/(Total Number of FlexPLI Impact 
Points).

C. NCAP Proposal for Awarding Credit

    As stated earlier in this notice, NHTSA is implementing the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection testing program initially by 
assigning credit to vehicles that meet NCAP performance test 
requirements. Initially, instead of rating a vehicle's crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, NHTSA will assign 
credit to vehicles that meet a certain minimum scoring threshold for 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection. Consumers will be able to 
compare crashworthiness pedestrian protection by identifying vehicles 
that NHTSA has designated as meeting this minimum level of pedestrian 
safety. Furthermore, this approach not only allows early adopters to 
participate in the program, but it also provides sufficient time for 
manufacturers to redesign their vehicles to improve pedestrian 
crashworthiness safety.
    For a vehicle to be recognized by NHTSA as meeting the performance 
requirements for crashworthiness pedestrian protection, it must score 
at least 21.600 out of 36.000 points (or 60 percent) combined for the 
head, upper leg, and lower leg impact tests when tested and scored in 
accordance with the standards outlined in the previous sections of this 
notice and the modified apportionment scoring.
    As NHTSA is still developing a new rating system that will include 
several planned NCAP updates, NHTSA is not implementing changes to the 
Monroney label or overall vehicle rating system at this time. 
Therefore, NHTSA will inform consumers of vehicles that receive 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection credit through its website, 
http://www.NHTSA.gov. This approach is similar to the current crash 
avoidance testing program in NCAP. Currently, ADAS technologies are 
identified through the use of checkmarks on the Agency's website.

D. NCAP Verification Testing

    NHTSA will implement a verification testing process for the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection that is similar to the crash 
avoidance testing program in NCAP. As mentioned previously in this 
notice, the manufacturer will be required to submit actual or predicted 
data for every head impact grid point and every upper and lower leg 
impact test location. NHTSA will review this information for accuracy 
and completeness and award credit if the submitted data meet the 
minimum criteria outlined previously. For each new model year, NHTSA 
selects and acquires vehicles for testing under NCAP. Consistent with 
the processes used in the crash avoidance testing program, NHTSA will 
select and acquire new model year vehicles for verification testing of 
their crashworthiness pedestrian protection performance. NHTSA will 
only select vehicles with test data submitted by the manufacturers and 
approved by the Agency as meeting the minimum performance criteria for 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection.
    For the upper leg and FlexPLI impact testing, NHTSA will conduct 
its own tests and use this data instead of the manufacturer's provided 
data for the sub-scores. For the head impact testing, NHTSA will select 
10 impact locations and conduct its own tests, using this data to 
calculate a correction factor. NHTSA's head impact data will be 
compared to the manufacturer's provided data at the corresponding 
impact locations. Consistent with Euro NCAP's test procedure, each 
color band will have a 10 percent tolerance when comparing NHTSA's 
color band/test values to the manufacturer's color band/test values 
(Table 12). For example, if a manufacturer submits a grid point 
HIC15 falling in the yellow color band but NHTSA's 
verification test finds HIC15 to be 1,200, NHTSA will 
instead classify this grid point as orange.

         Table 12--Acceptable HIC Range for Verification Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Acceptable HIC15
    Predicted color band           HIC15 range              range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green.......................  HIC15 <650..........  HIC15 <722.22
Yellow......................  650 <= HIC15 <1,000.  590.91 <= HIC15
                                                     <1,111.11
Orange......................  1,000 <= HIC15        909.09 <= HIC15
                               <1,350.               <1,500
Brown.......................  1,350 <= HIC15        1,227.27 <= HIC15
                               <1,700.               <1,888.89
Red.........................  1,700 <= HIC15......  1,545.45 <= HIC15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The correction factor is then calculated per the following 
equation: Correction Factor = (Sum of Actual Test Scores)/(Sum of 
Predicted Test Scores).
    This correction factor is then applied to the manufacturer's 
provided data to calculate the corrected head impact sub-score per the 
following equation: Corrected Head SubScore = (Head SubScore - Default 
Green - Default Red) * Correction Factor + Default Green + Default Red.
    A detailed example of the head impact verification test scoring is 
provided in Appendix C.

