International Regulatory Harmonization, Motor Vehicle Safety

[Federal Register: June 17, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 117)] [Notices]
[Page 30657-30667]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket No. 96-43; Notice 1]

International Regulatory Harmonization, Motor Vehicle Safety; Motor
Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines and the Environment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT;
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meetings and request for comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces two public meetings to seek comments from
a broad spectrum of participants on recommendations by the U.S. and
European automotive industry for actions by the U.S. and European Union
governments concerning international harmonization of motor vehicle safety
and environmental regulation, the intergovernmental regulatory process
necessary to achieve such harmonization, and coordination of vehicle safety
and environmental research. The industry recommendations were made at the
Transatlantic Automotive Industry Conference on International Regulatory
Harmonization, held in Washington, DC, on April 10-11, 1996. The comments
will assist NHTSA and EPA both in deciding how to respond to those
recommendations as well as in ensuring that harmonization does not result
in any degradation of safety or environmental protection in the United
States.

DATES: Public meetings: The meetings will be held July 10 and 11, 1996. The
safety and regulatory process meeting will start at 9 a.m. on July 10 and
may extend over to July 11, starting at 9 a.m. The environmental meeting
will start at 10 a.m. on July 11. Oral statements and written comments:
Safety and regulatory process issues: Persons or organizations desiring to
make oral statements at the safety and regulatory process meeting should
advise the NHTSA contact person listed below of their intent by July 5,
1996. Copies of the oral statements, or an

[[Page 30658]]

outline thereof, should be submitted to the NHTSA contact person not later
than July 8, 1996. All written comments should be received by NHTSA's
docket section no later than July 25, 1996. Environmental issues: Persons
or organizations desiring to make oral statements at the environmental
meeting should advise the EPA contact person listed below of their intent
by July 5, 1996. Copies of the oral statements, or an outline thereof,
should be submitted to the EPA contact person not later than July 8, 1996.
All written comments should be received by NHTSA's docket section no later
than July 25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Public meetings: Both meetings will be held in Room 2230 of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. Written comments:
Written comments on all issues should refer to the docket and notice number
shown above and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Room 5111, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Docket room hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday. To facilitate the distribution and reading of comments relating to
a particular issue area, commenters are requested to divide their written
comments into two different sections: (1) Safety and regulatory process,
and (2) environment.
Written copies of oral statements:
Safety and regulatory process issues: Written copies of oral statements
should be provided to the NHTSA contact person at the address below.
Environmental issues: Written copies of oral statements should be provided
to the EPA contact person at the address below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

NHTSA: Stanley C. Feldman, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5219,
Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-5265, fax (202) 366- 3820.
EPA: Kenneth E. Feith, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)
260-4996, fax (202) 260-9766.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Transatlantic Business Dialogue Meeting in Seville, Spain II. U.S.-EU
Summit in Madrid, Spain
III. Transatlantic Automotive Industry Conference on International
Regulatory Harmonization in Washington, DC. A. Industry Principles and
Recommendations B. U.S. Government Statements
IV. Public Meetings
A. Discussion of Safety and Process Issues

  1.  Harmonized Research
  2.  Mutual Recognition
     a. Functional Equivalence of Regulatory Requirements b. Certification
     c. UN/ECE 1958 Agreement
     B. Topics for the Public Meetings
  3.  Safety and Process Issues
     a. Harmonized Research
     b. Mutual Recognition
     c. UN/ECE 1958 Agreement
  4.  Environmental Issues
  5.  Other Issues
     D. Procedural Matters regarding the Public Meetings and Written
     Comments
  6.  Public Meeting Procedures
  7.  Written Comment Procedures

I. Transatlantic Business Dialogue Meeting in Seville, Spain

In November 1995, the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), a forum
comprised of U.S. and European industry leaders, met in Seville, Spain, to
begin a process for achieving increased bilateral regulatory and economic
cooperation in key industrial sectors. The forum was organized at the
initiatives of the late U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown,
the European Union (EU) Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan and the EU
Industry Commissioner Martin Bangemann. Its initial purpose was to generate
recommendations for consideration at the U.S.-EU Summit in Madrid, Spain,
one month later. The TABD issued recommendations concerning regulatory
policy, trade liberalization, investment and cooperation with developing
countries. Among its regulatory recommendations were the issuance of common
standards of design, performance and/or controls in a number of industry
sectors, including the motor vehicle industry.

