[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 24, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33508-33513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13051]



[[Page 33508]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 00-7381]
RIN 2127-AH66


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection; 
Grant in Part, Denial in Part of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Grant in part, denial in part of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for rulemaking from the 
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, the Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety, and the American Automobile Manufacturers 
Association. Petitioners asked us first to determine that dynamic side 
impact provisions of a European regulation (consisting of performance 
requirements, crash test barrier, test barrier face, and test 
procedures) are at least ``functionally equivalent'' to those in the 
U.S. side impact standard. Based on the assumption that that 
determination will be made, the petitioners then asked that we add the 
dynamic provisions of the European regulation to the U.S. standard as a 
compliance alternative in the short run. Based on their belief that the 
European dynamic provisions are superior to those in the U.S. standard 
in some respects, they want us to replace the current dynamic 
provisions of the U.S. standard with those of the European regulation 
(slightly modified) in the long run.
    This document grants the portion of the petition requesting that we 
open a rulemaking proceeding to consider replacing the side impact test 
dummy currently specified in the U.S. standard with an improved version 
of the dummy specified in the European regulation. We are denying the 
remainder of the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Dr. William Fan, 
Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle Division 
(telephone 202-366-4922). For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Esq., 
Office of Chief Counsel (202-366-2992). Both of these officials can be 
reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    NHTSA estimates that about 4,500 fatalities occur annually to 
occupants of motor vehicles resulting from contact between the side 
interior of the vehicle and the abdomen, chest, pelvis and upper 
extremities. To address the problems of side impact deaths and 
injuries, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, 
``Side Impact Protection'' (49 CFR 571.214). The standard specifies 
both quasi-static performance requirements, as well as dynamic 
performance requirements, for protection of occupants in side impact 
crashes. Under the dynamic requirements, a vehicle must provide 
protection to occupants' thoracic and pelvic regions, as measured by 
the accelerations registered on an instrumented side impact dummy in a 
full-scale crash test. In the test, the vehicle (known as the 
``target'' vehicle) is struck in the side by a moving deformable 
barrier (MDB) simulating another vehicle.
    The European Union also has a side impact safety regulation, EU 
Directive 96/27/EC \1\ (hereinafter EU 96/27/EC), that has a dynamic 
test requirement. Similar to the U.S. standard, EU 96/27/EC 
incorporates an anthropomorphic test dummy, called EuroSID-1 (a second-
generation test dummy derived from its predecessor, ``EuroSID''). Crash 
test forces experienced by the dummy must not exceed specified limits 
when the target vehicle is struck by a moving deformable barrier 
simulating a striking vehicle. Limits are specified for head injury 
criterion, rib deflection criterion, viscous criterion, abdominal 
force, and pubic symphysis force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This directive is identical to Economic Commission for 
Europe Regulation (ECE) 95/01. The directive was approved by the EU 
in October 1996. It applies to new or redesigned models of passenger 
vehicles introduced after October 1, 1998, and will apply to all 
vehicles manufactured after October 1, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petition

    In December 1997, the Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers (AIAM), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS), and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) 
\2\ petitioned us to ``harmonize'' Standard 214 with EU 96/27/EC. 
Petitioners asked us to take several actions. First, they asked us to 
determine that dynamic side impact provisions of a European regulation 
(consisting of performance requirements, crash test barrier, test 
barrier face, and test procedures) are at least ``functionally 
equivalent'' to those in the U.S. side impact standard. Second, based 
on the assumption that that determination will be made, the petitioners 
asked that we add the dynamic provisions of the European regulation to 
the U.S. standard as a compliance alternative in the short run. Third, 
based on their belief that the European dynamic provisions are superior 
to those in the U.S. standard in some respects, they asked us to 
replace the current dynamic provisions of the U.S. standard with those 
of the European regulation in the long run.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This association has since ceased to exist.
    \3\ Specifically, the petitioners requested that we issue a 
final rule-- (a) Immediately giving manufacturers the option of 
meeting Standard 214 by certifying to either: (1) The existing 
dynamic requirements, assessment criteria and test procedures of 
Standard 214; or (2) Those of European Directive 96/27/EC or the 
United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation 95/
01, as modified; and (b) Requiring, beginning at the end of the 
first 7 full model years after the final rule, compliance with a 
modified version of European regulation.
    That version, referred to by the petitioners as the ``modified 
European regulation,'' would differ from the existing European 
regulation in two respects. First, it would specify the use of an 
upgraded version of EuroSID-1. Second, it would provide placing a 
dummy in the front and rear outboard seating positions, as specified 
in the test procedures of the U.S. standard. The existing European 
regulation specifies that a test dummy is positioned in only the 
front outboard seating position on the struck side of the test 
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supporting Argument, Data and Analysis