VII. Conclusion

    NHTSA will implement the crashworthiness pedestrian protection test 
devices, test procedures, and scoring methods as discussed above 
beginning with model year 2026 vehicles. For that model year, NHTSA 
will assess crashworthiness pedestrian protection for vehicles by 
calculating a score based on head, upper leg, and lower leg impact data 
voluntarily submitted by manufacturers. The procedures and scoring 
methods are based on the Euro NCAP documents listed below.

(1) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol, Version 8.5, October 2018.
(2) Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User Protection, 
Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment, Version 10.0.3, June 2020.
(3) Euro NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point Selection, V2.1, October 2017. 
Note: Due to the differences in scoring systems and data submission, 
NHTSA will create a similar scoring sheet specific to the 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection program implemented in U.S. NCAP.
(4) Euro NCAP Film and Photo Protocol, Chapter 8--Pedestrian Subsystem 
Tests, V1.4, July 2023.
(5) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 008, Windscreen Replacement for 
Pedestrian Testing, Version 1.0, September 2009.
(6) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 019, Headform to Bonnet Leading 
Edge Tests, Version 1.0, June 2014.

[[Page 93026]]

(7) Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 024, Pedestrian Human Model 
Certification, V4.0, January 2024.

    NHTSA will identify new model year vehicles that meet a minimum 
safety threshold of crashworthiness pedestrian protection on the 
Agency's website. This minimum safety threshold is a total score of 
21.600/36.000 points (60 percent) or greater, where a maximum of 
18.000/36.000 points (50 percent) are possible for head impacts, 9.000/
36.000 points (25 percent) are possible for lower leg impacts, and 
9.000/36.000 points (25 percent) are possible for upper leg impacts. 
The impact tests simulate a 6-year-old child and an average-size adult 
male being struck in the side by a vehicle traveling at 40 km/h (25 
mph). The area of assessment for the vehicle is limited to all points 
forward of the WAD2100 mm line. At this time, NHTSA is allowing vehicle 
manufacturers to self-report their test results for these impact tests 
to provide this information to consumers as soon as possible. 
Manufacturer-submitted data will be randomly verified by NHTSA through 
impact testing performed on select models. These changes will fulfill 
the mandate set forth in the BIL to amend NCAP to provide the public 
with important safety information regarding the protection of VRUs.

VIII. Economic Analysis

    The changes to NCAP in this final decision notice would ultimately 
enable a rating system that improves consumer awareness of 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection systems and the improvements to 
safety that stem from those systems. These changes may also encourage 
manufacturers to accelerate the adoption of these systems. The 
accelerated adoption of pedestrian protection systems would drive any 
economic and societal impacts that result from these changes and are 
thus the focus of this discussion of economic analysis. Hence, the 
Agency has considered the potential economic effects of the inclusion 
of pedestrian protection systems in NCAP and the potential benefit of 
eventually developing a new rating system that would include this 
information.
    Crashworthiness pedestrian protection systems are unique because 
the safety improvements are attributable to improved VRU protection, as 
opposed to improvements in protection for vehicle occupants that the 
other crashworthiness components in NCAP provide. Their effectiveness 
is the reduction of VRU injury and prevention of VRU fatalities when a 
crash between a motor vehicle and pedestrian occurs. This effectiveness 
is typically measured by using a combination of real-world statistical 
data, laboratory testing, and Agency expertise.
    Crashes between pedestrians and motor vehicles present significant 
safety issues, and NHTSA is particularly concerned about the steady 
rise in pedestrian fatalities over the last several years. The data 
from countries that prioritize crashworthiness pedestrian protection 
systems, via both regulation and other consumer information programs, 
indicate that these systems are effective in reducing pedestrian 
injuries and fatalities. BASt in Germany found a correlation between 
Euro NCAP pedestrian protection scores and pedestrian injuries and 
fatalities.\54\ The Swedish Transport Administration also found that 
vehicles that score better in the Euro NCAP pedestrian crashworthiness 
tests tended to reduce injury in actual crashes.\55\ Although these 
studies have been limited to certain geographic areas, which may not 
represent the entire U.S. fleet, they do illustrate how these systems 
can provide safety benefits. Thus, although the Agency does not have 
sufficient data to determine the monetized safety impacts resulting 
from these systems in a way similar to that frequently done for 
mandated technologies, when compared to the future without this update 
to NCAP, NHTSA expects that these changes would likely have substantial 
positive safety effects by promoting earlier and more widespread 
deployment of crashworthiness pedestrian protection systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Pastor, C., ``Correlation between pedestrian injury 
severity in real-life crashes and Euro NCAP pedestrian test 
results,'' The 23rd International Technical Conference on the 
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Paper No. 13-0308, 2013.
    \55\ Standroth, J. et al. (2014), ``Correlation between Euro 
NCAP pedestrian test results and injury severity in injury crashes 
with pedestrians and bicyclists in Sweden,'' Stapp Car Crash 
Journal, Vol. 58 (November 2014), pp. 213-231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NCAP also helps address the issue of asymmetric information (i.e., 
when one party in a transaction is in possession of more information 
than the other), which can be considered a market failure. Regarding 
consumer information, the introduction of a potential new component to 
the NCAP rating system is anticipated to provide consumers additional 
vehicle safety information regarding the safety of VRUs. This 
information will help them make more informed purchasing decisions by 
presenting the relative safety benefits of systems designed to protect 
not only vehicle occupants but also persons outside the vehicle. While 
NHTSA knows that consumers value information about the protection of 
vehicle occupants when making purchasing decisions, the Agency believes 
that most consumers are also interested in protecting people who share 
their roads. Hence, there is a real if unquantifiable value to 
consumers and to society as a whole for the Agency to provide accurate 
and comparable vehicle safety information about protecting all lives. 
At this time, the Agency does not have sufficient data, such as unit 
cost and information on how soon the full adoption of pedestrian 
protections systems would be reached, to predict the net increase in 
cost to consumers with a high degree of certainty.

