4.4 A Synopsis of Functional Equivalence/Harmonization Outcomes and Their Analysis

It is evident from the side impact functional equivalence/harmonization plan presented that there is a range of possible final outcomes. With respect to functional equivalence, the following four outcomes are possible:

1.  
2. Both standards are functionally equivalent. With this outcome, NHTSA could allow certification and testing to either FMVSS 214 or the EU Directive. Alternatively, with this outcome, NHTSA could elect to adopt the EU requirements to minimize manufacturers' and the Government's test costs and complexity.
3. The safety benefits provided by FMVSS 214 exceed those of the EU Directive. With this outcome no change will be made in the U.S. regulation and the EU would be requested to upgrade their regulation.
4. The safety benefits provided by the EU Directive exceed those of FMVSS 214. Then NHTSA would initiate rulemaking to adopt the EU requirements.
5. Functional equivalence can not be determined because data are insufficient or unavailable.

If the functional equivalence assessment concludes with the fourth outcome, NHTSA will continue the harmonization process as previously discussed and illustrated in the lower section of Figure 6. This may result in other outcomes such as:

1.  
2. Harmonization on a portion of a current regulation or on a combination of both.
3. Harmonization on a newly developed regulation.

If the end result of the harmonization process is anything other than maintaining the status quo, the normal rulemaking process in each country will be necessary and an assessment of costs and benefits must be performed before a change to the current regulation is made. Additional research may be needed to obtain the information required for this analysis. It is also feasible that this analysis may be used to select among several competing options.

The cost/benefits analysis will consider the costs associated with redesigning and manufacturing vehicles to be compliant with the altered regulation. Although the altered regulation must have equal or greater safety benefit, the type and frequency of occupant injury may change with associated changes in societal costs. It will also be critical to account for the reductions in costs to manufacturers commensurate with only having to meet a single standard. This is, after all, the main reason for initiating the side impact harmonization process.