    The petitioners conceded that when NHTSA adopted its side impact 
dummy (SID) in 1990, SID and TTI(d) \4\ were more fully developed than 
other dummies and injury assessment criteria. They recited the reasons 
given by NHTSA then, and over the next several years, for not adopting 
EuroSID or even allowing it as an alternative dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ TTI(d), which stands for thoracic trauma index, is a measure 
of side impact injury. TTI(d) correlates measurements on the test 
dummy with thoracic injury severity observed in cadaver testing 
conducted for the agency. TTI(d) is essentially a statistical 
estimate of probability of various injury severity levels derived 
from data on age, body weight, and peak accelerations measured at 
specific locations on the test dummy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its 1990 final rule adopting SID, NHTSA said:

    One of the problems discovered in NHTSA's EuroSID sled tests was 
that the ribs were bottoming out, which may have invalidated the V*C 
\5\ measurements being made. This condition was characterized by a 
flat spot on the displacement-time history curve, while the 
acceleration-time history curve showed an increase with time until 
the peak g was reached. Although considerable attempts were made to 
correlate V*C and TTI(d), the deflection data collected continued to 
be questionable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ V*C, viscous criterion, another way of measuring thoracic 
injury, is based on combined rib displacement and velocity. 
[Footnote added.]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(October 30, 1990; 55 FR 45757)


[[Page 33509]]


    In the final rule amending Standard 214 itself, the agency said:

    NHTSA also notes that there are a number of characteristics 
associated with the European test procedure that make it 
inappropriate, at this time, for a U.S. safety standard. The 
European test dummy (EuroSID), while capable of assessing injury 
potential and providing insight into side impact crash occupant 
protection, needs further refinement before it can be used as a 
regulatory tool.
    These ongoing efforts include the development of biofidelity 
response corridors to assure the EuroSID responds in a human-like 
manner, the evaluation of the repeatability and reproducibility of 
the test dummy, and the demonstration of its durability in full-
scale crash tests. The EuroSID is progressing in all of these areas. 
Additionally, the urethane foam face of the European barrier appears 
to break down and bottom out, creating unexpectedly high dummy 
acceleration responses due to the unrealistic crash conditions it 
imposes. * * *

(October 30, 1990; 55 FR 45722, at 45740)

    These problems led NHTSA to conclude in the dummy final rule that 
the best dummy available for incorporation into Standard 214 was the 
U.S. side impact dummy (SID), which had been developed between 1979 and 
1982:

    NHTSA recognizes that BioSID and EuroSID have potential 
advantages over SID to the extent that they can measure V*C or other 
compression-based injury criteria in addition to TTI(d). 
Specification of EuroSID as an alternate test device could also 
promote international harmonization.
    However, the agency does not believe that these potential 
advantages should lead to a delay in this rulemaking for further 
consideration of alternate dummies. NHTSA believes that TTI(d) is a 
reliable predictor for thoracic injury and that SID is fully 
developed and validated. Since SID is ready now, and a final rule 
specifying SID can result in significant safety benefits, the agency 
believes it is appropriate to now go to a final rule using the SID.
    Assuming that NHTSA's review of the BioSID is satisfactory, the 
agency intends to propose the use of the BioSID as an alternate test 
device. Europe is continuing to work on the EuroSID. If the agency 
obtains data showing that EuroSID compares satisfactorily with SID, 
it may also propose that dummy as an alternate test device.