IX. Appendices

Appendix A: Questions From RFC

    [1] NHTSA seeks comment on the topic of female leg safety. Are 
there data showing that vehicle front end designs that perform well in 
the FlexPLI and upper legform impact tests would not afford protection 
to female pedestrians? Are there any legforms representing female or 
small stature pedestrians? Are there female specific data and 
associated 5th percentile female specific injury criteria for use with 
a 5th percentile female legform impactor?
    [2] NHTSA seeks comment on what an acceptable humidity tolerance 
should be for the qualification tests of the upper legform impactor and 
the associated vehicle test with the upper legform.
    [3] NHTSA is requesting comment on the FlexPLI qualification 
procedures--specifically which procedures (dynamic and quasi-static) 
should be used for qualification, and how often they should be 
conducted?
    [4] An Agency study of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ pedestrian 
injuries in the U.S. showed that the apportionment of points in NCAP 
for crashworthiness pedestrian protection should be 3/8th for head 
impact test results (37.5 percent), 3/8th for lower leg impact test 
results (37.5 percent), and 2/8th for upper leg impact test (25 
percent). NHTSA seeks comment on whether injury severity or frequency 
would be this the most appropriate basis for point allocation 
apportionment.
    [5] As concluded in the Agency's FlexPLI research report, NHTSA 
believes the FlexPLI legform is biofidelic and seeks comment from the 
public on whether biofidelity concerns with the FlexPLI still remain at 
this time.
    [6] NHTSA is seeking comment on what procedure it should use for

[[Page 93027]]

