optional chaining invalid left hand side in assignment

Table XV.1—Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers

[MY 2020] 

The proposed rule does not create any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, nor does it affect any existing reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

Manufacturers would have to self-certify the compliance of their vehicles with the new FMVSS No. 228. Manufacturers currently self-certify the compliance of their vehicles to a host of Federal motor vehicle safety standards, many of which are much more complex than the standard proposed by this NPRM. The burden and cost of certifying to proposed FMVSS No. 228 is relatively small. The performance test is done with an impactor without crash testing the vehicles, and multiple impacts can be performed on a single hood to assess conformance. The vehicle manufacturer is not required by the FMVSS to test every point on the hood; instead, it only must ensure that the hood will meet FMVSS No. 228 when tested by NHTSA in an agency compliance test. Thus, the small manufacturer, knowing its vehicle, can identify the part of the hood least likely to meet the standard and can focus its testing there. If that part of the hood can be made to meet the standard, the small manufacturer can determine through engineering analyses and other means that other parts of the hood can meet the standard as well. This is to say, a small entity is not directed by the standard to test in any way. Small entities can easily base their certification on simple headform testing, straightforward engineering analyses, modeling, a combination of these, or other such means to certify to the proposed standard.

Although a small entity is not required by NHTSA to test to self-certify compliance with proposed FMVSS No. 228, if they wish to perform the physical tests described in the proposed standard, they could readily contract with an outside testing laboratory to conduct the headform impact tests in the proposal. (NHTSA itself has contracted with labs for such testing in the past.) The number of tests to be performed on a particular hood to certify compliance would be at the discretion of the manufacturer. Because of the manufacturer's in-depth knowledge of its vehicle design, the symmetry of hood design and predictability of results, and the depth of engineering judgment and knowledge in this area, however, NHTSA believes it is reasonable that the number of necessary test points could be reduced to the locations with the least compliance margin. To illustrate, NHTSA in the past has assessed hood performance based on a test series of 10 impacts, at a total cost of approximately $8,000 for the 10 impacts. Because these impacts may involve more than a single hood, we would include an additional cost for hood parts, which results in an overall estimated testing cost of $10,000 for certification testing. This overall cost can then be amortized over the entire number of vehicles produced matching the test design. Thus, the amortized cost would not constitute a significant percentage of the relative cost of the vehicle. Comments are requested on these estimates.

As with large manufacturers, small manufacturers would self-certify compliance to FMVSS No. 228 by the same certification label now required for all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label is placed on the vehicle, usually in the door jamb on light vehicles. Adding FMVSS No. 228 certification to the label is expected to result in minimal impact on small entities.

NHTSA does not believe the small manufacturers listed in table XV.1 of this analysis are developing hood systems and/or related hardware for installation on the vehicles they manufacture. In today's motor vehicle market, small vehicle manufacturers, who are less able than large manufacturers to take advantage of economies of scale to lower production costs, typically produce specialized, expensive vehicles and could obtain the hoods from a supplier (a large entity). Regardless of whether small manufacturers turn to a supplier, the vehicle manufacturer would be able to certify its vehicles to FMVSS No. 228 through the use of energy-absorbing structures and strategic layout of hard engine components vis-a-vis the hood surface; designing and manufacturing a compliant hood is relatively uncomplicated.

Furthermore, there are a significant number of final-stage manufacturers and alterers (several hundred) that could be impacted by the proposed rule. These manufacturers buy incomplete vehicles from the first-stage vehicle manufacturers or complete vehicles that they alter before first sale, respectively. Many of these vehicles are van conversions, but there are a variety of vehicles affected. These final-stage manufacturers would likely meet the standard by passing on the costs of compliance by the first-stage vehicle manufacturer to the consumer. Alterers would likely refrain from modifying the hood, which allows them to pass on the compliance costs by the original manufacturer of the vehicle to the consumer. Thus, while there are a substantial number of final stage manufacturers and alterers potentially impacted by the proposed rule, we do not believe the proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on the entities. Either a pass-through certification process will apply to these manufacturers, or they will do the work themselves to certify the vehicle.

NHTSA does not believe that the potential costs of any necessary hood design would have significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. In considering potential costs associated with redesigning hoods, we first note that this potential one-time cost would be spread out on a per-vehicle basis, with costs shared across model years of a given generation. Furthermore, as the majority of the small entities identified also sell vehicles in the EU, [ 172 ] much of the burden and associated cost of redesigning hoods would already be ( print page 76981) incurred to meet the standards already in place in the EU.

NHTSA considers in this paragraph how such costs may impact these small entities. It is assumed that any incremental costs incurred to meet the requirements specified in the proposed rule would be passed on to consumers and, therefore, potentially impact demand. The vehicles produced by manufacturers listed in the table can roughly be grouped into three classes: (1) luxury/ultra-luxury vehicles; (2) alternative electric vehicles; and (3) modified vehicles from other manufacturers. Luxury/ultra-luxury vehicles are considered to be Veblen goods. Veblen goods are those in which demand increases as price increases. Therefore, any potential incremental costs would not have negative impacts on the demand for these particular vehicles. Additionally, as all three categories of the vehicles manufactured by these small entities are specialty vehicles, demand for these vehicles would be inelastic due to a lack of substitutes. That is, it is expected that consumers who seek out these specific vehicles would not be impacted by potential price changes as a result of manufacturers passing costs on to consumers.

We know of no Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

In addition to the requirements included in this NPRM, NHTSA considered a less stringent regulatory alternative in which the requirements specified in the proposed rule would match the E.U. interpretation of GTR 9 and a more stringent alternative in which the requirements specified in the proposed rule would be applicable to the entire Hood Top, i.e., the Test Area would encompass the entire Hood Top. When comparing the less stringent regulatory alternative to the proposed rule, NHTSA determined that the costs would be very similar, and due to data limitations, assumed the costs to be the same. The proposed rule, however, provides more benefits relative to the less stringent regulatory alternative. While the more stringent regulatory alternative would offer greater overall benefits, we were unable to estimate the cost for the more stringent regulatory alternative due to data limitations. Overall, the less stringent regulatory alternative and proposed rule are only associated with fuel economy costs incurred over the life span of the vehicles impacted. Due to uncertainty about the feasibility and costs associated with the more stringent regulatory alternative, NHTSA was not able to assess the potential impacts of that regulatory alternative on small entities. While costs could increase with the more stringent regulatory alternative, it is not NHTSA's preferred alternative. If the agency decides the alternative should be further pursued, the agency will consider the impacts to small entities when determining whether to finalize the more stringent regulatory alternative.

We have identified no meaningful alternatives that both: (1) do not rely on the establishment of a HIC requirement; and (2) are expected to achieve improvements in pedestrian safety consistent with those expected under the proposed rule. However, in recognition of manufacturing differences between large manufacturers and these specific types of small manufacturers, NHTSA is proposing to provide final-stage manufacturers and alterers an additional year of lead time for manufacturer certifications of compliance. [ 173 ] NHTSA anticipates that hood components and designs meeting FMVSS No. 228 may be developed by vehicle designers and suppliers and integrated into the fleets of larger vehicle manufacturers first, before these small manufacturers. This NPRM recognizes this and proposes to provide final-stage manufacturers and alterers more lead time. As designers and suppliers may prioritize meeting the demands of larger manufacturers, this additional lead time will allow small manufacturers to work with designers and suppliers without any stoppage in production Although, as discussed above, we do not project the proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the additional lead time would provide flexibility to further minimize any impacts. The NPRM does not provide additional lead time for other small manufacturers such as listed in table XV.1 who manufacture complete vehicles because the latter have the engineering resources to certify compliance in the same time frame as large manufacturers. Such small manufacturers perform or control much of the design and development of the vehicles they produce unlike typical final-stage manufacturers and alterers. With their engineering resources and control over the manufacturing processes, those small manufacturers have the ability to consider the proposed FMVSS No. 228 requirements and modify the hood as needed, like other manufacturers.

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

NHTSA has examined this proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255 , August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed rule will not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1) . It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.

The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) . Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers ( print page 76982) that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved.

However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).

Pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this rulemaking could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation. To this end, the agency has examined the nature ( e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this proposed rule and finds that it, like many NHTSA rules, would prescribe only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend this rulemaking to preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by the rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law will not conflict with the minimum standard adopted here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 , “Civil Justice Reform” ( 61 FR 4729 , February 7, 1996) requires that, when promulgating a new regulation, Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies any preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms, either explicitly or by reference to other regulations or statutes that explicitly define those items; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Under the PRA of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The agency has analyzed the proposed standard and determined that there are no reporting requirements that require an OMB control number. The proposed regulatory text would require that information must be made available under the agency enforcement authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 30166 .

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law ( e.g., the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.

Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.” Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.

This proposal to adopt GTR 9 is consistent with the goals of the NTTAA. This NPRM proposes to adopt a global consensus standard. The GTR was developed by a global regulatory body and is designed to increase global harmonization of differing vehicle standards. The GTR leverages the expertise of governments in developing a vehicle standard to reduce the risk of pedestrian head injury in impacts. NHTSA's consideration of GTR 9 accords with the principles of NTTAA as NHTSA's consideration of an established, proven regulation has reduced the need for NHTSA to expend significant agency resources on the same safety need addressed by GTR 9. This NPRM explains the reasons the FMVSS under consideration differs in some respects from GTR 9, and why NHTSA is considering additional changes to GTR 9 for the final rule. NHTSA will consider the comments to the NPRM and other information in drafting a final rule. If differences remain between the final rule and the GTR, the agency will explain in the final rule NHTSA's reasons for deciding such differences are warranted, consistent with the NTTAA.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4 , requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995) in any one year. Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2021 results in $178 million (2021 index value of 270.97/1995 index value of 152.40 = 1.78  [ 174 ] ). This proposed rule would not result in a cost of $178 million or more in any one year to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA.