(October 30, 1990; 55 FR 45757)

    The petitioners argued that much has changed since the early 1990s. 
EuroSID has evolved since 1993. There is now a EuroSID-1 which 
incorporates enhancements to improve the biofidelity of the dummy and 
to make assembly, disassembly and certification of the dummy easier. 
They noted that various governments and regional and international 
standards organizations have concluded since then that SID/TTI(d) are 
no longer the best dummy/injury assessment criterion to help reduce the 
risk of injury to vehicle occupants in side impacts. Instead, those 
governments and organizations have adopted a side impact regulation 
that incorporates EuroSID-1 and its deflection-based injury criteria, 
chest compression and V*C. It is that side impact regulation that 
petitioners asked NHTSA to adopt.
    Petitioners believe that their argument that EuroSID-1, its 
associated injury criteria, and 96/27/EC's test procedure are suitable 
as alternatives to the current requirements of Standard 214 is 
supported by data from biomechanical and other research programs. 
First, they cited unspecified technical data from NHTSA's continuing 
biomechanical research. Second, they cited AAMA's comparisons of 
EuroSID-1 and SID performance. The petitioners believe that EuroSID-1 
and its deflection-based injury criteria correlate better than SID with 
cadaver data. More specifically, they stated that research studies 
sponsored by AAMA have shown that, while cadavers were sensitive to 
both padding stiffness and padding type and that softer padding would 
help further reduce the risk of injury,\6\ TTI(d) (the injury criterion 
used by SID) did not show the benefits of softer over stiffer 
padding.\7\ In contrast, the study found that chest compression and V*C 
(the injury criteria used by EuroSID) were good predictors of thoracic 
injury. Id. Petitioners also referred to a report comparing the 
responses of cadavers to that of EuroSID in full-scale side impact 
crash tests. Petitioners stated that the authors of the report 
concluded that EuroSID showed a good correlation between several dummy 
protection criteria and cadaver injury severity. (The petition did not 
provide information comparing SID with cadaver responses in full scale 
tests.) Petitioners further stated: ``From all of this we conclude, 
EuroSID-1 and its deflection-based injury criteria correlate better 
[than SID] with the cadaver data.'' They also cited several AAMA-
sponsored studies of side impact dummy performance in full vehicle 
impact tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Cavanaugh, et al., ``SID Response Data in a Side Impact Sled 
Test Series,'' Society of Automotive Engineers 920350.
    \7\ Cavanaugh, et al., ``Injury Response of the Thorax in Side 
Impact Cadaveric Tests.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the petitioners cited several comparative assessments of SID 
and EuroSID-1, and one comparative assessment of EU 96/27/EC and 
Standard 214. First, they cited the Monash University report (Side 
Impact Regulations Benefits) prepared for the Federal Office of Road 
Safety of the Government of Australia. That report ``documents the 
study that determined both * * * [ECE] Regulation 95 and FMVSS No. 214 
would lead to vehicles designs that, though different in approach, are 
essentially equivalent in performance, i.e., functionally equivalent.''
    Second, the petitioners cited comparisons by the International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO), a worldwide voluntary 
federation of ISO member bodies. The petitioners said that EuroSID-1 is 
acceptable to ISO because of its biofidelity and repeatability, while 
SID is not because it is insufficiently biofidelic. The petitioners 
based these statements on resolutions adopted by the ISO Working Group 
on Anthropomorphic Test Devices in 1990 and on ISO's adoption of a side 
impact test procedure incorporating EuroSID as an international 
standard in 1997. The petitioners said that the ISO test is patterned 
after EU 96/27/EC.
    The petitioners then referred to comparisons by Transport Canada to 
support their view that EuroSID-1 and its associated injury criteria 
are superior to SID and its criteria because they can measure more or 
more complete injury-causing force mechanisms than SID and its 
criteria. They said that Transport Canada has expressed dissatisfaction 
with SID and has stated that there is a need for a dummy that is 
capable of supporting deflection and force criteria and that can 
measure abdominal loading. Petitioners stated:

    In 1991, Transport Canada concluded that the SID, with its arm 
down position, ``has the potential of masking the effects of changes 
in the loading introduced through design countermeasures.'' They 
went on to conclude, based on their testing, that ``Similar TTI 
values can be produced by completely different loadings * * *. [Test 
data showed] a relatively high TTI value with almost no deformation 
of the chest (i.e., principally as a result of rigid-body 
accelerations).'' \8\

    \8\ Dalmotas, et al., ``Side Impact Occupant Protection 
Technologies,'' SAE SP-851, February 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to petitioners, Transport Canada has also indicated that:

    Side interior designs or changes which provide low TTI values 
are not necessarily consistent with those required to minimize 
injury potential to the abdomen * * * [T]he absence of any 
performance criterion addressing abdominal injury clearly represents 
a major deficiency in the current requirements of Standard 214. The 
problem could be remedied by replacing the US SID

[[Page 33510]]

with * * * Eurosid 1 * * *. Given current biomechanical knowledge, 
to base regulations on a dummy capable only of supporting 
acceleration-based measurements serves only as a disincentive to 
manufacturers to seek out more effective means of reducing injury 
within the constraints imposed by the regulation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Dalmotas, et al., ``Side Impact Occupant Protection 
Technologies,'' SAE SP-851, February 1991.