marking the test zone on bumpers. In other words, should the procedure 
harmonize with the Euro NCAP 60-degree angle method or should it follow 
the GTR 9 and UNECE R127 corner gauge method?
    [7] GM suggested that if a vehicle has an exposed bumper, the 
bumper test zone should use the 60-degree angle method instead of 
testing the full bumper width to eliminate testing at the extreme edge 
of what may be a curved bumper. NHTSA requests comment on this concern 
as well, as it is similar to the previous question for bumper test 
zones.
    [8] Given the pedestrian death and injury crisis on U.S. roadways 
NHTSA is seeking comment on test speeds. Should test speeds for either 
of the head or leg tests be increased in an attempt to provide better 
protection to pedestrians in vehicle to pedestrian crashes? Should the 
area of assessment be increased beyond the WAD limit of 2100 mm 
currently proposed to account for pedestrian heads overshooting the 
hood and impacting the windshield or the roof of the vehicle?
    [9] NHTSA requests comment on the seven Euro NCAP documents 
proposed in section IV. F. (Euro NCAP Pedestrian Testing Protocol 
Version 8.5, Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol--Vulnerable Road User 
Protection Part 1--Pedestrian Impact Assessment Version 10.0.3, Euro 
NCAP Pedestrian Headform Point Selection V2.1, Euro NCAP Film and Photo 
Protocol Chapter 8--Pedestrian Subsystem Tests V1.3, Euro NCAP 
Technical Bulletin TB 008 Windscreen Replacement for Pedestrian Testing 
Version 1.0, Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 019 Headform to Bonnet 
Leading Edge Tests Version 1.0, and Euro NCAP Technical Bulletin TB 024 
Pedestrian Human Model Certification V2.0)--do any elements of these 
documents need modification for the U.S. NCAP?
    [10] NHTSA requests comment on TB 024 and its relevance to the U.S. 
NCAP. Should the models and methods in TB 024 or some other method be 
used to calculate head impact times to evaluate vehicles with active 
hoods?
    [11] NHTSA seeks comment on what level of detail should be required 
for self-reported data. Should manufacturers be allowed to submit 
predicted head and leg response data, or only actual physical test 
results? Should reporting consist of just the results for each test 
location, or should full data traces or a comprehensive test report 
including photographs and videos be required?
    [12] NHTSA requests comment on whether vehicles with an LBRL 
greater than 500 mm should be eligible to receive crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection credit because they will automatically receive a 
zero score for the FlexPLI bumper tests.
    [13] NHTSA requests comment on the proposal to reposition the upper 
legform 50 mm from the WAD775 target when artificial 
interference is present or to conduct multiple impacts within 50 mm from the WAD775 target and use the worst-case result when 
artificial interference is present.
    [14] NHTSA tentatively plans to use the corner gauge and bumper 
beam width procedure for corner definition for this NCAP proposal and 
requests comment on this change.
    [15] NHTSA seeks comments on whether there is benefit in requiring 
both the Pendulum and Inverse Impact dynamic qualification tests in 
addition to the quasi-static tests. Also, what should the qualification 
test schedule be for the FlexPLI be?
    [16] NHTSA seeks comment on what the required detection area should 
be for vehicles with active hoods. Additionally, which device should be 
used for assuring the system activates properly, the Flex-PLI or the 
PDI2?
    [17] NHTSA proposes utilizing a modified \3/8\, \3/8\, \2/8\ 
scoring apportionment for the head impacts, Flex PLI impacts, and upper 
leg impacts respectively for NCAP and requests comment on this 
proposal.
    [18] NHTSA seeks comment on whether [a checkmark on NHTSA.gov] is 
an appropriate way to identify vehicles that meet the Agency's minimum 
criteria for crashworthiness pedestrian protection, or if some other 
notation or identifying means is more appropriate.
    [19] NHTSA seeks comment on what options or features might exist 
within the same vehicle model that would affect the vehicle's 
performance of crashworthiness pedestrian protection. NHTSA also seeks 
comment on whether the Agency should assign credit to vehicles based on 
the worst-performing configuration for a specific vehicle model, or if 
vehicle models with optional equipment that affect the crashworthiness 
pedestrian protection credit should be noted as such.
    [20] NHTSA seeks comment on the proposal to conduct verification 
testing as part of the crashworthiness pedestrian protection program by 
adjusting the head score using a conversion factor determined from 
laboratory tests and replacing manufacturer supplied FlexPLI and upper 
leg scores with NHTSA scores from laboratory tests.

Appendix B: Supplementary Tables
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ The Euro NCAP protocols and version used for this 
comparison are the Pedestrian Test Protocol v8.5 and the Assessment 
Protocol--VRU v10.0.3.