II. U.S.-EU Summit in Madrid, Spain

Many of the TABD recommendations were endorsed at the Madrid Summit in
December 1995 by President Clinton, European Commission (EC) President
Jacques Santer, and Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez (President of
the European Union Council of Ministers). Those recommendations are
codified in a ``Transatlantic Agenda'' and ``Action Plan'' signed by
President Clinton and the European Union officials for the purpose of
creating a ``New Transatlantic Marketplace.'' The Action Plan includes a
call for regulatory harmonization; mutually recognizing regulatory
certification procedures; cooperating in the international standard setting
process; cooperatively developing and implementing regulations; and taking
a collaborative approach in testing and certification procedures.
As Secretary Brown noted, the Transatlantic Agenda and Action Plan were
intended to continue the momentum for trade liberalization from the Uruguay
Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations and ``instill a new dynamic'' to
the efforts of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade includes requirements for--
<bullet> Using international standards and conformity assessment procedures
as a basis for national regulations and procedures, unless the
international standards and procedures would be ineffective or
inappropriate. (Articles 2.4 and 5.4)
<bullet> Participating in the preparation by international standardizing
bodies of international standards, with a view towards harmonizing
regulations. (Article 2.6)
<bullet> Giving consideration to accepting as equivalent technical
regulations of other WTO members, even if these regulations differ from
their own, provided they are satisfied that these regulations adequately
fulfill the objectives of their own regulations. (Article 2.7)

III. Transatlantic Automotive Industry Conference on International
Regulatory Harmonization in Washington, DC

At the prompting of some participants in the Seville Conference and Madrid
Summit, a broad cross-section of industry representatives, including the
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), the Association of
European Automobile Manufacturers (ACEA), the Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA), automotive suppliers, and their respective associations
met at the Transatlantic Automotive Industry Conference on International
Regulatory Harmonization in Washington, DC, on April 10-11, 1996.
Representatives from NHTSA, EPA, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the
U. S. Trade Representative, agencies of various European countries, and the
European Commission's DirectorateGeneral III--Industry, participated in the
Conference as advisors to the industry participants to facilitate
understanding of government objectives, priorities, and regulatory process.

A. Industry Principles and Recommendations

At the conclusion of the Washington Conference, the industry conferees
issued ``Overall Conclusions'' and ``Working Papers on the Regulatory
Process, Safety and Environment.'' (Copies of these documents have been

[[Page 30659]]

placed in the docket for this notice.) These documents contain industry
recommendations for actions by the U.S. and EU in three specific areas: (1)
Regulatory process; (2) safety; and (3) the environment. They also set
forth principles to guide those recommended actions. With respect to the
need for harmonization, the industry conferees concluded in Section I of
the Working Papers (p. 4) that:

Compliance with diverse national and regional requirements imposes
substantial cost penalties, engineering, design and manufacturing
constraints, as well as being fundamentally inconsistent with the reality
of a global auto market, and have therefore adversely affected world trade.
These inconsistencies in turn, diminish the potential to achieve societal
objectives, notably in the field of safety and environment, and also reduce
vehicle affordability and customer choice. With the rapid development of
new markets in developing nations, there is a great risk that the number of
new and differing regulatory requirements world wide will escalate quickly,
creating new technical barriers to trade. European and U.S. automakers
believe that this strategically uncoordinated approach no longer is
sustainable either in terms of resources or results. It must be emphasized
that industry is still committed to abide to the high levels of safety and
environmental protection offered by today's standards. Yet it seems
difficult to comprehend the need for multiple differing approaches to
address the same objectives.

To guide future harmonization discussions and efforts involving U.S. and EU
governments and industry, the industry conferees set forth the following
set of principles representing their thinking on the subject in Section II
of the Working Papers (p. 6): Ten First Principles for EU/US Contribution
to Global Harmonization

