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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    \120\ DOT HS 812 658.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.014

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.020

                                                    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.021

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

V. Conclusion

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

VI. Economic Analysis

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

VII. Public Participation

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

How do I prepare and submit comments?

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

How do I submit confidential business information?

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

Will the Agency consider late comments?

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

VIII. Appendices

A. Additional Pedestrian Crash Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Vehicle Scoring and Verification Testing Example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Table 27--Example of Headform Score With Correction Factor Applied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.025

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26MY23.027

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

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

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

C. Questions Asked Throughout This Notice

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

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

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