 Table B1--Summary of Differences Between Euro NCAP Assessment Protocols
                        and U.S. NCAP Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subject               Euro NCAP \56\           U.S. NCAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle with LBRL between     Manufacturer can      Only FlexPLI will be
 425 mm and 500 mm             choose to use         used for the
 (inclusive).                  either FlexPLI or     legform to bumper
                               TRL Upper Legform     test.
                               for the bumper test.
Vehicle with LBRL >500 mm...  TRL Upper Legform is  Default red, no
                               used instead of       points for FlexPLI
                               FlexPLI.              sub-score.
Bumper Corner Definition....  60-degree angle       Corner gauge method
                               method is used to     is used to define
                               define bumper         bumper corners.
                               corners.
Blue Points for Head Impact   Allowed.............  Not allowed,
 Locations.                                          manufacturers must
                                                     submit predicted or
                                                     tested head impact
                                                     results for all
                                                     points.
FlexPLI Qualification Tests   Inverse test: After   Inverse test: After
 and Schedule.                 every 20 impacts      every 20 impacts
                               (maximum) and once    Quasi-static tests:
                               every 12 months, or   Once per year
                               if legform exceeds    Pendulum test: If
                               lower performance     testing exceeds any
                               limits Quasi-static   lower performance
                               tests: Once per       limits.
                               year.
Point Apportionment.........  24/36 pts (66.67%)    18.000/36.000 pts
                               for head.             (50%) for head.
                              6/36 pts (16.67%)     9.000/36.000 pts
                               for upper leg.        (25%) for upper
                                                     leg.
                              6/36 pts (16.67%)     9.000/36.000 pts
                               for lower leg.        (25%) for lower
                                                     leg.

[[Page 93028]]

 
Results Reporting...........  Euro NCAP Five-Star   Checkmark (or
                               Rating System.        similar) on NHTSA
                                                     website.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix C: Vehicle Scoring and Verification Testing Example--Passenger 
Car

    In the hypothetical example of a verification test, the vehicle is 
assumed to have met NHTSA's minimum requirements for pedestrian 
protection credit and verification testing: the manufacturer reported 
to NHTSA that its vehicle met the minimum requirements (i.e., at least 
60 percent or 21.600 out of 36.000 points); the manufacturer provided 
predicted and/or actual test data in a standardized format; NHTSA 
reviewed this data for accuracy and completeness; and NHTSA selected 
this vehicle for verification testing.
    Figure C1 and Table C1 are examples of the level of detail of head 
impact data a manufacturer would provide to NHTSA to receive credit for 
meeting NHTSA's pedestrian protection criteria under NCAP.\57\ Figure 
C1 shows the grid points along the various WAD lines eligible for 
testing based on vehicle geometry and the manufacturer's actual or 
predicted HIC15 for each location. Each grid point also 
contains an indication of whether the data provided is simulated data 
or physical test data. Points that were physically tested by the 
manufacturer are designated as a circled cell. Points with predicted 
head impact scores are not circled. Similar to the Euro NCAP test 
procedures, some points are considered ``default red'' and ``default 
green'' based on their location on the vehicle.\58\ The rest of the 
eligible grid points are filled with actual or predicted HIC data from 
the manufacturer. Table C1 shows the tabulated data from Figure C1 and 
the manufacturer's predicted score (81.000 out of a possible 136.000) 
for the head. Figure C1 also denotes with an ``X'' which grid points 
were chosen for verification testing by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Note that the figures below are examples only; the 
requested submission format may change.
    \58\ Euro NCAP stipulates that test points located on the A-
pillars are default red, and test points located in the central 
portion of the windshield glazing away from edges or underlying 
components are default green.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.015


[[Page 93029]]