    In addition, petitioners stated that Transport Canada has also 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
stated in a report that:

    [I]n its tests, ``vehicle models * * * showed exceptionally low 
TTI values when tested with the US SID but exceptionally high 
abdominal deflection, V*C, and force values when tested with either 
the Eurosid or BIOSID under identical test conditions. The need for 
a regulatory dummy capable of supporting deflection and force 
criteria will become all the more important in the near future as 
competitive pressures are likely to force vehicle manufacturers to 
accelerate the development and fitment of side air bag systems.'' 
\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Dalmotas, et al., ``Side Impact Opportunities,'' Fifteenth 
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 
Vehicles, May 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioners argued that their petition provides ``a means to 
not only harmonize safety standards and take a step toward a single 
harmonized side impact test procedure and test dummy, but to further 
improve safety for the American public.'' Petitioners said that NHTSA 
itself has cited the side impact standards and regulations as a prime 
example of the need to harmonize, especially given their different test 
dummies and injury criteria. They further stated:

    The agency has correctly stated that people in Europe are 
exposed to the same causes of injury in side crashes as are vehicle 
occupants in the U.S. People all over the world are essentially the 
same and there is no compelling reason to measure their potential 
for injury using different test dummies and different injury 
criteria.

    The petitioners noted that the dummy, injury criteria, and test 
procedures of the EU side impact directive were adopted by the ECE 
prior to their adoption by the EU and have since been accepted or 
announced for future acceptance in Japan, Australia and the Gulf 
Cooperation Council. In addition, the Russian Federation and Israel are 
said to ``have acted to adopt ECE Regulation 95.''
    The petitioners acknowledged that the European dummy needs to be 
improved and that improvements are being planned for the dummy, and in 
fact base their petition on the making of those improvements. 
Petitioners stated that TNO, the supplier of EuroSID-1, is working on 
an ``upgrade package'' that includes possible improvements to the 
dummy's rib modules, back plate, pelvis, proximal femur, shoulder and 
abdominal instrumentation. Improvements may also be made to the 
procedure for calibrating the abdomen, neck and lumbar spine. The 
petitioners concluded by urging NHTSA

* * * to adopt the upgraded Eurosid-1 and to work jointly with the 
Commission of the European Union for adoption of an upgrade package 
in both the EU Directive and the ECE Regulation.