Under regulations issued by the Office of the Federal Register ( 1 CFR 51.5(a) ), an agency must summarize in the preamble of a proposed or final rule the material it incorporates by reference and discuss the ways the material is reasonably available to interested parties or how the agency worked to make materials available to interested parties.

NHTSA proposes to incorporate by reference SAE Recommended Practice J211-1, “Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation,” revised August 2022 (SAE J211/1). Previous versions of this SAE standard are incorporated in 49 CFR 571.5(l)(2) through (5) . The SAE J211/1 standard provides guidelines and recommendations for techniques of measurements used in impact tests to achieve uniformity in instrumentation practice and in reporting results. Signals from impact tests have to be filtered following the standard's guidelines to eliminate noise from sensor signals. Following J211/1 guidelines provides a basis for meaningful comparisons of test results from different sources. The SAE material is available for review at NHTSA and is available from SAE International.

The issue of severability of FMVSSs is addressed in 49 CFR 571.9 . It provides that if any FMVSS or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the part and the application of that standard to other persons or circumstances is unaffected. NHTSA seeks comment on the issue of severability.

The DOT assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:

• Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
• Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

If you have any responses to these questions, please write to us with your views.

Please see DATES section at the beginning of this document.

• Your comments must be submitted in writing.
• To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket Number shown at the beginning of this document in your comments.
• Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. ( 49 CFR 553.21 ). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
• If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) File, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Comments may be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System website at http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
• Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.govinfo.gov/​content/​pkg/​FR-2002-02-22/​pdf/​R2-59.pdf . DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/​dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines .

When submitting comments, please remember to:

• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the DATES section above.

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. ( 49 CFR part 512 ). To facilitate social distancing during COVID-19, NHTSA is temporarily accepting confidential business information electronically. Please see https://www.nhtsa.gov/​coronavirus/​submission-confidential-business-information for details. ( print page 76984)

We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing the final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to https://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

Please note that, even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

The DOT recognizes that climate variability and change pose potential threats to U.S. transportation systems. In addition, ensuring equity and accessibility for every member of the traveling public is one of the Department's highest priorities. NHTSA requests comment on any potential climate change or equity impact of this proposed rule.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c) , DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov , as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/​privacy and https://www.transportation.gov/​individuals/​privacy/​privacy-act-system-records-notices . To facilitate comment tracking and response, the agency encourages commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered.

• Motor vehicle safety
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as set forth below.

1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322 , 30111 , 30115 , 30117 and 30166 ; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 .

2. Section 571.5 paragraph (l) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (51) as paragraphs (7) through (52) and adding new paragraph (6) to read as follows:

(l) * * * * *

(6) SAE Recommended Practice J211-1 AUG2022, “Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation,” revised August 2022, into § 571.228.

3. Section 571.228 is added to read as follows:

S1. Scope. This standard establishes performance requirements for vehicle hoods to protect pedestrians against head injury.

S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce the risk of injury to pedestrians in the event of a collision.

S3. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less, except for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses where the distance, measured longitudinally on a horizontal plane, between the transverse centerline of the front axle and the seating reference point of the driver's seat is less than 1000 mm. This standard also applies to any bidirectional vehicles within the subset of vehicles described in this paragraph.

S4. Definitions. (All references below are to this Standard No. 228, 49 CFR 571.228 , unless otherwise specified.)

Adult Headform Test Area means the area specified in S6.5.4.

Bidirectional vehicle means a vehicle that is intended to operate at similar speeds and with similar maneuverability in both directions of the vehicle longitudinal axis.

Child Headform Test Area means the area of the vehicle hood specified in S6.5.3.

Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area means the areas of the Child Headform Test Area and Adult Headform Test Area together. If the Adult Headform Test Area does not exist, the Child Headform Test Area represents the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area.

Corner reference point of the Child Headform Test Area means the intersection of the Child Headform Test Area (6.5.3) front border (HIC Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge Reference Line (S6.4.2) and the side border (HIC Unlimited Margin of the Side Reference Line (S6.4.3). Where multiple intersections occur, the most outboard intersection is the corner reference point of the Child Headform Test Area and constitutes the endpoint of the Child Headform Test Area front border and side border.

Corner reference point of the Hood Area means the intersection of the Hood Area (6.5.2) front border (Leading Edge Reference Line (S6.3.2) or the WAD1000 line (S6.3.1)) and the side border (Side Reference Line (S6.3.3)). Where multiple intersections occur, the most outboard intersection defines the corner reference point of the Hood Area and constitutes the endpoint of the Hood Area front border and the side border.

Corner reference point of the Hood Top means the intersection of the Hood Top (6.5.1) front border (Leading Edge Reference Line (S6.3.2)) and the side border (Side Reference Line (S6.3.3)). Where multiple intersections occur, the most outboard intersection defines the corner reference point of the Hood Top and constitutes the endpoint of the Hood Top front border and the side border.

Front means the leading portion of the vehicle during typical operation, except for non-bidirectional vehicles that are operating in a reverse gear intended for vehicles maneuvering in small areas.

Ground reference plane means a horizontal plane that passes through the lowest points of contact for all tires of the vehicle.

Headform means a device specified in S8 and is the moving mass that strikes the vehicle.

Head Injury Criterion (HIC) means an injury severity score that is computed from accelerometer time histories using the following formula:

a is the resultant acceleration measured in units of gravity “g” (1 g = 9.81 m/s 2 );

t 1 and t 2 are the two time instants during the impact expressed in seconds, defining an interval between the beginning and the end of the recording period for which the value of HIC is a maximum ( t 2 − t 1 ≤ 15 ms)

HIC Unlimited Area means the area that shares an outer boundary with the Hood Top and whose inner boundary is the HIC Unlimited Margin. (See figure 7.)

HIC Unlimited Margin means the inner boundary of the HIC Unlimited Area. It is the same as the outer boundary of the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Areas. (See figure 7.)

HIC1000 Area means the area within the Child Headform Test Area and Adult Headform Test Area with a minimum area as specified in S5.2 and where the HIC value must not exceed 1,000, as specified in S5.1(a).

HIC1700 Area means the area with borders as specified in S5.5 and where the HIC value must not exceed 1,700, as specified in S5.1(b).

Hood Area means the area enclosed by the borders specified in S6.5.2 that provides the basis for the amount of area in the Child Headform Test Area and the Adult Headform Test Area, which must be HIC1000 Area, as specified by S5.2.

Hood Top means the area enclosed by the borders specified in S6.5.1 and consisting of the HIC Unlimited Area, Child Headform Test Area and Adult Headform Test Area.

Impact point(s) means the point(s) on the vehicle where the initial contact with the headform occurs (point A in figure 1, provided for illustration purposes). It is permissible to have multiple simultaneous points of initial contact resulting from a headform launch. HIC value requirements for multiple simultaneous points of initial contact are specified in S5.3.

Non-contactable surfaces means areas within the Hood Top that cannot be contacted by the headform due to the geometry of the hood, such as a depression in the hood that the headform bridges across.

Wrap Around Distance (WAD) means a distance measured from the ground reference plane to a point on the vehicle, by the use of a non-stretch flexible tape or graduated wire, with one end held perpendicular to the ground reference plane while the tape or wire is maintained in the vehicle vertical longitudinal plane and wrapped around the vehicle front end. As specified in S6.3.1, this procedure results in identified WAD lines by using wires of different lengths, e.g., a wire of 1,000 ± 1 mm is used to identify a line at 1,000 mm from the ground reference plane. The naming conventions are to follow “WAD” with the length of the wire used for the measurement, and to refer to WAD [wire length] to refer to the line drawn by using the wire and the WAD procedure.

S5  Performance and other requirements.

S5.1  Headform impact requirements.

(a) When tested in accordance with the procedures of S6 under the conditions of S7, subject to the limits of S5.2, when any part of a vehicle within the Child Headform Test Area or Adult Headform Test Area is impacted by the headform described in S8, HIC shall not exceed 1,000 (HIC1000).

(b) The HIC in the remaining Child or Adult Headform Test Areas shall not exceed 1,700 (HIC1700), provided that the manufacturer has identified HIC1700 Area specified by S5.5(a).

S5.2  Minimum Amount of Child and Adult Headform Test Area that must conform to HIC1000.

(a) HIC1000 Area in the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Areas. Calculate the numerical value of two thirds of the Hood Area (see S4 for the definition of Hood Area and S6.5.2 for its determination). At least this amount of area, if it can be placed within the boundary of the combined Child Headform Test Area (S6.5.3) and the Adult Headform Test Area (S6.5.4), must be HIC1000 Area. If the numerical value of two thirds of the Hood Area exceeds the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area, the entire Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area must be HIC1000 Area.

(b) HIC1000 Area in Child Headform Test Area. Calculate the numerical value of one half of the Hood Area with less than WAD1700. At least this amount of area, when placed within the boundary of the Child Headform Test Area, must be HIC1000 Area.

S5.3  Multiple simultaneous impact points.

(a) If multiple simultaneous points of initial contact between the headform and the vehicle occur in more than one area and the areas have differing HIC requirements, the more stringent requirement applies. For example, if the initial impact occurs simultaneously within a HIC1700 Area and a HIC1000 Area, the HIC1000 requirement applies. If first contact occurs simultaneously in both an Adult Headform Test Area and a Child Headform Test Area, tests with both headforms must be performed at that location.

S5.5  Border of the HIC1700 Areas in the Hood Area. Under the authority provided in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 , 30166, vehicle manufacturers must make available to NHTSA the following information upon request.

(a) Manufacturers must identify HIC1700 Areas as described below, subject to S5.5(b). The HIC1700 Areas will be irrevocably selected prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle. If no HIC1700 Area is provided by the manufacturer, NHTSA will test the Combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area as HIC1000 Area.

(1) Manufacturers must select HIC1700 Areas based on the (x,y) coordinates of their borders referenced from the intersection of WAD1000 and the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The number of coordinates and the spacing of the coordinates are provided at the discretion of the manufacturer, but the points must be joined by straight lines in the x-y plane when marking off the test areas of an actual vehicle.