Figure C1: Example of Manufacturer's Predicted Head Impact Data

                    Table C1--Example of Scoring of Manufacturer's Predicted Head Impact Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Predicted
     Manufacturer prediction         HIC min.        HIC max.       Point value    Number points       score
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Default Green...................             n/a             n/a           1.000              18          18.000
Green...........................  ..............            <650           1.000              13          13.000
Yellow..........................             650          <1,000           0.750              51          38.250
Orange..........................           1,000          <1,350           0.500              19           9.500
Brown...........................           1,350          <1,700           0.250               9           2.250
Red.............................           1,700  ..............           0.000              20           0.000
Default Red.....................             n/a             n/a           0.000               6           0.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of all points excluding default points to be used for correction factor.....             112          63.000
Predicted headform score........................................................             136          81.000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table C2 includes both the manufacturer's actual or predicted data 
for each grid point undergoing testing as well as NHTSA's verification 
test result in the form of the HIC15 and resulting scoring 
band. In this example, 7 of the 10 test points resulted in the same 
scoring band as the prediction, 2 test points resulted in a lower 
scoring band than the prediction, and 1 test point resulted in a higher 
scoring band than the prediction. One test location of particular 
interest in this example is test location (4,-3). The resulting 
HIC15 at this test location was 1,046.87, outside the 
boundaries for the predicted yellow color band, but still within the 
acceptable HIC15 range for verification testing as described 
in Table 12. The manufacturer predicted that the 10 test points under 
consideration would contribute a score of 5.250--as shown in Table C2. 
However, verification testing determined that these 10 test points 
scored 4.500 instead of 5.250. Thus, the difference between the 
manufacturer's predicted values and those tested resulted in a 
correction factor of 0.857 (three significant digits) based on the 
correction factor equation: Correction Factor = (Sum of Actual Test 
Scores)/(Sum of Predicted Test Scores). Table C2 below shows the actual 
test scores and predicted scores used for the calculation.
Table C2--Example of Verification Testing Results and Correction Factor
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.016


[[Page 93030]]


    Table C3 calculates the resulting Final Pedestrian Headform Score 
for this hypothetical vehicle. The correction factor determined above 
is applied to all grid points that are not default green grid points. 
Thus, instead of those points contributing a predicted score of 63.000 
points, they only contribute a score of 53.991 points. The 18 default 
green points still contribute a score of 18.000 (shown in Table C1 and 
Table C3), giving the vehicle a score of 71.991, or, when scaled for 
the scoring allocation, a score of 9.528 out of 18.000 points.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.002

    For the upper legform score, Table C5 below shows the upper legform 
verification testing results of the hypothetical vehicle. Note that the 
manufacturer will have submitted upper, center, and lower bending 
moments and upper and lower forces for each required impact location 
along the bumper (also accounting for symmetry and adjacency). These 
results indicate that the vehicle has achieved the minimum 
crashworthiness pedestrian protection score of 60 percent (21.600 out 
of 36.000 total points). Similar to the data provided for the headform 
impacts, the manufacturer will have provided information showing which 
locations received physical testing and which locations did not. 
However, unlike those for the headform impacts, NHTSA's verification 
results for the upper legform will replace those provided by the 
manufacturer.
    Due to vehicle geometry, a total of 13 points were eligible for 
testing, and it was decided that testing would be at test location U 0. 
Additional tests were conducted at locations U +2, U -4, and U -6. 
Using symmetry and adjacency, all 13 test locations received scores.
    Test locations were scored according to Table C4, as illustrated 
below. Test location U 0 received a score of 0.000 because all the 
bending moments and the sum of forces exceeded the maximum injury 
limits. Test location U +2 also received a score of 0.000. Although 
some of the bending moments (upper and lower) were below the maximum 
injury limit, the upper legform test uses the worst performing injury 
metric for the test location's score. Both the center bending moment 
and the sum of forces exceeded the maximum injury limit. Thus, this 
test location received a score of 0.000. Had test location U +2 been 
scored based on the upper bending moment, it would have received a 
score of 0.475; and similarly, had it been scored based on the lower 
bending moment, it would have received a score of 0.356. Injury values 
above the minimum injury but below the maximum injury are scored on a 
sliding scale between 0.000 and 1.000 points for the upper legform. On 
the other hand, test locations U -4 and U -6 each received scores of 
1.000 because all injury criteria were below the minimum injury limit.