Similarities and Differences Between the U.S. Standard and the ECE 
Regulation

a. Test procedure
    Standard 214's dynamic test is designed to simulate what would 
happen in the real world if a vehicle were traveling 48 kilometers per 
hour (km/h) (30 miles per hour, mph) at a 90 degree angle to a second 
vehicle traveling 24.2 km/h (15 mph) and struck that second vehicle in 
the side, i.e., a typical intersection crash involving cross traffic. 
While a test involving two moving vehicles could be used, it is more 
difficult to conduct tests yielding repeatable results when testing in 
that manner.
    The simulation is achieved by ``crabbing'' the front and rear 
wheels of the MDB at an angle of 27 degrees to the right of its 
longitudinal centerline in a left side impact and to the left of that 
centerline in a right side impact. The MDB moves at that angle into the 
side of the target car. The closing speed of the MDB is 54 km/h (33.5 
mph). These aspects of the procedure were selected so that the test 
simulates the typical intersection crash discussed above. The agency 
determined that the 30 mph/15 mph combination is a representative of 
the threshold of serious chest injury. The orientation of 90 degrees 
was selected because it is the one most frequently seen in field data. 
Instrumented side impact dummies are placed in the outboard front and 
rear seating positions on the side of the vehicle which is being 
struck.
    Under EU 96/27/EC's test procedure, the wheels of the barrier are 
aligned straight ahead, not crabbed to the side. The barrier moves 
straight ahead at a 90 degree angle to the target vehicle at 50 km/h 
(31 mph). EU 96/27/EC specifies only one dummy be used in the 
compliance test. This dummy is placed in the front seat of the struck 
side of the test vehicle.
b. Barrier
    The moving deformable barrier (MDB) used in Standard 214 tests has 
a total mass of 1,367 kg (3,015 lb). The barrier face is aluminum 
honeycomb in design. Its contact face is 559 mm (22 in) high and 1,676 
mm (66 in) wide. The top of the barrier face is 838 mm (33 in) above 
the ground and the bottom edge is 280 mm (11 in) above the ground. The 
protruding portion of the barrier simulates a bumper. The bottom 
surface of the ``bumper'' is 330 mm (13 in) above the ground, and the 
top surface is 533 mm (21 in) above the ground.
    The European barrier has a mass of 950 kg (2,095 lb), compared to 
1,367 kg (3,015 lb) for the U.S. barrier. The face of the European 
moving deformable barrier is smaller than that of the U.S. barrier. The 
European barrier is narrower, 1,500 mm (59 inches), compared to 1,676 
mm (66 inches) for the U.S. barrier. The bottom edge is the most 
forward part of the European barrier and is 300 mm (11.8 in) above the 
ground. In comparison, the bottom edge of the U.S. barrier face is 280 
mm (11.0 in) above the ground and the bottom edge of the U.S. 
``bumper'' is 330 mm (13.0 in) above the ground. The top edge of the 
European ``bumper'' is 550 mm (21.7 in) above the ground, while the top 
edge of the U.S. ``bumper'' is 533 mm (21 in) above the ground. The 
face of the European barrier is divided vertically into thirds with the 
center third representing the area of the engine block. The right 1/3 
of the barrier face and the left 1/3 of the barrier face, simulating 
the fender areas, are softer than the corresponding portions of the 
U.S. barrier face.
c. Injury Criteria
    Standard 214 requires that the dummies must exhibit rib, spine and 
pelvic accelerations below specified thresholds in order for the 
vehicle to pass the test. The rib and spine accelerations are combined 
into a single metric called the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI(d)) which 
has an 85g limit for 4-door vehicles and a 90g limit for 2-door 
vehicles. There also is a pelvic acceleration limit of 130g.
    EU 96/27/EC measures five dummy parameters to determine vehicle 
performance. The head injury criterion (HIC) is derived from head 
accelerations and is computed only if head contact occurs, and must 
remain below 1000. A rib deflection criterion (RDC) of 42 mm (1.7 in.) 
is allowed in the thorax along with a viscous criterion (V*C) of 1 m/s. 
The viscous criterion is calculated from combined rib displacement and 
velocity. The abdominal force is limited to 2.5 kN (562 lb). Finally, 
the pubic symphysis force, which is in the pelvic region, must be less 
than 6 kN (1350 lb).

[[Page 33511]]

Congressional Mandate to Explore Harmonization Possibilities

    On September 16, 1996, in Congressional Conference Report 104-785 
for the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, the conferees directed NHTSA 
to study the differences between the U.S. and then-proposed European 
side impact regulations and to develop a plan for achieving 
harmonization of these regulations. In response to this directive, 
NHTSA submitted a side impact harmonization plan to Congress in April 
1997 (``Report to Congress NHTSA Plan for Achieving Harmonization of 
the U.S. and European Side Impact Standards,'' April 1997, see docket 
NHTSA 1998-3935-1 of the Department's docket management system.)
    In the report, we described how we would follow our functional 
equivalence process in determining whether Standard 214 and the 
modified European regulation are functionally equivalent.\11\ This 
process is used to determine whether the vehicles or equipment 
manufactured under a foreign standard produce more or at least as many 
safety benefits as those produced by the vehicles or equipment 
manufactured under a similar U.S. standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The functional equivalence process was described in a 
November 14, 1996 Federal Register document and later incorporated 
as Appendix B to our rulemaking procedures (49 CFR Part 553) by a 
May 13, 1998 final rule (63 FR 26508).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first step in the process is to obtain and assess any available 
industry and government research data comparing the two regulations, 
especially full-scale vehicle compliance tests. We stated in the report 
that in parallel with this assessment of outside data, the agency would 
carry out an initial phase of testing to the EU regulation.\12\ The 
vehicles tested would be identical to vehicles which successfully 
completed U.S. compliance testing. We anticipated that completion of 
this initial phase of testing and data analysis would place NHTSA at a 
major decision point in the functional equivalence process. That is, we 
would have to determine whether there were sufficient data to assess 
the functional equivalency of the two standards, or if not, whether 
additional research could be conducted to generate data. We recognized 
that any non-trivial problems with the test procedure or dummy must be 
identified as part of the determination of the acceptability of the EU 
regulation as an alternative or replacement for the U.S. regulation. We 
further stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This series of tests was only one part of a general matrix 
that we had prepared to assess the comparative performance of 
vehicles relative to the two regulations. The general matrix was to 
include testing of European production vehicles to determine how 
well such vehicles perform relative to Standard 214. The matrix also 
was to include testing of vehicles designed for both U.S. and 
European markets to the requirements of both regulations. Vehicles 
equipped with side air bag systems was also part of this matrix as 
they are becoming prevalent in both the U.S. and European fleet.