  1.  Commit to global regulatory harmonization by becoming Contracting
     Parties to the 1958 Agreement <SUP>1 and participating in the
     development of new UN-ECE regulations with the intent of adopting them
     to the maximum extent feasible.<SUP>2
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Agreement Concerning the
Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment
and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the
Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals granted on the Basis of
these Prescriptions (as amended). (For a brief explanation of this
Agreement, whose membership is currently primarily European, see the
section IV.A.3. ``UN/ECE 1958 Agreement'' below.)
\2\ NHTSA has indicated that the U.S. government is willing to sign the
Agreement if it is revised so that the forum functions in a truly
international manner and adopts truly international standards. Discussions
are ongoing. (For additional details, see sections III.B. ``U.S. Government
Statements'' and IV.A.3. ``UN/ECE 1958 Agreement'' below.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Work through and strengthen Working Party 29 to expand it into a broadly
recognized body for the development of global vehicle <SUP>3 regulatory
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Vehicle is defined as including equipment and parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Establish a work program to globally harmonize existing differences, to
the maximum feasible extent. 4. Continue the process of global
harmonization of vehicle regulatory requirements and expand these
discussions to all countries. 5. Establish mutual recognized certification
processes. 6. In the process of global harmonization: establish means to
incorporate functional equivalence of alternative vehicle regulatory
requirements in the regulatory process; and establish means to achieve
mutual recognition of corresponding regulatory requirements. 7. Coordinate
pre-regulatory research on need for and development of new regulatory
requirements, thereby minimizing the likelihood of future divergence.
8. Avoid developing unique new national or regional technical requirements
without adequate justification.<SUP>4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ As defined in WTO, Articles 2.1-2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Improve processes for informing the public about the development of
harmonized regulatory requirements.
10. Encourage a policy of accepting vehicles fully meeting ECE or U.S. or
EU requirements as equivalent. (EU, Australia, Canada, Japan and South
Africa have already accepted UN-ECE regulations.) The adoption of hybrid
requirements for vehicles (selectively combining elements of different
jurisdictions) should be avoided. The industry conferees made the following
recommendations regarding regulatory process, safety, and the environment
(except as otherwise noted, the recommendations are contained in their
``Overall Conclusions):''
Regulatory Process
The industry conferees recommended that the following actions be taken by
the U.S. and EU prior to the November 1996 TABD meeting: <bullet> Develop a
process for agreeing upon ``functional equivalence'' of dissimilar existing
standards addressing the same aspect of performance;
<bullet> Develop a process for mutual recognition of (1) similar standards
addressing the same aspect of performance and (2) certification procedures;
<bullet> Develop a plan for coordinating research, both by industry and
government; and
<bullet> Revise the role and structure of the UN Economic Commission for
Europe (ECE) Working Party 29 so that it can function as the forum for
global regulatory harmonization. The industry conferees recommended that a
second series of longerterm regulatory process actions be initiated in
November 1996, including:
<bullet> Cooperation in developing new testing procedures and regulations;
and
<bullet> Coordination of views on emerging market regulations. Safety
The industry conferees agreed that they would complete, by the time of the
November 1996 TABD meeting, an evaluation of the functional equivalence of
existing overlapping requirements, in conjunction with the appropriate
regulatory bodies. In addition, the industry recommended the following four
actions by the U.S. and EU: <bullet> Initiate a process to develop
cooperative programs in the areas of common regulatory matters and
regulatory research programs prior to the 15th International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) conference in May 1996.
<bullet> Mutually recognize certain items currently regulated by the U.S.
and EU. These include, but are not limited to, windshield wiping systems,
safety belts, steering control system impact protection, and seating
systems. (The industry conferees suggested that this action be completed by
November 1997.) <bullet> Mutual recognition of functional equivalence for
those requirements that mandate unique equipment design or performance but
do not provide meaningful differences in motor vehicle safety. As explained
by the industry conferees in Section IV of the Working Papers (p. 28):
``mutual recognition is the process whereby two or more countries/regions
recognize each other's regulatory requirements on a specific subject as
satisfying the requirements of both/all parties.'' (The industry conferees
suggested that this action be completed by November 1997.)
<bullet> Consideration of harmonizing other items including, theft
protection systems, controls and displays, crash protection, bumper
systems, and fuel system integrity.
Additional discussion and recommendations about safety were included in
Section IV of the Working Papers (p. 31). Among them were: <bullet> By June
1996, initiate a process to establish collaborative development and