(2) In lieu of (x,y) coordinates, the manufacturer may base the HIC1700 Area on registration marks referenced from the intersection of WAD1000 and the vehicle longitudinal centerline and may use decals or templates for this purpose.

(b)(1) When a HIC1700 Area is contiguous with the HIC Unlimited Margin as specified in S6.4, the lines identified by NHTSA in accordance with this standard will supersede any conflicting coordinates provided by the manufacturer, and will act as border lines in defining the HIC1700 Area.

(2) Each HIC1700 Area border line must be contiguous. However, the total HIC1700 Area may consist of an unlimited number of contiguous areas, provided that the vehicle meets the requirement for HIC1000 Area specified in S5.2.

S5.6  Active hoods. ( print page 76986)

(a) Under the authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 30166 , upon NHTSA's request, vehicle manufacturers must make available to NHTSA information explaining the basic operational characteristics of their active hood system.

(b) Vehicles with active hoods shall meet the requirements of this standard when the hood is fully deployed. The devices to be deployed, and the minimum and maximum period of time between device deployment and impact of the headform to assure full deployment at time of impact, must be irrevocably selected by the manufacturer prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle, and provided to NHTSA upon request, under the authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 30166 .

(c) All reference lines, HIC Unlimited Margins, and WAD lines specified in S6.3 must be determined on the vehicle with the hood in its undeployed state. HIC1700 areas will be identified on the vehicle with the hood in its undeployed state.

(d) The impact point of the headform is determined with the hood in an undeployed position.

S5.7  Other movable components.

(a) Other than active devices specified in S5.6, any vehicle component (such as pop-up headlamps) that could change shape or position, and that have more than one fixed shape or position, must be stowed or retracted when determining the reference lines, margins, and WAD lines specified in S6.3.

(b) The impact point of the headform is determined when the active devices are in their stowed or retracted position.

S6  Test Procedures.

S6.1 Demonstrate compliance with S5.1 of this standard in accordance with the test procedures specified in this standard, under the conditions of S7, using the headforms described in S8. These procedures are used to identify the Leading Edge Reference Line, Side Reference Lines, Rear Reference Line, and the WAD lines (S6.3). These lines are used to identify Hood Area and subsequently the minimum requisite HIC1000 Area that must be provided. The lines are also used to identify HIC Unlimited Margins (S6.4) and to identify the Child Headform Test Area (S6.5.3) and the Adult Headform Test Area (S6.5.4). NHTSA may request information from the manufacturer in order to identify the HIC1700 areas (S5.5). The headform is launched at the hood (S6.6). The child headform must impact within the Child Headform Test Area and the adult headform must impact within the Adult Headform Test Area. When a headform strikes a HIC1000 Area, the HIC measured by the headform must not exceed 1000. When it strikes a HIC 1700 area, HIC must not exceed 1700.

S6.2 [Reserved]

S6.3  Determining reference lines on the vehicle. Subject to S6.3.5, the reference lines are determined on the vehicle as follows.

S6.3.1  WAD lines. Determine WAD lines by connecting the end points of a non-stretch flexible wire as it is traversed across the front of the vehicle. During this process, the wire must remain in a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane and held taut. One end of the wire must be held at the ground reference level, vertically ± 1 degree, below the front end of the vehicle, and the other end held in contact with the hood or fender (see figure 2, provided for illustration purposes). Determine WAD lines using wires of 1000 ± 1 mm (the line is referred to as WAD1000), 1700 ± 1 mm (WAD1700) and of 2100 ± 1 mm (WAD2100).

S6.3.2  Leading Edge Reference Line.

(a) Default procedure. Determine the Leading Edge Reference Line by connecting the points of contact between a straight edge 1000 ± 1 mm long and the front surface of the vehicle as the straight edge is traversed laterally across and is in contact with the front end of the vehicle (see figure 3, provided for illustration purposes). During this process, the straight edge must be held in a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane, inclined rearwards by 40 ± 1 degree from the horizontal, and with the lower end 600 ± 5 mm above the ground reference plane. If the straight edge makes a continuous contact or makes multiple contacts on the vehicle when the straight edge is at a single lateral location, rerun the procedure with the straight edge inclined rearwards at an angle of 50 ± 1 degree from the horizontal. For the purpose of determining whether the straight edge should be held at 50 ± 1 degree from the horizontal, contacts with a straight edge will be considered continuous if the total length of contact along the straight edge is greater than 50 mm and the deviation of the contact surface from the straight edge is less than 0.5 mm. Additionally, contact points must be separated by at least 50 mm in order to be considered multiple points of contact. If this procedure results in multiple or continuous points of contact even after inclining the straight edge rearwards at an angle of 50 ± 1 degree from the horizontal, determine the Leading Edge Reference Line using the most forward contact.

(b) Low front vehicles. If the vehicle exterior geometry is such that the bottom end of the straight edge makes first contact with the vehicle, that contact point is used to determine the Leading Edge Reference Line at that lateral position. See figure 4, provided for illustration purposes.

(c) High front vehicles. If the vehicle exterior geometry is such that the top end of the straight edge makes first contact with the vehicle, then the WAD1000 line will be used as the Leading Edge Reference Line at that lateral position. If the WAD1000 line does not intersect the Side Reference Line determined in S6.3.3 such that the corner reference point of the Hood Top does not exist, connect the two lines using the following procedure.

(1) Find the corner reference point of the Hood Top, as if the Leading Edge Reference Line were determined by the top end of the straight edge, rather than WAD1000. If this point does not exist, find the corner reference point of the Hood Top, as if the Leading Edge Reference Line were determined by the straight edge held at any height.

(2) Span the distance between the corner reference point of the Hood Top and the WAD1000 line with a non-stretch flexible wire held taut in the vertical longitudinal plane.

(3) Fill the discontinuity by establishing a line created by the projection of the wire horizontally rearward onto the vehicle surface.

S6.3.3  Side Reference Lines. These lines are determined on the vehicle by connecting the points of contact between a straight edge 700 ± 1 mm long and the vehicle, as the straight edge is traversed fore or aft, in contact with the sides of the vehicle (see figure 5, provided for illustration purposes). During this process, the straight edge must be held in a vertical transverse vehicle plane, inclined inwards by 45 ± 1 degrees from the horizontal. If this procedure results in multiple or continuous points of contact on the vehicle when the straight edge is at a single fore-aft location, determine the Side Reference Line by using the most outboard contact.

S6.3.4  Rear Reference Line.

(a) Default procedure. This line is determined on the vehicle by connecting the most rearward points on the hood that contact a 165 ± 1 mm diameter hemisphere as it is traversed laterally across the vehicle while maintaining contact with the windshield (see figure 6, provided for illustration purposes). The wiper blades, linkages, and arms are removed during this process. If this procedure results in multiple or continuous points of contact ( print page 76987) on the vehicle when the hemisphere is at a single lateral location, determine the Rear Reference Line by using the most rearward contact. This section is subject to S6.3.4(b).

(b) Revision of a Rear Reference Line when not intersecting with a Side Reference Line.

(1) Where the rear reference line and the side reference line do not intersect, the rear reference line must be extended and/or modified using a semi-circular template of radius 100 ± 1 mm. The template must be made of a thin flexible sheet material that easily bends to a single curvature in any direction. The template must resist double or complex curvature where this could result in wrinkling. The template is marked with four points “A” through “D,” as shown in figure 8 (provided for illustration purpose), while the template is on a flat surface.

(2) The template must be placed on the vehicle with Corners “A” and “B” coincident with the Side Reference Line. Ensuring these two corners remain coincident with the Side Reference Line, the template must be slid progressively rearwards until the outer edge of the template makes first contact with the Rear Reference Line. Throughout the process, the template must be curved to follow, as closely as possible, the outer contour of the vehicle's hood and fender without wrinkling or folding of the template. If the first point of contact between the template and Rear Reference Line lies outside the arc identified by points “C” and “D,” the Rear Reference Line is extended and/or modified to follow the circumferential arc of the template to meet the Side Reference Line, as shown in figure 9 (provided for illustration purposes).

(3) Larger template. If the outer edge of the template of S6.34(b)(1) cannot make contact with the Rear Reference Line while simultaneously the Side Reference Line contacts points “A” and “B,” or the point at which the Rear Reference Line and template make first contact lies within the arc identified by points “C” and “D,” then additional templates will be used where the radii are increased progressively in increments of 20 mm, until all the criteria of S6.3.4(b)(2) are met.

S6.3.5  Adjustments to the procedures determining the reference lines.

(a) Line discontinuity. If the Leading Edge Reference Line, Side Reference Line(s) or Rear Reference Line are discontinuous ( i.e., the procedure has resulted in a gap in a line), the discontinuity will be spanned by the following method. Connect the two points separated by the discontinuity with a non-stretch flexible wire held taut. Fill the discontinuity by establishing a line created by the projection of the wire vertically downward onto the hood surface.

(b) Hood ornaments. If the vehicle is fitted with a badge, emblem, hood ornament, or other structure which would bend back or retract under an applied load of maximum 100 ± 5 N, apply this load while the reference lines are defined on the hood. The load must be released prior to testing with a headform.

S6.4  HIC Unlimited Margins.

S6.4.1  HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference Line. The HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference Line is the line that is forwardmost of the following two lines.

(a) The line on the vehicle determined by connecting the points of contact between a non-stretch flexible wire measuring 82.5 ± 0.5 mm long as it is traversed along the Rear Reference Line. During this process, the wire remains in a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane and held taut. One end of the wire is held in contact with the Rear Reference Line and the other end is held in contact with the vehicle at points forward of the Rear Reference Line.

(b) The WAD2100 Line.

S6.4.2  HIC Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge Reference Line. The HIC Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge Reference Line is the line that is rearmost of the following two lines.