    If the EU regulation is found to be an acceptable alternative or 
replacement, rulemaking in the U.S. could be initiated and the 
functional equivalence/harmonization process would be complete. 
However, it may be that there is not sufficient information for this 
determination or that functional equivalence is clearly not 
possible. If it is only a matter of conducting additional vehicle 
tests and analyses, NHTSA would continue such an effort and iterate 
through the Functional Equivalence Process steps. However, if other 
problems are apparent in performing the EU tests * * * or if each 
standard indicates unrelated safety performance for the same 
vehicle, the harmonization plan will need to proceed in a different 
direction * * *. The next steps in this different direction would be 
to determine what additional information is needed to accept or 
exclude functional equivalence and any other potential harmonization 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
solutions.

(Emphases added.)

Agency Test Results

    As a first step in assessing the functional equivalence of the two 
regulations, we tested vehicles that were certified to Standard 214 
using the procedures and criteria of EU 96/27/EC (as modified, with a 
test dummy placed in the rear outboard seating position in addition to 
the front outboard position). The following eight vehicles were tested: 
a MY 1997 Lexus SC300, 1997 Ford Mustang, 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse, 1995 
Geo Metro, 1996 Ford Taurus (the EU test was performed by Ford Motor 
Company), 1995 Volvo 850 SW, 1997 Hyundai Sonata, and a 1997 Nissan 
Sentra. The vehicles provided a range of marginal to good performers 
relative to Standard 214 and represented a wide range of manufacturers. 
The results indicated that the ranking of the eight vehicles, according 
to their relative performance, was not the same when tested under EU 
96/27/EC and Standard 214. Additionally, a measurement anomaly in the 
European test dummy (EuroSID-1) related to the rib displacement was 
present in most, if not all, tests. This anomaly, along with the 
limited amount of comparative test data, did not allow a positive 
determination of functional equivalence of the two side impact 
regulations. We could not conclude from this set of testing whether 
vehicles designed to meet the EU regulation will meet the U.S. 
regulation. (Results of the vehicle testing were discussed in NHTSA's 
report to Congress on the agency's progress in assessing the functional 
equivalence of the two regulations. ``Status of NHTSA Plan for Side 
Impact Regulation Harmonization and Upgrade, Report to Congress, March 
1999.'' See docket NHTSA-98-3935-10.)