[[Page 30660]]

exchange of NHTSA-EU regulatory agendas. <bullet> By October 1996, complete
bilateral agreement for periodic (at least semi-annual) NHTSA-EU meetings
pre-regulatory matters and pre-regulatory research. Such meetings should
allow for industry participation.
With respect to international research projects to support regulatory
harmonization, the industry conferees suggested the following in Section IV
of the Working Papers (p. 49): <bullet> Develop a project to identify
technical and performance differences between selected existing Federal
motor vehicle safety standards and ECE/EU regulatory requirements on the
same aspects of motor vehicle systems, and determine the significance of
the performance differences with respect to motor vehicle safety
performance.
<bullet> Develop a project to determine traffic targets and maneuvers that
need to be seen and recognized that could form the basis for a performance
based common regulation on vehicle lighting. <bullet> Develop a project for
the next generation of side impact testing, including dummy development and
injury tolerance criteria. <bullet> Develop a project for globally
acceptable frontal impact configuration.
<bullet> Develop a project for a globally acceptable child dummy for child
restraint testing.
<bullet> Develop a project to determine the cause of injuries resulting
from rear impacts that could form the basis for a performance based common
regulation on seat strength and head restraint design. <bullet> Develop a
project to define a common procedure for gathering accident data and
uniform analysis. <bullet> Coordinate global research on glazing
performance requirements.
<bullet> Math model development and validation. Environment
The industry conferees recommended that the following actions be taken in
two phases. First, they recommended that the U.S. and EU take the following
actions before November 1996: <bullet> Prepare work plans to harmonize
noise, electromagnetic compatibility, and smoke test procedures; and
<bullet> Seek to establish formal cooperation on the recognition of the
principle of functional equivalence of regulations, streamlining of the
certification processes, fuel harmonization, and harmonization of heavy
duty requirements.
Second, they recommended that the following actions be taken beginning in
November 1996:
<bullet> Conduct cooperative pre-regulatory research leading to regulatory
harmonization.
<bullet> Cooperate in developing markets to eliminate use of ozonedepleting
substances and leaded fuels, and adopt consistent control policies.

B. U.S. Government Statements

NHTSA
NHTSA Administrator Ricardo Martinez, M.D., told the conferees that the
agency is sympathetic to working toward the goal of harmonization of
existing and future motor vehicle safety standards, subject to the
following conditions--
<bullet> Assuring that there is no degradation of motor vehicle safety.
<bullet> Preserving the quality and transparency of NHTSA's regulatory
process by inviting all interested parties to be heard and duly considered,
including the general public. In furtherance of this objective, Dr.
Martinez announced plans for an outreach meeting to ensure that consumer
and public interest organizations and other members of the public not
present at the Conference would have the opportunity to state their views.
<bullet> Preserving NHTSA's ability to respond, through future rulemaking,
to changing motor vehicle safety technology and problems. Dr. Martinez also
indicated that the agency strongly supports the coordination of
international vehicle safety research. Given that the human body and
mechanics by which trauma occurs in vehicle crashes follow the universal
laws of science, Dr. Martinez stressed the importance of seeking common or
complementary research approaches by all interested countries, and noted
that the recent 15th ESV Conference would provide an opportunity to begin
that effort. Finally, Dr. Martinez stated that the U.S. intends to sign the
UN/ ECE 1958 Agreement once the structure and activities of the Agreement's
forum, the Working Party on the Construction of Vehicles (WP29), are
revised to ensure that the WP29 forum's primary focus will be the
development of truly international regulations. Among the changes necessary
are those ensuring that--
<bullet> The major vehicle producing countries and/or regions have an
appropriate voice in setting and implementing priorities; <bullet> Equal
and transparent consideration is given to all relevant existing national
regulations in establishing international regulations; and
<bullet> Only those regulations supported by careful analysis and good
science are established as international regulations. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency
The EPA Chief of Staff Peter Robertson, representing Administrator Browner,
stated that the EPA is committed to strengthening multilateral efforts to
protect the global environment and to develop environmental policy
strategies for sustainable world-wide growth with particular attention to
air pollution issues.
Mr. Robertson noted that since 1970, the U. S. Clean Air Act has
dramatically reduced air pollution. Of particular note is-- <bullet> The 98
percent reduction of lead emissions that are known to cause infant
mortality, reduced birth weights and childhood IQ loss. These pollution
reductions occurred largely because of the phase-out of lead in gasoline,
and controls on industrial lead sources. <bullet> The significant
reductions in other fuel combustion related pollutants such as nitrogen
dioxide (NO<INF>X), known to cause lung tissue damage and increased
respiratory illness; sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2), known to cause increased
respiratory illness, especially in asthmatics, and to be a major
contributor to acid rain; and carbon monoxide (CO), known to cause reduced
circulation and heart damage. EPA believes the global community can realize
similar benefits. Mr. Robertson commended the automotive industries'
recognition that fuel quality plays a key role, not only in vehicle
performance, but also in vehicle pollution. Clearly, significant global
reductions in vehicle exhaust emissions will depend on the use of catalytic
converter technology. EPA therefore supported industries' recommendations
for the global phase-out of leaded gasoline and the harmonization of
improved fuel quality, and expressed hope that their efforts would be
expanded to promote clean alternative fuels for vehicles. EPA agrees with
the industry assessment that more should be done to eliminate both the use
and production of ozone-depleting substances, particularly in developing
countries.
The U.S. phase-out of CFC's and other ozone-depleting substances, in
combination with international restrictions, has already produced
improvements in the upper atmosphere's ozone layer. The automotive industry
has played a significant role in fostering the development of alternatives
to ozone-depleting substances through its influence in the market place.
EPA encourages the U.S. automotive