(a) The line on the vehicle determined by connecting the points of contact between a non-stretch flexible wire measuring 82.5 ± 0.5 mm long as it is traversed along the Leading Edge Reference Line. During this process, the wire remains in a vertical longitudinal vehicle plane and held taut. One end of the wire is held in contact with the Leading Edge Reference Line and the other end is held in contact with the vehicle and points rearward of the Leading Edge Reference Line.

(b) The WAD1000 Line.

S6.4.3  HIC Unlimited Margin of the Side Reference Lines. This HIC Unlimited Margin is the line determined by connecting the points of contact between a non-stretch flexible wire measuring 82.5 ± 0.5 mm long as it is traversed along the Side Reference Line. During this process, the wire remains in a vertical lateral plane and held taut. One end of the wire is held in contact with the Side Reference Line and the other end held is in contact with the vehicle and points inward of the Side Reference Line.

S6.5  Hood Top, Hood Area, Child Headform Test Area and Adult Headform Test Area border lines and computation method. The border lines for the Hood Top, Hood Area, the Child Headform Test Area, and the Adult Headform Test Area are identified as described in this section. Computation of these areas is made on the basis of a two-dimensional projection of these areas on to a horizontal vehicle plane. These areas include those comprised of any “non-contactable surfaces” (as defined in S4) in their computation.

S6.5.1  Hood Top. This area is enclosed by the intersection of the following borders:

(a) Front border: Leading Edge Reference Line;

(b) Side border: Side Reference Lines.

(c) Rear border: Rear Reference Line.

S6.5.2  Hood Area. This area is enclosed by the intersection of the following borders:

(a) Front border: the Leading Edge Reference Line or the WAD1000 line, whichever is most rearward at the point of measurement;

(c) Rear border: Rear Reference Line, or the WAD2100 line, whichever is most forward at the point of measurement.

S6.5.3  Child Headform Test Area. This area is enclosed by the intersection of the following borders:

(a) Front border: HIC Unlimited Margin of the Leading Edge Reference Line.

(b) Side borders: HIC Unlimited Margins of the Side Reference Lines.

(c) Rear border: WAD1700 line or the HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference Line, whichever is most forward at the point of measurement.

S6.5.4  Adult Headform Test Area. This area is enclosed by the intersection of the following borders:

(a) Front border: WAD1700 line.

(c) Rear border: HIC Unlimited Margin of the Rear Reference Line.

S6.6  Headform launch procedures.

(a) Propulsion of the headform. The headform must be in free flight at the moment of impact. The headform velocity at the time of impact must be 9.7 ± 0.2 meters per second (m/s) for both the child and adult headforms.

(b) Child headform test procedure.

(1) At least one impact point against which the child headform contacts must be in the Child Headform Test Area.

(2) The velocity vector of the headform center of mass at impact is in a longitudinal vertical vehicle plane at an angle of 50 ± 2° to the horizontal directed downward and rearward.

(c) Adult headform test procedure.

(1) At least one impact point against which the adult headform contacts must be in the Adult Headform Test Area. ( print page 76988)

(2) The velocity vector of the headform center of mass at impact is in a longitudinal vertical vehicle plane at an angle of 65 ± 2° to the horizontal directed downward and rearward.

S7  General test conditions.

S7.1  Humidity and temperature. At the time of testing, the ambient air at the test site must have a relative humidity of 40 percent ± 30 percent and a temperature of 20 ± 4 °C.

S7.2  Test site. The test site is on a ground reference plane consisting of a flat, smooth and hard surface with a grade not exceeding 1 percent.

S7.3. Vehicle preparation.

(a) Normal ride attitude. The vehicle is positioned on the ground reference plane, loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, and tires inflated to the pressures listed on the vehicle's FMVSS No. 110 ( 49 CFR 571.110 ) placard. The front wheels are aligned to be parallel to the vehicle vertical longitudinal plane, the suspension set to the normal running condition as specified by the manufacturer for a speed of 40 km/hr, and the parking brake applied.

(b) Additional mass. Place a 75 ± 5 kg mass at each most outboard front row seat. The fore-aft position of a loaded seat must be set at the mid-track position. If there is no notch at the mid-track position, the seat is set at the notch closest to and rearward of mid-track, with respect to the direction the seat is facing. Set the seat back angle to a position between the most upright position intended for occupancy to 10 degrees rearward of that position, with respect to the direction the seat is facing.

(c) Movable front-end vehicle components.

(1) Active hoods and devices. Active hoods, external air bags, and other devices designed to protect pedestrians are deployed prior to launching the headform.

(2) Other movable components. Other than active devices specified in S6.3, any vehicle component (such as pop-up headlamps) that could change shape or position, and that have more than one fixed shape or position, are adjusted to any fixed shape or position prior to launching the headform.

S8. Headform specifications

(a) Dynamic performance requirements.

(1) Qualification. The headforms must meet the dynamic qualification requirements specified in S8.4.

(2) First natural frequency. The first natural frequency of the headforms must be over 5000 Hz.

S8.1  Construction.

(a) The child and adult headforms are made of aluminum, are of homogenous construction and are hemispherical in shape. The headforms are schematically represented in figures 11 and 12 and detailed mechanical drawings are provided in figures 13-26. The overall diameter of the headforms are 165 ± 1 mm.

(b) Mass properties of child headform (figure 13). The mass of the child headform is 3.5 ± 0.07 kg. The moment of inertia about an axis through the center of gravity and perpendicular to the direction of impact is within the range of 0.008 to 0.012 kgm 2 . The center of gravity of the headform including instrumentation is located in the geometric center of the sphere with a tolerance of ±2 mm.

(c) Mass properties of adult headform (figure 20). The mass of the adult headform is 4.5 ± 0.1 kg. The moment of inertia about an axis through the center of gravity and perpendicular to the direction of impact is within the range of 0.010 to 0.013 kgm 2 . The center of gravity of the headform including instrumentation is located in the geometric center of the sphere with a tolerance of ± 5 mm.

(d) Cover (figures 15 and 22). The headforms are covered with a 14 ± 0.5 mm thick synthetic skin, which must cover at least half of the hemisphere.

(e) Back plate (figures 17 and 24). The headforms each have a rear flat face perpendicular to the direction of travel and the axis of one of the accelerometers. The flat face provides access to the accelerometers and serves as an attachment point for the propulsion system.

S8.2  Instrumentation mount. A recess within the headforms allows for mounting three uniaxial accelerometers. For each accelerometer, the seismic mass is located within ± 5 mm of the headform's centroid as measured along its measurement axis, and within ± 0.5 mm as measured perpendicular to its measurement axis.

S8.3  Instrumentation.

(a) Three uniaxial accelerometers are installed within the headforms. One of the accelerometers has its sensitive axis perpendicular to mounting face A (see figures 11 and 12) and its seismic mass is positioned within a cylindrical tolerance field of 1 mm radius and 20 mm length. The centerline of the tolerance field runs perpendicular to the mounting face and its mid-point coincides with the spherioidal center of the headform.

(b) The remaining accelerometers have their sensitive axes perpendicular to each other and parallel to mounting face A and their seismic masses are positioned within a spherical tolerance field of 10 mm radius. The center of the tolerance field coincides with the spheroidal center of the headform.

(c) The accelerometers have the dimensions, response characteristics, and sensitive mass locations specified in drawing SA572-S5 (figure 27). The instrumentation response value Channel Frequency Class (CFC), as defined in SAE J211 (2022), “Instrumentation for Impact Test,” (incorporated by reference, see § 571.5), is CFC 1000.

S8.4  Qualification requirements

(a) Peak acceleration. For each of the three drop tests prescribed in S8, the peak resultant acceleration in the headform must be:

(1) for the child headform, not less than 245 g and not more than 300 g;

(2) for the adult headform, not less than 225 g and not more than 275 g.

(b) Unimodal response. For each of the three drop tests, the acceleration must be unimodal to the extent that oscillations occurring after the main acceleration pulse are less than ten percent (zero to peak) of the main pulse.

(c) Off-axis sensitivity. The lateral acceleration must not exceed 15 g (zero to peak).

S8.5  Qualification procedure

(a) Temperature and humidity. The headforms must have a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C. The temperature tolerances apply at a relative humidity of 40 ± 30 percent after a soak period of at least four hours prior to their application in a test.

(b) Drop test. (1) Drop rig. The headform is suspended from a drop rig as shown in figure 12 (provided for illustration purposes) and released by a means to ensure that it does not rotate during the fall. The headform is set up to strike a rigidly supported flat horizontal steel plate, over 50 mm thick and over 300 x 300 mm square with a surface finish of between 0.2 and 2.0 micrometers. The plate is ±0.5 degrees from horizontal. The headform skin outer surface and the surface of the steel plate are cleaned with 1,1,1 trichloroethane or equivalent and allowed to dry.

(2) Drop angle. The headform must be oriented as shown in figure 10 (provided for illustration purposes) with the rear face of the headform at the following angles from the vertical:

(i) 50 ± 2 degrees for the child headform;

(ii) 65 ± 2 degrees for the adult headform.

(3) Drop height. The headform is dropped from a height of 376 ± 1 mm.

(i) Initial drop. The drop is performed with the headform oriented such that the plane formed by the travel direction vector and the symmetric axis of the headform is perpendicular within ± 2 ( print page 76989) degrees to the sensitive axis of one of the accelerometers.

(ii) Repeat drops. The drop test is performed two additional times, with the headform rotated 120° around its symmetrical axis after each test with a two-hour wait period between tests.

Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5 .

Sophie Shulman,

Deputy Administrator.

1.  Hu, J., Lin, Y.-S., Boyle, K., Bonifas, A., Reed, M.P., Gupta, V., & Lin, C.H. (2023, November). Pedestrian safety: assessment of crashworthiness test procedures (Report No. DOT HS 813 518). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

2.  NHTSA has proposed a roadmap for the agency's plans to upgrade NCAP in phases over the next several years. 87 FR 13452 , March 9, 2022, extension of comment period, 87 FR 27200 .

3.   88 FR 34366 , May 26, 2023. The proposed NCAP pedestrian protection program would incorporate crashworthiness tests similar to those used by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP). Euro NCAP's tests are closely aligned with those in GTR 9.

