33508 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1This 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.

2This association has since ceased to exist.

3Specifically, 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.

4TTI(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.

5 V*C, viscous criterion, another way of

measuring thoracic injury, is based on combined rib

displacement and velocity. [Footnote added.]

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/EC1 (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.

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

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.

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*C5 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.

(October 30, 1990; 55 FR 45757)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33509

6Cavanaugh, et al., ‘‘SID Response Data in a Side

Impact Sled Test Series,’’ Society of Automotive

Engineers 920350.

7Cavanaugh, et al., ‘‘Injury Response of the

Thorax in Side Impact Cadaveric Tests.’’

8 Dalmotas, et al., ‘‘Side Impact Occupant

Protection Technologies,’’ SAE SP–851, February

1991.

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 humanlike 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 AAMAsponsored studies of side impact

dummy performance in full vehicle

impact 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 injurycausing 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

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

33510 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

9 Dalmotas, et al., ‘‘Side Impact Occupant

Protection Technologies,’’ SAE SP–851, February

1991.

10 Dalmotas, et al., ‘‘Side Impact Opportunities,’’

Fifteenth International Technical Conference on the

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, May 1996.

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

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

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).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33511

11The 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).

12This 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.

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.

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:

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

33512 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

13Petitioners 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.

14The 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).’’

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.

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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 000515139-0139-01; I.D.

041200D]

RIN 0648–AO03

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

(HMS); Atlantic Bluefin Tuna

Specifications and HMS Regulatory

Amendment

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed annual quota

specifications and regulatory

amendment; public hearings; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications

for the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT)

fishery to set BFT quota and General

category effort control specifications for

the 2000 fishing year. NMFS also

proposes to amend the regulations

governing the Atlantic HMS fisheries to

adjust the date on which the BFT

General category fishing season ends;

adjust the date on which BFT

allocations become available to Atlantic

tunas Purse Seine category vessel

owners; authorize NMFS to add the

underharvest to, or subtract the

overharvest from, individual Purse

Seine category vessels’ allocations for

the following fishing year on a per

vessel basis; revise text regarding

restricted fishing days (RFDs) in the

General category BFT fishery; and revise

text regarding authorized gear in the

North Atlantic swordfish fishery. The

proposed specifications and regulatory

amendment are necessary to implement

the 1998 recommendation of the

International Commission for the

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)

as required by the Atlantic Tunas

Convention Act (ATCA) and to achieve

domestic management objectives under

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS will

hold public hearings to receive

comments from fishery participants and

other members of the public regarding

the proposed specifications and

regulatory amendment.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before June 19, 2000.

The public hearings dates are:

1. Tuesday, May 30, 2000, 7–9 p.m.,

Gloucester, MA.

2. Wednesday, May 31, 2000, 9–11

a.m., Silver Spring, MD.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

proposed specifications and regulatory

amendment should be sent to Rebecca

Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory Species

Management Division, Office of

Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS,

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,

MD 20910-3282. Comments also may be

sent via facsimile (fax) to (301) 713–

1917. Comments will not be accepted if

submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

The public hearing locations are:

1. Silver Spring–NMFS, SSMC III—

Room 4527, 1315 East-West Highway,

Silver Spring, MD 20910.

2. Gloucester–Milton Fuller School, 4

School House Road. Gloucester, MA

01930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat

Scida or Sarah McLaughlin, (978) 281–

9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic

tunas are managed under the dual

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

and ATCA. ATCA authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to

implement binding recommendations of

ICCAT. The authority to issue

regulations under the MagnusonStevens Act and ATCA has been

delegated from the Secretary to the

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

NOAA (AA).

Background

On May 28, 1999, NMFS published in

the Federal Register (64 FR 29090) final

regulations, effective July 1, 1999,

implementing the Fishery Management

Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and

Sharks (HMS FMP) that was adopted

and made available to the public in

April 1999. The HMS FMP and the

implementing regulations established

percentage quota shares for each of the

domestic fishing categories of the

ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT landings

quota of 1,387 metric tons (mt). These

percentage shares were based on

allocation procedures that had been

developed by NMFS in recent years.

The HMS FMP also established a new

fishing year for the Atlantic tunas

fisheries, beginning June 1 each

calendar year and continuing until May

31 of the subsequent calendar year.

NMFS specified the 1999 fishing year

BFT quota allocations in June 1999,

reflecting underharvests or overharvests

from the 1998 calendar year, as

appropriate for each fishing category (64

FR 29806, June 3, 1999). Subsequently,

NMFS made inseason quota adjustments

to account for underharvest or

overharvest for the period from January

1, 1999, through May 31, 1999; these

adjustments were required to make the

transition to the new fishing year (64 FR

48111, September 2, 1999).

NMFS then amended the HMS

regulations to remove the 250–mt limit

on allocating BFT landings quota to the

Purse Seine category (64 FR 58793,

November 1, 1999). This rulemaking

also reinstated the transferability of

partial purse seine vessel quota

allocations from one vessel to another,

which was inadvertently omitted from

the consolidated regulations to

implement the HMS FMP.

NMFS proposes the fishing year 2000

BFT quota specifications under the

annual adjustment procedures of the

HMS FMP. Also in accordance with the

HMS FMP, NMFS proposes the General

category effort control schedule,

including time-period subquotas and

RFDs, for the upcoming fishing season.

After consideration of public comment,

NMFS will issue final specifications and

publish them in the Federal Register.

Domestic Quota Allocation

NMFS proposes fishing category

allocations for the 2000 fishing year,

beginning June 1, 2000, consistent with

the HMS FMP and the 1,387 mt U.S.

allocation. The percentage quota shares

established in the HMS FMP for fishing

years beginning June 1, 1999, as

amended by the Purse Seine category

adjustment discussed above, are as