[[Page 30661]]

industries to continue their efforts to develop products and manufacturing
processes that are free of ozone-depleting substances. EPA recognizes that
harmonization of regulatory test protocols, conformity assessments and,
where possible, environmental standards are several of the key elements in
the equation for uniform global regulations. Absent efforts to effect a
level of harmonization between divergent national regulations, one may
anticipate the expenditure of valuable resources, both national and
private, to address resultant trade issues. EPA has committed--
<bullet> To continue to actively pursue and support the concept of
``technical harmonization'' in its development of product performance
standards and regulations. To this end, comments and recommendations are
solicited from all interested parties as to how EPA might improve public
participation in its rulemaking activities. <bullet> To continue to
exercise care in assessing potential adverse impacts that a specific
harmonization action may have on current or future environmental goals.
<bullet> As a matter of policy, not to undertake the harmonization of
environmental standards or regulations if such harmonization will result in
decreased environmental benefits. <bullet> To participate, to the extent
possible, in any harmonization activity that contributes to improving the
global environment.
<bullet> To give careful consideration to policies on trade and the
environment that are mutually supportive, thus satisfying both
environmental as well as trade objectives. EPA believes that, in order for
the U.S. to become a contracting party to the UN/ECE 1958 Agreement, the
Agreement should be revised to incorporate the following principles--
<bullet> Open membership.
<bullet> Transparent proceedings. <bullet> Equitable voting structure.
<bullet> Consideration of relevant national regulations in the development
of global regulations.
Department of Commerce
Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Stuart Eizenstat
identified some of the parameters of harmonization efforts. He emphasized
the importance of continuing dialogue and stated that the aim of such
efforts should be harmonizing differing standards, without lowering them to
achieve unity. Further, he stressed that harmonization should be pursued on
a bilateral basis between the U.S. and EU before multilateralizing it to
include other countries.

IV. Public Meetings

Before NHTSA and EPA decide how to respond to the recommendations by the
industry conferees, they want to obtain the views of a broad spectrum of
the public regarding the manner in which their regulatory harmonization
efforts should proceed. Among the groups not present at the Washington
Conference were motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, motor vehicle
insurance companies, consumer interest groups, the medical community, state
and local officials, and the public. The agencies wish to obtain the views
of all interested parties, including individual motor vehicle
manufacturers. To provide a focus for the public comments, this document
briefly discusses the broad subject areas and then sets forth a series of
questions and issues that the agencies would like the public to address.
The agencies believe that while there are problems and risks associated
with harmonization, properly conducted efforts to harmonize vehicle
research and regulation have the potential for enabling the vehicle
regulatory agencies around the world to regulate ``smarter and cheaper,''
while increasing levels of safety and environmental protection.