4.   88 FR 38632 , Docket NHTSA-2023-0021. The NPRM applies to passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. The action can also be found in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, RIN 2127-AM37.

5.  The 20 vehicle manufacturers represent more than 99 percent of the U.S. market. The commitment was to have AEB on virtually all (at least 95 percent) new passenger cars, light trucks, and MPVs with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less no later than September 1, 2022, and a standard feature on virtually all light trucks and MPVs with a GVWR between 8,501 pounds and 10,000 pounds no later than Sept. 1, 2025. Most manufacturers met the 2022 mark, but some did not ( https://www.iihs.org/​news/​detail/​three-more-automakers-fulfill-pledge-to-make-autobrake-nearly-universal ). Other agency data indicate about 87% of production has PAEB. https://www.transportation.gov/​NRSS/​SaferVehicles . The voluntary commitment did not involve a pedestrian AEB component. NHTSA's NPRM would require an AEB system that detects and reacts to both lead vehicles and pedestrians and would increase the lead-vehicle performance required of AEB over that described in the voluntary commitment.

6.  Yanagisawa, M., Swanson, E., Azeredo, P., & Najm, W.G. (2017, April). Estimation of potential safety benefits for pedestrian crash avoidance/mitigation systems. (Report No. DOT HS 812 400). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. https://www.nhtsa.gov/​sites/​nhtsa.gov/​files/​documents/​812400_​pcambenefitsreport.pdf .

7.  Simms CK and Wood DO (2009), Pedestrian and cyclist impact—a biomechanical perspective, Springer Science and Business Media, Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York; see Chapter 10: The influence of vehicle design on pedestrian and cyclist injuries.

8.   Public Law 117-58 .

9.  Section I.B.1, 49 CFR part 553, appendix C , “Statement of Policy: Implementation of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) 1998 Agreement of Global Technical Regulations—Agency Policy Goals and Public Participation.”

10.  Mizuno K et al. (2001), Summary Of IHRA Pedestrian Safety WG Activities—Proposed Test Methods To Evaluate Pedestrian Protection Afforded By Passenger Cars.

11.  See table II.1.

12.  Rosen E, Sander U (2009) Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2009;41:536-542.

13.  Stammen JA et al (2002), A Demographic Analysis and Reconstruction of Selected Cases from the Pedestrian Crash Data Study, Paper No. 2002-01-0560, SAE International, Warrendale PA.

14.  Yutaka Okamoto, Tomiji Sugimoto, Koji Enomoto & Junichi Kikuchi (2003), Pedestrian Head Impact Conditions Depending on the Vehicle Front Shape and Its Construction—Full Model Simulation, Traffic Injury Prevention, 4:1, 74-82, DOI: 10.1080/15389580309856.

15.  Bahman S. Roudsari, Charles N. Mock & Robert Kaufman (2005) An Evaluation of the Association Between Vehicle Type and the Source and Severity of Pedestrian Injuries, Traffic Injury Prevention, 6:2, 185-192, DOI: 10.1080/15389580590931680.

16.  We note that the “hood” as defined in proposed FMVSS No. 228 would typically encompass portions of the fender top.

17.  “Test vehicle” refers to the vehicle whose compliance with proposed FMVSS No. 228 is being assessed.

18.  This preamble occasionally refers to these two test areas together as the “Child and Adult Headform Test Areas.”

19.  Injuries can be categorized according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). AIS ranks individual injuries on a scale of 1 to 6: 1=minor, 2=moderate, 3=serious, 4=severe, 5=critical, and 6=maximum (untreatable). In previous rulemakings (notably with respect to those involving FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 214), NHTSA associated HIC1000 with an 11% risk of AIS 4+ brain injuries.

20.  FMVSS No. 228 would have detailed procedures that define the areas on the hood, including a Wrap Around Distance (WAD) procedure that identifies various reference lines on the hood. As explained in a later section, in any particular vehicle vertical longitudinal plane, the Wrap Around Distance is the distance from a point on the ground directly below the vehicle's most forward edge in that plane, to a designated point on the hood, as measured with a flexible measuring device, such as a flexible wire. WADs of various lengths correlate to where pedestrians of different heights would hit their head on the hood when struck from the side. We can create a WAD line using wires of different lengths, e.g., a wire of 1700 +/− 1 mm can be used to draw a line at 1,700 mm from the ground reference plane (such a line is referred to as WAD1700).

21.  HIC1700 is associated with a 36% risk of AIS 4+ brain injuries.

22.  Examples of elements of designs that are beneficial to pedestrian head protection are: introducing additional clearance between the inner and outer skins of the hood, using energy-absorbing materials to improve shock absorption, redesigning stiff structures under the hood, such as hinges and headlight frames, to crush, collapse, or shear off, and redesigning the side edges of the hood where it meets up with the fenders to use a more deformable support structure or moving the stiff hood-to-fender junction out of the head impact zone. “Active hoods” have also emerged that have a front-end sensor and lever arms to automatically lift (pop up) the hood upon detecting that a pedestrian has been struck. An actuator near the hinge pops the hood slightly to provide more space between the hood and rigid components in the engine bay.

23.  Consistent with the GTR, the proposed regulatory text includes a provision that excludes from the standard MPVs, trucks, and buses where the distance, measured longitudinally on a horizontal plane, between the transverse centerline of the front axle and the seating reference point of the driver's seat, is less than 1000 mm. However, we are considering applying FMVSS No. 228 to these vehicles and are requesting comment on this issue later in the preamble.

24.  In headform testing of mid-2000 model year vehicles, large SUVs and pickups performed about the same as minivans, smaller SUVs, and passenger cars. For more details, see Mallory et al., (2007), Pedestrian GTR testing of current vehicles, ESV Paper No. Paper No. 07-0313. Among the vehicles tested were two pickups—a 2003 Dodge Ram and a 2005 Chevy Silverado—and neither had a head impact that exceeded the HIC limit in this NPRM.

25.  The PRIA may be obtained by downloading it or by contacting Docket Management at the address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this document.

26.  Traffic Safety Facts 2020 “ A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data.” U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

27.  Traffic Safety Facts 2000 “ A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System.” U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

28.  National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021, October), Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the First Half (January-June) of 2021. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 813 199), Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

29.  NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).

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

31.  Mallory, A., Fredriksson, R., Rosen, E., Donnelly, B. (2012, October). Pedestrian Injuries By Source: Serious and Disabling Injuries in US and European Cases. 56th AAAM Annual Conference.

32.  MAIS stands for Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale.

33.  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.

34.  Snyder and Knoblauch (1971); Hunter WW et al. (1995), Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Types; DaSilva MP et al., (2003), Analysis of Pedestrian Crashes, Report No. DOT HS 809 585, April 2003, Washington DC, NHTSA; Thomas L et al. (2014), North Carolina pedestrian crash types, 2008-2012, University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, March 2014.

35.  Wards Automotive.

36.   https://www.nhtsa.gov/​road-safety/​pedestrian-safety .

37.   87 FR 9916 ; February 22, 2022.

38.   46 FR 7015 ; January 22, 1981.

39.   69 FR 14496 , April 10, 1991.

40.  NHTSA held a public meeting on August 20, 1991, to seek public input on the agency's plans for a pedestrian protection regulation. Only the hood requirements were discussed at this meeting. In response to NHTSA's pedestrian safety plan presented at the meeting, all motor vehicle manufacturers indicated at least some major redesign would be required to meet the headform requirements. Based on such comments, unknowns about the benefits projected, the high costs of major vehicle redesign, and several other factors (such as international harmonization, pedestrian behavior enforcement, better infrastructure, and other crash avoidance measures), the agency did not proceed with the head impact protection rulemaking.

41.   61 FR 58362 , November 14, 1996.

42.  ISO is a worldwide standards-setting organization to facilitate the international exchange of goods and services.

43.  IHRA was an inter-governmental steering committee formed to facilitate multi-national collaboration in research in major problem areas of road safety, including pedestrian safety. The IHRA expert group on pedestrian safety developed test procedures to assess the vehicle-to-pedestrian collision.

44.  The EEVC does not set standards or enforce regulations and is not a part of the European Commission (E.C.). The EEVC can only recommend safety standards to the E.C. and other legislative states, which may or may not develop them into regulations. The EEVC carries out auto safety research in a number of specialized areas called “Working Groups.” Research within a Working Group, overseen by a steering committee of representatives from Europe's national governments, is carried out by nominated technical experts who may also work for the automotive industry. Funding for EEVC research is typically provided as “in-kind” contributions from the groups represented by the steering committee members and technical experts.

45.  The 1998 Agreement is administered by the UN Economic Commission for Europe's World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). https://www.unece.org/​fileadmin/​DAM/​trans/​main/​wp29/​wp29wgs/​wp29gen/​wp29glob/​globale.pdf . The 1998 Agreement entered into force on August 25, 2000.

46.  Non-governmental organizations may also participate in a consultative capacity in groups developing GTRs. Manufacturers may participate through non-governmental organizations representing industry. Individual manufacturers may also provide input to the process.

47.  Article 7, 1998 Agreement.

48.   Id.

49.  NHTSA's policies in implementing the 1998 Agreement are published in 49 CFR part 553, appendix C , “Statement of Policy: Implementation of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 1998 Agreement on Global Technical Regulations—Agency Policy Goals and Public Participation.” NHTSA's paramount policy goal under the 1998 Agreement is to “[c]ontinuously improve safety and seek high levels of safety, particularly by developing and adopting new global technical regulations reflecting consideration of current and anticipated technology and safety problems.” Id.

50.  “Motor vehicle safety” is defined in the Safety Act as “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.” 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9) .

51.  The 1998 Agreement entered into force in 2000 and is administered by the UN Economic Commission for Europe's World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). https://www.unece.org/​fileadmin/​DAM/​trans/​main/​wp29/​wp29wgs/​wp29gen/​wp29glob/​globale.pdf .