                                         Table C4--Upper Legform Scoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Max. point
                            Component                               Min. injury     Max. injury        value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bending Moment (Nm).............................................             285             350           1.000
Sum of forces (N)...............................................            5000            6000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using symmetry, test location U -2 receives a score of 0.000 
because that is what test location U +2 received. Test locations U +4 
and U +6 receive scores of 1.000 because of tests conducted at U -4 and 
U -6. Using adjacency, test locations U +1, U -1, U +3, and U -3 all 
receive scores of 0.000 because they are adjacent to a test location 
that received a score of 0.000. Likewise, test locations U +5 and U -5 
each receive a score of 1.000, being adjacent to two locations each 
scoring 1.000. In some cases, a manufacturer may provide data 
explaining why its vehicle should not be subject to symmetry or 
adjacency.
    Table C6 shows the scoring for the hypothetical upper legform test. 
Overall, the vehicle received a score of 6.000 out of a possible 13.000 
for the upper legform test. When scaled for the 25 percent points 
allocation (9.000 out of 36.000 points), the upper legform can receive 
a maximum score of 9.000 points. This testing results in a final upper 
legform score of 4.154 out of 9.000 points.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 93031]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.017


[[Page 93032]]



                Table C6--Example of Upper Legform Score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.018

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    Finally, Table C8 below shows the lower legform FlexPLI 
verification testing results of the hypothetical vehicle. Detailed 
data, to include the four tibia bending moments and ACL, MCL, and PCL 
elongations, has been received to show that this vehicle meets the 60 
percent (21.600 out of 36.000

[[Page 93033]]

total points) pedestrian protection requirement. The lower legform data 
gathered by NHTSA will replace the data provided by the manufacturer. 
For this vehicle, all points along the LBRL are less than 500 mm, so 
all test locations are tested. If there were portions of the LBRL that 
were greater than 500 mm, those locations would not be tested and would 
be given a ``default red, no points'' score. Like the upper legform 
WAD775 tests, this vehicle's geometry requires 13 locations to be 
scored for the bumper testing. In this test series, testing began at 
location L +1 and additional tests were carried out at locations L -3 
and L -5.
    Test locations were scored according to Table C7 as illustrated 
below. Testing conducted at location L +1 yielded a score of 0.932 
(0.500 + 0.432). The tibia bending moments were all below the minimum 
injury limit, awarding full points for that component. The MCL 
elongation fell between the minimum injury limit and maximum injury 
limit, awarding partial points. For FlexPLI injury values above the 
minimum injury threshold and below the maximum injury threshold, points 
are awarded between 0.000 and 0.500 on a linear sliding scale. Neither 
the ACL nor PCL exceeded the limit. Thus, this test location received a 
score of 0.932. Tests conducted at locations L -3 and L -5 yielded full 
points as none of the values exceeded the minimum injury limits, nor 
were the ACL nor PCL limits exceeded.

                                            Table C7--FlexPLI Scoring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Max. point
                            Component                               Min. injury     Max. injury        value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tibia bending (Nm)..............................................             282             340           0.500
MCL elongation (mm).............................................              19              22           0.500
ACL/PCL elongation (mm).........................................  ..............              10  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the same symmetry concepts discussed above, test locations L 
-1, L +3, and L +5 inherited the scores from the opposite side. Using 
adjacency, test locations L 0, L +2, and L -2 each inherited a score of 
0.932 because that was the lowest score of the two adjacent test 
locations. Test locations L +4, L -4, L +6, and L -6 each inherited a 
perfect score of 1.000 because both adjacent test locations had scores 
of 1.000.
    The resulting lower legform score for this vehicle is shown below 
in Table C9 and was 12.660 out of a maximum 13.000, or 8.765 out of a 
maximum 9 when using the 50 percent, 25 percent, 25 percent scoring 
allocation.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 93034]]



             Table C8--Example of Lower Legform Test Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.019


[[Page 93035]]


                Table C9--Example of Lower Legform Score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25NO24.020

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    In Table C10 below, the scores from the three component tests are 
summed and compared to the maximum available score. In this scenario, 
the

[[Page 93036]]

hypothetical vehicle had reduced component level scores in each of the 
three categories, but still maintained a total score above 21.600 (60 
percent). Therefore, this vehicle would continue to receive pedestrian 
protection credit on http://www.NHTSA.gov.

                            Table C10--Example of Overall Pedestrian Protection Score
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Actual score    Maximum score    Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headform Test...................................................           9.528          18.000           52.9%
Upper Legform Test..............................................           4.154           9.000           46.2%
Lower Legform Test..............................................           8.765           9.000           97.4%
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          22.447          36.000           62.3%
Received Pedestrian Protection Credit?..........................  ..............  ..............             Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95 and 501.
Adam Raviv,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2024-27446 Filed 11-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P`