Discussion and Analysis

Short Run

    Available data and analyses do not support a finding of functional 
equivalence. Petitioners provided no data supporting their request. The 
data generated by our eight vehicle tests are insufficient to enable us 
to determine whether EU 96/27/EC is functionally equivalent to Standard 
214.
    NHTSA believes that there is no point in continuing the test 
program and generating additional data in an effort to assess whether 
the European regulation is functionally equivalent to Standard 214. To 
be adopted as or added to a U.S. standard, a non-U.S. standard must 
meet the statutory criteria of our safety statute, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et 
seq., apart from its functional equivalency to a U.S. standard. Those 
criteria specify that each motor vehicle safety standard must be 
practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in 
objective terms (49 U.S.C. 30111(a)).
    We conclude that the results of the testing, in particular the 
measurement anomalies in the EuroSID-1, do not support a finding that 
EU 96/27/EC is appropriate for addition in the short run as a 
compliance alternative. There are several reasons for this conclusion.
    First, EuroSID-1 is not biofidelic. It has a displacement 
measurement anomaly that is depicted as plateaus or ``flat-tops'' on 
the test data plots. The flat-tops were present in the data generated 
by the dummy in the driver position for all the vehicles tested and by 
the dummy in the rear seat of three of the six vehicles.
    A test dummy that is not biofidelic is unsuitable as a compliance 
test device. The less biofidelic a test device is, the less likely its 
results are reasonable and useful as a measure of the protection a 
vehicle provides to a real occupant. A test dummy that is not 
representative of a human could lead to vehicle designs that provide 
little or no benefit to real occupants.
    Second, the agency believes that the EU barrier is less 
representative than the Standard 214 barrier of the side impact crash 
environment in this country. Due to the increased market share of light

[[Page 33512]]

trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles (LTVs), a large portion of the 
current U.S. side impact casualties results from impacts with the LTV 
class of vehicles. The EU moving deformable barrier is lighter and less 
stiff than the barrier used in Standard 214 testing. Side impact 
countermeasures based on the EU barrier may lead to fewer safety 
benefits than those resulting from use of the Standard 214 barrier. 
NHTSA notes further that the specifications for the EU barrier allow 
non-metallic faces that disintegrate in some impacts.
    Further, we are unable to agree with Petitioners that an analysis 
by Monash University for the Government of Australia (``Side Impact 
Regulations Benefits,'' June 1995) \13\ furnishes an adequate basis for 
our making a finding of functional equivalence. The outcome of the 
Monash harm reduction analyses is highly dependent on assumptions. 
Thus, the assumptions must be carefully grounded in real world crash 
data and in crash test data. We believe that the assumptions of the 
Monash analysis were not so grounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Petitioners state: The Monash University analysis utilized 
the concept of ``harm,'' first developed by NHTSA in 1982 and 
subsequently used in several NHTSA reports. Monash considered both 
car-to-car and fixed object impacts. Their analysis was thorough and 
considered ``harm'' to the head, face, thorax, abdomen, pelvis and 
upper and lower limbs. The Australian Government report actually 
showed that the potential benefit of ECE Regulation 95 as estimated 
to be 8 percent higher than that of FMVSS 214. Nevertheless, the 
report advocated acceptance of either standard. This appears to be 
the type of comparative study that the NHTSA concluded was needed 
when it terminated the alternative side impact dummy rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first assumption was that a regulation based on SID and TTI(d) 
would result in a 2 AIS reduction in injury, while EuroSID and V*C 
measures would result in a 3 AIS injury reduction. In other words, if 
the baseline vehicle injury level were an AIS 4, the Monash report 
estimates that the injury level of a vehicle meeting Standard 214 would 
be an AIS 2 and a vehicle meeting EU 96/27/EC would be an AIS 1.
    We do not believe that an effectiveness estimate can be made 
without knowing the current compliance with the injury criteria and how 
much improvement is needed to meet the injury criteria.\14\ There is no 
logic provided that would lead one to conclude that EU 96/27/EC is more 
effective than, or even as effective as, Standard 214. The report does 
not include data or analysis to support the estimates about the 
difference in effectiveness between Standard 214 and the ECE Regulation 
95. It does not discuss current compliance with the injury criteria of 
EU 96/27/EC criteria or how much improvement is needed in the fleet to 
meet the injury criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The report itself recognizes that ``Unlike the US standard, 
there was little or no information available on the likely effects 
of ECE Regulation 95 in reducing injuries'' (p. ix). It further 
states (p. 1) that ``* * * (incidental reports by Wall, 1992, and 
Lowne, 1994 provide some crude estimates of the overall reductions 
in injury likely for ECE95 but were by no means, definitive).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second assumption made by the authors of the report was that an 
overall injury reduction of 1 AIS is expected for SID and 3 AIS for 
EuroSID, assuming an abdominal injury criterion is applied when using 
the latter dummy, because SID cannot measure abdominal loads while 
EuroSID can. The report does not discuss or analyze injury criteria or 
baseline test data, nor explain how use of EuroSID would necessarily 
lead to the greater reduction in AIS injury level.
    The third assumption was that EuroSID will have an additional 
benefit of a 2 AIS injury reduction for head contacts with the side 
rails. We have never seen the head of the dummy in the front seat of a 
vehicle strike the side rail in any of our side impact tests. 
Accordingly, it is unclear why the authors concluded that use of 
EuroSID in the test would lead to improvements of the side rail.

