4.1 Plan Diagram

Figure 6 is a flowchart depicting the specific side impact harmonization plan. The basic requirement of this plan is that any final outcome must maintain or exceed the safety benefits associated with the current U.S. Regulation. The Functional Equivalence Process was applied in the development of this plan. Since EU Directive 96/27/EC addresses the same safety need as FMVSS 214, the first step, as shown in Appendix B, for entry into the functional equivalence process is met. However, it is recognized that the differences in requirements, test conditions, and test procedures between the U.S. regulation and the EU directive are not insignificant and may have safety consequences.

As stated in the Functional Equivalence Process, the preferred means of determining if regulations have the same benefits is real world crash data from vehicles meeting each standard. The U.S. regulation was phased in for passenger cars beginning with MY 1994 and is applicable for all cars for MY 1997. Therefore, some limited real world crash data are available for U.S. compliant vehicles. No real world crash data are available on vehicles which meet the EU directive since these requirements do not become effective until MY 1999. From the Functional Equivalence Process, the next best means of determining the relative safety benefits is compliance test data. For the U.S. regulation, this information is available on approximately 70 passenger cars that have been tested in NHTSA's safety assurance program. Comparable data may not be available for passenger cars that meet the EU directive. The first step of the harmonization plan, as shown in Figure 6, will be to obtain and assess any available industry and government research data comparing the two regulations, especially full scale vehicle compliance tests. Since NHTSA's initial evaluation and comparison of alternative barriers, procedure and dummies, a significant body of research has been created comparing these parameters. For example, the Australian Federal Office of Road Safety compared the U.S. and EU regulations by means of a Harm Reduction method [13]. They estimated that, in Australian dollars, FMVSS 214 would provide a $147 benefit per car as compared to a $159 benefit per car for the EU regulation. Based on this the study recommended that all vehicles sold in Australia meet either regulation.

In parallel with this assessment of outside data, the agency will carry out compliance tests to the EU regulation. The vehicles tested will be identical to vehicles which successfully completed U.S. compliance testing. These tests are underway and targeted for completion in the summer of 1997. Details on this EU regulation testing are presented in Section 4.2.

Completion of this initial phase of testing and data analysis will place NHTSA at a major decision point in the Functional Equivalence Process (i.e., Is there sufficient data to assess the functional equivalency of the two standards, if not could additional research be conducted to generate data?). The assessment for this decision is represented by the first three diamonds in the Figure 6 flowchart. First, any non-trivial problems with the test procedure or dummy must be identified. Next, it will be determined if the EU and U.S. regulations provide the same level of safety performance for the tested set of vehicles. Finally, the acceptability of the EU regulation as an alternative or replacement for the U.S. regulation (with adjustments in injury criteria if required) will be ascertained. The final step is essentially a determination of functional equivalence. 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 (see Section 5 for a summary of issues that could surface during the testing or that may need further assessment) or if each standard indicates unrelated safety performance for the same vehicle, the harmonization plan will need to proceed in a different direction as suggested in the lower portion of Figure 6.

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. A U.S. position on harmonization can then be established in preparation for meetings with European regulatory officials and technical advisory committees. The meetings would ascertain the extent to which the Europeans are willing to consider changes to their regulation and establish a coordinated research agenda. It is possible that after meeting with the Europeans that no path for complete or partial harmonization is open. At this stage, once again, the functional equivalence/harmonization process could be terminated. It may also be the case that through compromise and information provided by the Europeans, harmonization is directly achievable.

Rather than either terminating or achieving harmonization after meeting with our European counterparts, it is likely that further research will be undertaken to fill voids in knowledge. To eliminate duplication in work and to leverage resources, NHTSA will meet with Industry through the Vehicle Aggressivity and Compatibility Working Group (VACWG) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee (MVSRAC). The agency met with the MVSRAC previously to discuss the initial phase of crash testing to the EU regulation.

As the flowchart indicates, the series of steps where NHTSA meets with industry and the Europeans and performs required research are iterative. They will be repeated as necessary to obtain the knowledge required for harmonization or to determine that it is not feasible. At each step an assessment of the necessary time and resources will be made and funding may be sought. Also, public meetings will be held and public comment solicited as appropriate. Throughout the entire harmonization process NHTSA will meet all legal requirements and follow all established procedures. Although not shown in the flowchart, any proposed change to the current regulation must be justified based on an assessment of costs and benefits. See Section 4.4 for further information related to this topic.