52.   https://unece.org/​fileadmin/​DAM/​trans/​doc/​2004/​wp29/​TRANS-WP29-AC3-07e.pdf .

53.  GTR 9 has been amended several times, but the U.S. has not been a signatory to any of the amendments or corrigenda. Thus, in general, this NPRM focuses on the original GTR and not later amendments. The first amendment was related to the applicability of vehicles with short hood areas and increased the number of vehicles excluded from the requirements of GTR 9. We discuss this provision and exclusion in section V.B. of this NPRM. At the same time, a corrigendum was accepted that clarified that the HIC areas may be broken up into pieces and need not be continuous. This is a concept that NHTSA had assumed was part of the GTR; this NPRM explicitly incorporates this concept in the proposed regulatory text (see also section VII.B of this NPRM). Finally, the GTR was amended to replace the leg impactor with a more advanced tool. This amendment relates to provisions that are outside of the scope of this NPRM. https://unece.org/​transport/​standards/​transport/​vehicle-regulations-wp29/​global-technical-regulations-gtrs .

54.  The U.S. is not a party to the 1958 Agreement. A contracting party to the 1958 Agreement can choose which regulation(s) it wants to adopt, but the regulations in the 1958 Agreement must be adopted “as is.” They do not contain different stringency levels. Also, the 1958 Agreement provides for reciprocal recognition of type approvals among Contracting Parties. This means that a vehicle type that has been type approved by one Contracting Party must be accepted by other 1958 Agreement Contracting Parties.

55.  Test procedures very similar to GTR 9 have been incorporated into many countries' consumer information programs. In addition to Euro NCAP, Japan's J-NCAP program rates vehicles on pedestrian safety, using a headform test, as do the Korean KNCAP and Australasian ANCAP programs.

56.  Section I.B.1, 49 CFR part 553, appendix C , “Statement of Policy: Implementation of the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) 1998 Agreement of Global Technical Regulations—Agency Policy Goals and Public Participation,” supra.

57.   49 U.S.C. 30111(a) and (b) .

58.  In advance of the publication of this NPRM, NHTSA received a July 7, 2022 letter from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation restating support of the interpretation of the GTR 9 that aligns with the proposed GTR amendment. On December 9, 2022, NHTSA met with the Alliance of Automotive Innovation at their request, to discuss the contents of their letter to NHTSA. The letter can be found in the docket, along with a list of other contacts since April 2022. The agency's position and rationale are fully explained in this preamble, particularly in section VIII.B.

59.  Soni A, Rober T, Beillas P (2013), Effects of Pedestrian Pre‐Crash Reactions on Crash Outcomes during Multi-body Simulations, 2013 IRCOBI Conference, Paper No. IRC-13-92.

60.  The naming convention is to follow “WAD” with the length of the wire used for the measurement, and to refer to WAD [wire length] to refer to the line drawn by using the wire and the WAD procedure.

61.  Paragraph 71 of the “Safety Need” section of GTR 9. https://unece.org/​fileadmin/​DAM/​trans/​main/​wp29/​wp29wgs/​wp29gen/​wp29registry/​ECE-TRANS-180a9e.pdf .

62.  This is dimension L114 in SAE J1100 “Motor Vehicle Dimension.” A later amendment to GTR published in 2011, which was not signed by the U.S., extended this dimension to 1,100 mm. (ECE/TRANS/180/Add.9/Amend.1/appendix 1).

63.  NHTSA understands that the Cruise Origin and Zoox vehicles do not have a traditional driver's seating position.

64.  Some vehicles in this category would be the Chevrolet Express, Ford E-Series, Ford Transit, Ford Transit Connect, GMC Savana, Mercedes-Benz Metris, Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, Nissan NV, Nissan NV200, Ram ProMaster, Ram ProMaster City.

65.   https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/​2021-us-commercial-van-sales-figures-by-model/​ .

66.   https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/​2021-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-model/​ .

67.  Stammen J, et al, “Pedestrian Head Safety Survey of U.S. Vehicles In Support of the Proposed Global Technical Regulation (GTR)” (2006). https://unece.org/​DAM/​trans/​doc/​2008/​wp29/​WP29-144-03e.pdf .

68.  The terms of this definition are intended to distinguish these vehicles from conventional vehicle that can also operate in two directions. However, for conventional vehicles the rearward or backing direction is not intended for full speed operation, but rather low speed and typically in a single gear.

69.  AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale) ranks individual injuries by body region on a scale of 1 to 6: 1=minor, 2=moderate, 3=serious, 4=severe, 5=critical, and 6=maximum (untreatable).

70.  In an actual vehicle-pedestrian collision, head rotation that occurs before, during, or after the head impact with the hood could result in concussive brain injuries. However, the biofidelity of a headform—unattached to the body—could be compromised in its ability to generate angular velocity representative of an actual pedestrian head impact. The agency would like to understand more about the biofidelity of a headform when used to measure angular velocity.

71.  The procedures for defining these areas are discussed below in this preamble.

72.  The drafters of the GTR determined that because the location of necessary under-hood components cannot be fundamentally changed, it is unavoidable that they are located in the child headform test area. Thus, the GTR provides that the relaxation zone for the child headform test area may be half of the zone (as opposed to 1/3 of the zone, as in the adult test area).

73.  Such reasons include the need to minimize any fluttering of the hood at high speeds and the ability to slam the hood shut without deforming the seams at the junction of the hood and fender.

74.  The cowl is the lower edge of the windshield opening. Active hoods move when a pedestrian impact is sensed, increasing the distance between the hood and the hard engine components below. A cowl air bag covers the cowl during a pedestrian impact.

75.  The vehicle coordinate system used in this NPRM is consistent with SAE J1100 “Motor Vehicle Dimension.” The coordinate system is as follows: +x direction is the longitudinal vehicle axis (rearward direction of travel); +y direction is the lateral vehicle axis (pointing away from the right side of the vehicle); +z direction is pointing vertically upward.

76.  Researchers have historically used the ratio of head impact speed to vehicle speed to characterize the head-to-hood interaction. A head impact speed of 35 km/h (22 mph) in a 40 km/h (25 mph) collision yields a ratio of 0.875. Depending on conditions, such as the shape of the vehicle front-end, the height of the leading edge of the hood, and the height of the pedestrian, the ratio for an adult may be as high as 1.4 or as low as 0.7.

77.  Mizuno Y, Ishikawa H (2001), Summary of IHRA pedestrian safety WG activities—proposed test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger cars, Paper No. 280, The 17th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 4-7, 2001.

78.  Watanabe A et al (2011), Research of collision speed dependency of pedestrian head and chest injuries using human FE model (THUMS version 4), 22nd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Paper No. 11-0043, Washington DC, June 2011.

79.  Because the typical hood is angled forward at about 15 degrees, it causes the 65 degree adult headform impact to create an 80 degree angle of incidence with the hood, i.e., a slightly angled (non-normal) headform impact.

80.  Stammen JA, Saul RA, Ko B (2001), Pedestrian head impact testing and PCDS reconstructions, Paper No. 326, 16th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Proceedings, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 4-7, 2001.

81.  Janssen and Nieboer, Sub-system tests for assessing pedestrian protection based on computer simulations, Proceedings of the IRCOBI Conference, Berlin, September 1991.

82.  Assuming that a 15 degree hood angle is typical, a 90 degree head-hood angle would correspond to a 75 degree headform impact angle from the horizontal.

83.  Koetje B and Grabowski J. A Methodology for the Geometric Standardization of Vehicle Hoods to Compare Real-World Pedestrian Crash; Annuals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. 2008; 52: 193-198.

84.  The Hood Top is identical to the “Bonnet Top” of GTR 9.

85.  As we will describe below, in some instances the Hood Area may be equivalent to the Hood Top.

86.  NHTSA would use the procedures in the standard to identify the HIC Unlimited areas and would not use manufacturer data to define them. We note that GTR 9 does not use the “HIC Unlimited” terminology, but makes the same reduction to the testable area.

87.  As noted earlier, such reasons include the need to minimize any fluttering of the hood at high speeds and the ability to slam the hood shut without deforming the seams at the junction of the hood and fender.

88.  We will discuss later below how, for a subset of vehicles, the straight edge length affects the front hood border.

89.  The cowl is the lower edge of the windshield opening. The wiper blades, linkages, and arms are removed during this process defining the RRL.

90.  GTR 9 does not define a Corner Reference Point and makes no provision of multiple intersections between the LERL and SRL.

91.  GTR 9, section 3.6, p. 38.

92.  Pedestrian Protection—ACEA Interpretations to the Respective Legislation of the UNECE and the European Union, revised November 30, 2010, Brussels. This document provides supplemental definitions to several test procedures of GTR 9 that ACEA considered to be ambiguous. ACEA is the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, a group representing European-based automobile manufacturers. https://www.acea.auto/​acea-members/​ .

93.  Paragraph 3.5. “ Bonnet leading edge reference line .”

94.  If this happens, the whole leading edge mark-off process is restarted using the 50° incline for the entire leading edge, even though the discrepancy may have occurred at only one spot.

95.  For some vehicles, the Hood Area may be equivalent to the Hood Top. Also, we note that GTR 9 does not define a Hood Area. In GTR 9, the equivalent area would be what GTR 9 refers to the “combined child and adult headform test areas.” We have defined Hood Area for increased clarity.

96.  Paragraph 72 of the “Safety Need” section of GTR 9. https://unece.org/​fileadmin/​DAM/​trans/​main/​wp29/​wp29wgs/​wp29gen/​wp29registry/​ECE-TRANS-180a9e.pdf .

97.  As a reminder, the RRL is determined by inserting a 165 mm sphere into the cowl and against the windshield such that the sphere is in contact with the windshield and a point on the surface of the hood (usually the cowl's rear edge).

98.  As noted earlier, this preamble occasionally refers to these two test areas together as the “Child and Adult Headform Test Areas” or “the combined Child and Adult Headform Test Areas.”