Long run

    The agency has further determined that EU 96/237/EC is unacceptable 
as a replacement of Standard 214. As noted from real world crash data, 
the side impact crash environment in this country is changing. While 
the current moving deformable barrier used in Standard 214's dynamic 
test may be too small and too light to represent the future U.S. fleet, 
the barrier used in EU 96/27/EC is even smaller in size and mass. 
Instead of adopting the smaller ECE barrier, NHTSA plans to consider 
adopting a more representative barrier than the current barrier used in 
Standard 214. The agency's resources would be better utilized upgrading 
Standard 214 to address the changing U.S. side impact crash environment 
than adopting the smaller ECE barrier.
    However, it does not appear that the problems with EuroSID-1 are 
insurmountable. NHTSA tested EuroSID-1 with prototype modification to 
the ribs utilizing ball bearing cylinders in the posterior piston 
cylinders. This modification was developed by Advanced Safety 
Technologies Corporation, a dummy manufacturer in this country, to 
reduce the flat-topping phenomenon. Results to date indicate a 
significant reduction in the flat-tops and a subsequent increase in 
maximum rib displacements. With further development to cure continuing 
biofidelity problems, a newer version of EuroSID-1 might become 
acceptable as a replacement for SID.

Near Term Agency Research

    NHTSA is carrying out the research plan set forth in the March 1999 
Report to Congress. Current activities include evaluating ES-2 (a 
modified EuroSID-1), conducting out-of-position testing with side air 
bags, and conducting an in-depth evaluation of field crash data so that 
the Standard 214 barrier can be upgraded to be more representative of 
current and future striking vehicles.

Agency Decision

    Based on the foregoing, we are denying the portion of the petition 
requesting us to conclude that EU 96/27/EC is functionally equivalent 
to Standard 214 and to add the ECE regulation to Standard 214 as a 
short run compliance alternative. We are also denying the portion of 
the petition requesting us to replace Standard 214 in its entirety with 
the ECE regulation.
    However, we are granting the petition to the extent that it 
requests us to examine replacing SID with an enhanced side impact 
dummy. If the biofidelity problems with EuroSID-1 can be solved, the 
greater measurement capabilities of the dummy would make its adoption 
attractive as a way of upgrading Standard 214. Thus, our first steps 
will be to work with the Europeans to cure the dummy's biofidelity 
problems. Once that is accomplished, we will consider issuing a 
proposal to replace SID with the improved side impact dummy. (Adopting 
a more advanced test dummy means that we will also be considering the 
appropriate injury criteria to adopt with the dummy into our side 
impact protection standard. If we eventually propose to replace SID 
with an improved EuroSID-1, we might propose adopting the injury 
criteria now in EU 96/27/EC as well.) There is a reasonable possibility 
that a test dummy that is technically superior to SID could be 
incorporated into Standard 214 in place of SID.
    This grant of the petition is consistent with other agency side 
impact protection initiatives. It is consistent with our grant of a 
July 1998 rulemaking petition from Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety (Advocates) requesting us to upgrade Standard 214. Advocates 
petitioned us to increase the safety of occupants of passenger cars and 
LTVs in side crashes with larger, heavier and stiffer vehicles. Among 
other suggestions, they suggested using EuroSID-1 instead of SID. 
Today's granting of the petition is also consistent

[[Page 33513]]

with our support of the development of a next-generation side impact 
dummy called WorldSID. That dummy is being developed by industry 
representatives from the U.S., Europe and Japan, and the European and 
Japanese governments. It is anticipated for prototype completion in the 
fall of 2000. WorldSID is expected to be technically superior to all 
other predecessor side impact dummies, including EuroSID-1. We have 
been and continue to be highly interested in the development of 
WorldSID. A future upgrade of Standard 214 could involve the adoption 
of a technically superior dummy such as WorldSID.
    In accordance with 49 CFR Part 552, this completes our review of 
the petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50

    Issued on May 18, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-13051 Filed 5-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P