99.  Ivarsson BJ, Crandall JR et al (2007), Pedestrian head impact- what determines the likelihood and wrap around distance? Paper No. 07-0373, 20th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV) in Lyon, France, June 18-21, 2007.

100.  The crash scenario represented by the test is a non-braking, 40 km/h impact. The suspension is set up for normal ride attitude, not braking.

101.  As explained previously, the standard would provide for HIC Unlimited Areas as a practicability measure to accommodate a manufacturing need to reinforce and stiffen the hood edges.

102.  As explained later in this section, this is either the 82.5 mm offset line or the WAD1000 line, whichever is more rearward.

103.  As explained later in this section, this is either the 82.5 mm offset line or the WAD2100 line, whichever is more forward.

104.  Note that the front border of the Child Headform Test Area is the most forward border of the combined test area.

105.  2021 Wards Automotive.

106.  Monitors means the results could be called out but are not part of the Euro NCAP scoring. See, Technical Bulletin 019—Headform to Bonnet Leading Edge. https://www.euroncap.com/​en/​for-engineers/​supporting-information/​technical-bulletins/​ . This bulletin explains that the result of this test will be monitored against a HIC value of 650. Where a “poor” test result has been achieved, Euro NCAP may choose to comment on this alongside the normal pedestrian protection score. The results of these tests will not be reflected in the pedestrian protection score or any other part of the overall assessment.

107.  GTR data indicate that 6-year-old child head impacts start at about WAD1000.

108.  Details of these tests can be found in: Suntay B and Stammen, JA (August 2018), Vehicle hood testing to estimate pedestrian headform reproducibility, GTR 9 test procedural issues, and U.S. fleet performance. Docket NHTSA-2008-0145-0014.

109.  The Child Headform is launched at 50 degrees down from the horizontal and would impact a vertical surface at 50 degrees from a purely perpendicular impact.

110.  Fryar CD, Kruszon-Moran D, Gu Q, Ogden CL. Mean body weight, height, waist circumference, and body mass index among adults: United States, 1999-2000 through 2015-2016. National Health Statistics Reports; no 122. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2018.

111.  Ivarsson J, et al. “Pedestrian Head Impact—What Determines the Likelihood and Wrap Around Distance?”, 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (2007); paper no. 07-0373.

112.  Kiuchi T, et al. “Comparative Study of VRU Head Impact Locations,” Sixth Expert Symposium on Accident Research (ESAR). Hanover, Germany (2014).

113.  Otte, D. “Wrap Around Distance WAD of Pedestrian and Bicyclists and Relevance as Influence Parameter for Head Injuries,” SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1461, 2015.

114.  Based on 2007-2010 NHANES from https://tools.openlab.psu.edu/​tools/​explorer.php .

115.  Fredriksson R (2011), Priorities and potential of pedestrian protection—accident data, experimental tests, and numerical simulations of car-to-car pedestrian impacts. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, 2011.

116.  Kerrigan J, Arregui C, Crandall JC (2009), Pedestrian head impact dynamics: comparison of dummy and PMHS in small sedan and large SUV impacts, Paper No. 09-0127, 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV)—International Congress Center Stuttgart, Germany, June 15-18, 2009.

117.  ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2021/28.

118.  Euro NCAP Vulnerable Road User Testing Protocol https://cdn.euroncap.com/​media/​70319/​euro-ncap-vru-testing-protocol-v901.pdf .

119.  NHTSA recognizes that moving the WAD line rearward to account for head impacts rearward of WAD2100 could bear on other aspects of the test procedure, such as the velocity of the headform impact in the test, because actual pedestrian head impact velocities are generally higher at WADs greater than 2100 mm. This means that, if the WAD line were moved rearward of WAD2100, the agency would carefully consider whether adjustments would be appropriate to the test procedure to ensure the continued relevance of the procedure relative to a real-world impact at WADs greater than 2100 mm.

120.  If the numerical value of two thirds of the Hood Area exceeds the combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area, the entire combined Child and Adult Headform Test Area must be HIC1000 Area.

121.  As discussed in section VIII.B below, there are pending proposed GTR 9 amendments that would substantially reduce the amount of required HIC1000 area.

122.  In drafting this NPRM, NHTSA decided it would not matter substantively if manufacturers had to identify the HIC1000 or the HIC1700 portions, but identifying the HIC1700 portions seems more straightforward since that area would be smaller than the HIC1000 areas.

123.  When marking off the vehicle as described in this NPRM, only the HIC1700 areas are derived from information supplied by the manufacturer. All other borders will be drawn up on each individual vehicle in accordance with the standard's regulatory text and NHTSA's compliance test procedure (TP); they need not be determined based on manufacturer information.

124.  If no HIC1700 area is provided by the manufacturer, the child or adult test areas would be tested as HIC1000 area.

125.  We recognize the potential that dents caused by headform impacts on one part of the hood may affect the performance of the hood in subsequent tests, depending on location of the impacts. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) will issue a test procedure guidance document that would describe the agency's protocol for conducting a compliance test. The test procedure would explain NHTSA's protocol for changing out hoods between impactor tests.

126.  With Contracting Parties like Japan and the E.U., situations like this are worked out between the manufacturer and the type approval authority. In contrast, the Safety Act provides for a self-certification framework—so NHTSA does not approve vehicles before sale—and requires the FMVSS to be objective. This means that the FMVSS must be capable of producing identical results when tests are conducted in identical conditions and compliance must be based on scientific measurements, not on opinions that could vary from individual to individual and be subjective.

127.  Reference 1—NHTSA “VRTC Pedestrian Research Activities” GTR No. 9 Informal Working Group Document #WP29-144-03 (2006); Reference 2—Mallory A, et al. “Pedestrian GTR Testing of Current Vehicles” ESV (2007); Reference 3—Suntay B, et al. “Vehicle Hood Testing to Evaluate Pedestrian Headform Reproducibility, GTR No. 9 Test Procedural Issues, and U.S. Fleet Performance,” NHTSA Docket NHTSA-2008-0145-0014 (2018); Reference 4—Suntay B, et al. “Pedestrian Protection: U.S. Vehicle Fleet Assessment,” DOT HS 812 723 (2019); Reference 5—Suntay B, et al. “Assessment of Hood Designs for Pedestrian Head Protection: Active Hood Systems,” DOT HS 812 762 (2020); Reference 6—Suntay B, et al. “Vehicle Assessment using Integrated Crash Avoidance and Crashworthiness Pedestrian Safety Test Procedures.” DOT HS 813 521.

128.  As explained earlier in this preamble, the “HIC Unlimited Margin” is the inner boundary of the HIC Unlimited Area.

129.  The only vehicle tested by NHTSA where this occurred was on the 2004 GM Savana. For this vehicle the numerical value of the two thirds of the Hood Area was essentially the same as the Test Area.

130.  OICA was actively involved in the working group meetings developing GTR 9. OICA's website states that its members represent the global auto industry. It is known as the “Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d'Automobiles (OICA).” www.oica.net .

131.  Proposal of Amendments to GTR 9 (Pedestrian safety), WP.29 Informal document GRSP-49-09, 49th GRSP Meeting, 16-20 May 2011. https://unece.org/​DAM/​trans/​doc/​2011/​wp29grsp/​GRSP-49-09e.pdf .

132.  ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/148, https://unece.org/​DAM/​trans/​doc/​2011/​wp29/​ECE-TRANS-WP29-2011-148e.pdf .

133.  ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, https://unece.org/​DAM/​trans/​doc/​2014/​wp29grsp/​ECE-TRANS-WP29-GRSP-2014-05e.pdf .

134.  TWSG-01-04—ECE-TRANS-WP29-2021-053e, https://unece.org/​sites/​default/​files/​2021-02/​ECE-TRANS-WP29-2021-053e.pdf .

135.  In advance of the publication of this NPRM, NHTSA received a letter from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Innovators) restating support of the interpretation of the GTR 9 that aligns with the proposed GTR amendment. (The letter can be found in the docket for this NPRM.) Additionally, in December 2022, NHTSA and the Innovators met at the latter's request to discuss the same topic. An ex parte memo documenting this meeting can also be found in the docket.

136.  Manufacturers must certify compliance with any first point of contact to the require HIC limit for that location, irrespective of the launch position(s) of the of the headform.

137.  Details of these tests can be found in: Suntay B and Stammen, JA (2014), Vehicle hood testing to estimate pedestrian headform reproducibility, GTR No. 9 test procedural issues, and U.S. fleet performance

138.  Koetje B and Grabowski J. A Methodology for the Geometric Standardization of Vehicle Hoods to Compare Real-World Pedestrian Crash; Annuals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. 2008; 52: 193-198.

139.  An analysis of the potential costs and benefits of pedestrian head-to-hood impact protection, NHTSA Office of Regulatory Analysis, NHTSA Docket 91-43, Notice 1, document No. 3, January 1990. A copy of this document is in the docket for this NPRM.

140.  Mizuno, Y, Summary of IHRA Pedestrian Safety WG Activities (2005)—Proposed Test Methods to Evaluate Pedestrian Protection Afforded by Passenger Cars. ESV 05-0138.

141.  Schneider, L.W., Robbins, D.H., Pflüg, M.A., and Snyder, R.G. (1983). Anthropometry of Motor Vehicle Occupants: Development of anthropometrically based design specifications for an advanced adult anthropomorphic dummy family, Volume 1. Final report DOT-HS-806-715. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC.

142.  Based on 2007-2010 NHANES from http://tools.openlab.psu.edu/​tools/​explorer.php . Head mass is assumed to be proportional to the volume of a sphere with a circumference equal to the measured head circumference.

143.  Irwin A and Mertz HJ (1997), Biomechanical basis for the CRABI and Hybrid III child dummies, 41st Stapp Car Crash Conference, 1997.

144.  Humanetics Corp., Farmington Hills MI, formally FTSS, and Cellbond, Huntingdon, United Kingdom.

145.  “Qualification limits” set parameters to ensure test devices are functioning properly. Test devices ( e.g., headforms) are subjected to a prescribed test protocol and are deemed acceptable if they provide measurements within the qualification limit. If the qualification limits are not met, the agency will adjust the device (headform) until the qualification limits are met or discard the device (headform), deeming it insufficiently reliable for use in a compliance test. A “narrowing” of the qualification limit means that less variation in the performance of the test devices at issue would be acceptable to NHTSA compared to a qualification limit that had a wider tolerance as to acceptable performance.

146.  Suntay B and Stammen, JA (August 2018), Vehicle hood testing to estimate pedestrian headform reproducibility, GTR 9 test procedural issues, and U.S. fleet performance. Docket NHTSA-2008-0145-0014.

147.  Table IX.1 contains headform data from two manufacturers, while table IX.2 contains headform data from three manufacturers.

148.  We do not believe the 2010 Acura MDX was designed in accordance with GTR 9 requirements. The 2010 Acura MDX was produced in Canada, and to our knowledge, was not sold in Europe.

149.  This conclusion is based only on tests on the Kia and Buick since variability was observed in the way the hood of the Acura MDX deformed.

150.  In general, damped accelerometers are used when shock pulses of extremely short durations occur in a test environment that would otherwise induce resonance in the sensor.

151.  The windshield is no longer included within the test area prescribed by the GTR.

152.  Informal document no. GR/PS/96, Problem of undamped accelerometer in headform impact test. 7th meeting of the pedestrian safety informal working group, Paris, France, September 28, 2004.

153.  Informal document no. GR/PS/133, Miniature Damped Accelerometer Series, 8th meeting of the pedestrian safety informal working group, Brussels, July 11, 2005.

154.  Also, pedestrian headforms, with their synthetic coverings, when used on the hood do not engage in metal-to-metal contact, nor do the hollowed aluminum hemispheres incur internal mechanical fractures.

155.  This NPRM proposes to amend 49 CFR 571.5 to add SAE J211 (2022) to the list of material incorporated by reference in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

156.  In our examination of hood impact tests, we considered tests run only on the Buick and Kia because we observed variability in the way the hood of the Acura MDX deformed.

157.  GTR 9 does not directly address active hoods except to note that active hoods and other active safety devices “must not create a higher risk of injuries for the pedestrians,” (United Nations (18 November 2004). Global technical regulation No. 9: Pedestrian Safety [Addendum to GTR] Geneva, Switzerland. Page 28, section A.8.b.122, and that “[a]ll devices designed to protect vulnerable road users when impacted by the vehicle shall be correctly activated before and/or be active during the relevant test. It shall be the responsibility of the manufacturer to show that any devices will act as intended in a pedestrian impact.” Id., page 50, section B.6.2.2.

158.  This provision is similar to that in FMVSS No. 226, “Ejection mitigation,” regarding the sensor system and pertinent inputs to the algorithm used to determine when a side curtain will deploy in a real world rollover.

159.  Ames E., Martin P. “Pop-up Hood Pedestrian Protection,” 24th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, paper 15-0111 (2015).

160.  Suntay B, Stammen J. “Assessment of Hood Designs for Pedestrian Head Protection: Active Hood Systems,” DOT HS 812 762 (2020).

161.  Suntay B, et al. “Vehicle Assessment using Integrated Crash Avoidance and Crashworthiness Pedestrian Safety Test Procedures” DOT HS 813 521.

162.  A HIC1350 limit is used in Euro NCAP in tests of this condition. We request comments on the merits of the HIC1350 threshold.

163.  NHTSA has requested comment in this NPRM on extending the testable area to the windshield. The NCAP RFC and Euro NCAP procedures test the windshield and the wiper and washing system area.

164.  The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 49 U.S.C. 325 , provided for promulgation of bumper standards to reduce the economic loss resulting from damage to passenger motor vehicles involved in motor vehicle crashes.

165.  Multistage manufacturers and alterers would be allowed an additional year of lead time, in accordance with 49 CFR 571.8(b) .

166.  This NPRM uses different terminology than the GTR, but the specifications for determining test borders and performance levels is consistent with GTR 9.

167.  The PRIA is available in the docket for this NPRM and may be obtained by downloading it or by contacting Docket Management at the address or telephone number provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

168.  See NAICS codes 336110 (Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing), 336120 (Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing), and 336211 (Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing) https://www.sba.gov/​sites/​sbagov/​files/​2023-06/​Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_​Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023%20%282%29.pdf .

169.  See NAICS code 336211 (Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing) https://www.sba.gov/​sites/​sbagov/​files/​2023-06/​Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_​Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023%20%282%29.pdf .

170.   Classified in NAICS under Subsector 336—Transportation Equipment Manufacturing for Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (336110) and Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing (336120). Available at: https://www.sba.gov/​document/​support--table-size-standards .

171.  Provided to illustrate the current population of small vehicle manufacturers.

172.  At least seven of the 12 small entities identified also sold vehicles in the EU. For those who may not sell vehicles in the EU, the average vehicle sales prices was approximately $587,000 and would likely require a special order for purchase.

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

174.  Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2023 (usinflationcalculator.com)

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

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

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Legal Status
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

• Stack Overflow for Teams Where developers & technologists share private knowledge with coworkers
• Advertising & Talent Reach devs & technologists worldwide about your product, service or employer brand
• OverflowAI GenAI features for Teams
• OverflowAPI Train & fine-tune LLMs
• Labs The future of collective knowledge sharing
• About the company Visit the blog

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Find centralized, trusted content and collaborate around the technologies you use most.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Get early access and see previews of new features.

Angular error- "The left-hand side of an assignment expression may not be an optional property access.ts"?

In my Angular typescript file I have following code. I need help to solve this typescript error

I am getting the following error

I have created custom pipe where if I get loop through text and search for a word, if word is present in given text I add highlighted class to it so that, I can hilight that word with pink color

• runtime-error

3 Answers 3

Just remove the question mark in

for the error.

It should be

Because that ? making document.querySelector('.highlighted') as optional and in the right we are assigning value to that.

But it will set the pink color in the first item that has the class 'highlighted'. So you need to loop through the elements or add a pink-color class to it. And set the background color of that class item to pink

Try the below code for changing all elements with the class highlighted.

Ckeck this https://stackblitz.com/edit/angular-services-example-ygmmaq?file=src/app/app.component.html

• 3 On removing ? from document.querySelector<HTMLElement>('.highlighted').style.backgroundColor = 'white' ` it says Object is possibly 'null'.ts(2531) –  Paritosh M Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 18:40
• Try the last piece of code. That will work. It has the check, like whether it exists or not. –  Jobelle Commented Feb 5, 2021 at 4:06
• I tried above code at forEach((item:HTMLElement) it says Argument of type '(item: HTMLElement) => void' is not assignable to parameter of type '(value: Element, key: number, parent: NodeListOf<Element>) => void'. Types of parameters 'item' and 'value' are incompatible. Type 'Element' is missing the following properties from type 'HTMLElement': accessKey, accessKeyLabel, autocapitalize, dir, and 107 more. –  Paritosh M Commented Feb 6, 2021 at 0:50
• @ParitoshM I have updated the answer with stackblits link. Please check that :) –  Jobelle Commented Feb 10, 2021 at 3:42
• @ParitoshM store the result of the querySelector in a variable first. –  Henridv Commented Nov 15, 2021 at 21:05

This may help others for late reply.

The casting was not set right on the document object

Refer to this link for more info Typescript 3.7@beta Optional Chaining operator using problem

• I am confused can you take whole ngAfterViewInit() code and then add your code? –  Paritosh M Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 3:45
• @ParitoshM removing the lifecycle hook doesn't change the static type checking error. –  Richie50 Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 3:51
• Okay but what should I do in place where I have just this single line defined in other function? document.querySelector<HTMLElement>('.highlighted')?.style.backgroundColor = 'white'; –  Paritosh M Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 3:57
• I changed the answer. You have to assign the querySelector to a variable. –  Richie50 Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 3:59
• If I write as above <HTMLElement>document.querySelector('.highlighted')?.style.backgroundColor = 'white'; ` it says Property 'style' does not exist on type 'Element'.ts(2339) –  Paritosh M Commented Feb 3, 2021 at 4:00

Your Answer

Reminder: Answers generated by artificial intelligence tools are not allowed on Stack Overflow. Learn more

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged angular typescript runtime-error or ask your own question .

• The Overflow Blog
• Looking under the hood at the tech stack that powers multimodal AI
• Featured on Meta
• User activation: Learnings and opportunities
• Preventing unauthorized automated access to the network
• What does a new user need in a homepage experience on Stack Overflow?
• Announcing the new Staging Ground Reviewer Stats Widget

Hot Network Questions

• How to translate the letter Q to Japanese?
• How am I supposed to solder this tiny component with pads UNDER it?
• Has the UN ever made peace between two warring parties?
• Count squares in my pi approximation
• Play the Final Fantasy Prelude
• If directly exposed to the vacuum of space, what would be the effects on a womans reproductive system?
• Trinitarian Christianity says Jesus was fully God and Fully man. Did Jesus (the man) know this to be the case?
• Why are no metals green or blue?
• How to use the command line option menu dialog box?
• Emergency belt repair
• A continuous analogue of the notion of Hilbert basis
• How to react to a rejection based on a single one-line negative review?
• Does General Relativity predict Mercury's orbital precession without other planets?
• Model looks dented but geometry is correct
• Big bang and the horizon problem
• How much would you trust a pre-sales inspection from a "captured" mechanic?
• Is it possible to make sand from bones ? Would it have the same properties as regular sand?
• How to interpret odds ratio for variables that range from 0 to 1
• Why does constexpr prevent auto type deduction in this statement?
• What early 60s puppet show similar to fireball XL5 used the phrase "Meson Power?"
• How can I add cache information to InboundPathProcessor?
• Rav Moshe Feinstein's advice on doing teshuvah
• How can I prove that this expression defines the area of the quadrilateral?
• Does it ever make sense to have a one-to-one obligatory relationship in a relational database?