A. Discussion of Safety and Process Issues

  1.  Harmonized Research
     NHTSA has advanced the concept of a harmonized research agenda since
     the 1970's. The agency made several efforts in the late 1970's and
     early 1980's to develop a harmonized test procedure for measuring side
     impact performance. However, the rapidly changing regulatory
     priorities during that period on both sides of the Atlantic precluded
     the achievement of harmonized requirements for side impact protection.
     The globalization of the motor vehicle industry and the budgetary
     constraints imposed on all government activities are leading
     regulatory agencies to cooperate in developing the supporting
     technical basis for new regulations and significant amendments to
     existing regulations. NHTSA's renewed push for harmonized research
     began in February 1995 when the agency issued a letter proposing the
     possibility of using the recent 15th ESV Conference to reach agreement
     on a globally harmonized research agenda. Dr. Martinez followed that
     initiative by presenting a multi-point plan for harmonized research at
     the 107th meeting of WP29 in November 1995. On a parallel track, the
     vehicle industry recommended at the TABD conference in Spain and the
     follow-up conference in Washington that serious effort be made to
     achieving a harmonized preregulatory research agenda.
     These combined efforts culminated at the 15th ESV Conference in May
     1996 in an agreement on a globally harmonized research agenda that
     draws upon government and industry expertise around the world in
     vehicle safety issues. Agreement on a harmonized research agenda
     should enable the vehicle safety regulatory agencies around the world
     to develop future regulations in a harmonized fashion, reduce
     duplicative research and thus obtain more information for the same
     expenditure, and address the most pressing safety problems on a
     consistent, world wide basis. As a result, the participating countries
     will be able to minimize the differences between countries in
     regulatory requirements without lowering safety or environmental
     protection, thus providing economies of scale in the manufacturing
     arena and reducing costs for the consumer.
     The agreement identifies 6 research priorities and designates a lead
     country or organization for each-- <bullet> Biomechanics--(U.S.)
     Efforts will be made to develop injury measurement surrogates for the
     head, neck, face, thorax, and lower limbs and to develop test
     procedures for all crash modes. The fact that these parts of the human
     anatomy do not differ from continent to continent is a powerful
     argument for cooperative effort in the development of such surrogates.
     <bullet> Functional equivalence--(U.S./Australia) The U.S., in
     cooperation with Australia, will seek to develop the technical and
     scientific aspects of an acceptable model for determining the
     functional equivalence of existing regulatory requirements. <bullet>
     Advanced Offset Frontal Crash Protection--(EC/European Experimental
     Vehicle Committee (EEVC)) Europe has been working for some time to
     develop and establish a frontal crash protection regulation and has
     chosen the route of an offset crash test as the means of achieving
     improved frontal protection. The U.S. has been cooperating in that
     development because it is concerned about the high number of
     fatalities that occur in frontal crashes that are not being mitigated
     by the existing frontal protection regulation. Thus, the development
     of harmonized test procedures based on real world crashes to assess
     safety performance and compatibility for offset frontal crashes should
     serve as a common basis for

[[Page 30662]]

further development of frontal crash protection regulations. <bullet>
Vehicle Compatibility--(EC/EEVC) This issue will be explored in two stages:
car-to-car compatibility; and then car-to-truck compatibility. Recent and
upcoming changes to vehicle structures and restraint systems in response to
requirements for frontal and side impact protection will increase the
importance of questions about the compatibility of small and large light
vehicles. <bullet> Pedestrian Safety--(Japan) Pedestrian fatality and
injury levels are a serious safety problem worldwide. Thus, efforts will be
made to develop a harmonized test procedure based on real world crashes to
assess the safety performance of passenger vehicles in their interaction
with pedestrians. The results should form the basis for a harmonized
approach to regulations applicable worldwide. Intelligent Transportation
Systems--(Canada) This effort will be aimed at developing test procedures
to assess driver/vehicle interaction of crash avoidance and driver
enhancement in-vehicle systems. Although the systems may be different in
different parts of the world, the standards measuring their crash avoidance
and driver enhancement performance should be common to all. Although the
schedule varies for the 6 priority areas, all are intended to be pursued
urgently. None of the priority activities are to take more than 5 years.
Some, including the functional equivalence effort, are on a much faster
track.
To ensure steady progress and adherence to schedule, follow-up meetings
will be held on a roughly semi-annual basis. An implementation review
meeting will be held in conjunction with, but not as part of, the November
1996 meeting of WP29. International meetings of the Society of Automotive
Engineers and various international forums as well as future ESV meetings
will also be used to report on progress in implementing the research plans
developed by the lead countries and organizations.
2. Mutual Recognition
The industry conferees recommended the development of a process for
``mutual recognition'' of regulatory requirements and certification
procedures. They stated that it is an essential feature of the
harmonization process that products complying to a harmonized requirement
are accepted, or ``mutually recognized,'' by all countries that are party
to the harmonization agreement. Mutual recognition is a process, based
largely on an assessment of ``functional equivalence'' of comparable
regulatory requirements, under which two or more countries or regions
recognize each other's regulatory requirements on a specific subject as
satisfying each other's policy objectives. The industry conferees concluded
that once a process for mutual recognition is developed, it should then be
applied, by November 1997, to certain items currently regulated by both the
U.S. and EU. These items include, but are not limited to, windshield wiping
systems, safety belts, steering control system impact protection, and
seating systems. The industry conferees also concluded that mutual
recognition should be accorded, by November 1997, to functionally
equivalent requirements that mandate unique equipment design or performance
but do not provide meaningful differences in motor vehicle safety. a.
Functional Equivalence of Regulatory Requirements. The industry conferees
in Washington recommended the development of a process for agreeing upon
functional equivalence of regulatory standards. The industry conferees
suggested further that the following five criteria be considered for use by
regulatory agencies in determining functional equivalence for motor vehicle
safety requirements:

  1.  Same/equivalent regulatory language or same/equivalent intent or
     purpose.
  2.  Same/equivalent design execution to meet regulatory requirements.
  3.  Substantial and substantive successful prior experience with
     acceptance of differing regulations, concerning the same systems in a
     single jurisdiction.
  4.  Same/equivalent test performance levels.
  5.  No substantive safety performance difference based upon field crash
     injury data assessment.
     The industry conferees noted that where divergent requirements exist,
     more objective comparative assessments could be needed to provide a
     determination of functional equivalence. For example, additional
     criteria may have to be developed with respect to analytical modeling,
     jury assessment, comparative testing, and real world crash data
     analysis.
     The industry conferees stated that AAMA and ACEA are committed to
     completing functional equivalence assessments for all regulatory
     requirements listed in Attachment IV-1 to the Safety Working Paper.
     (See the Appendix to this notice.)
     At the 15th ESV Conference, Dr. Martinez discussed some of the
     challenges in making functional equivalence determinations. He noted
     that the purpose of determining whether existing standards are
     ``functionally equivalent'' is that--

(I)f two different countries have regulations addressing the same aspect of
a problem and accomplishing similar results, compliance with either
regulation should be acceptable to both countries.
While determining functional equivalence sounds simple in concept, it may
not necessarily be easy to do in practice. There is a need to define what
is meant by saying that two regulations ``accomplish essentially the same
purpose'' and to agree on what methods should be used to determine when
that definition is satisfied. If two different regulations addressing the
same problem are stated in nearly identical terms, it should be relatively
easy to obtain agreement on whether they are functionally equivalent.
Typically, however, regulatory requirements are not stated in identical
terms. Some regulations are based on performance, while others are based on
design. Even if the two regulations addressing the same general problem are
both based on performance, they may reflect entirely different approaches
to solving the underlying safety problem. Finally, the regulations may
differ substantially in their test procedures, and may cover different
specific aspects of a general safety problem.
Before any regulatory body can reasonably conclude that a regulation of
another country is functionally equivalent to one of its own regulations
and permit compliance with the foreign regulation as an alternative to its
existing regulation, it must assess and consider the safety consequences of
granting that permission. Once ``functional equivalence'' is defined, many
scientific techniques, such as crash data analysis, analytic modeling and
comparative testing, can be used to help assess whether different
requirements are functionally equivalent.

b. Certification. The processes for certification of compliance with motor
vehicle safety and environmental regulations in the U.S. and Europe are
based on fundamentally different principles. In Europe, and in the U.S. so
far as emission regulations are concerned, manufacturers obtain type
approval certificates from governmental agencies that their vehicles comply
with the requirements before they are offered for sale or allowed to be
driven on the road. In the U.S., although manufacturers must self-certify
that they comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety and noise emission
standards before their vehicles are offered for sale, they have no initial
obligation to prove compliance with the regulations to a governmental
agency. The industry conferees noted that while global harmonization may
proceed on the basis of common

[[Page 30663]]

technical requirements alone, e.g., by means of findings of functional
equivalence, it may also be desirable to have one mutually acceptable
certification process.
3. UN-ECE 1958 Agreement
NHTSA and EPA are participating, on behalf of the United States Government,
in negotiations regarding a U.S. proposed revision to the UN/ECE 1958
Agreement. The current Agreement provides procedures for establishing
uniform regulations regarding new motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment and for reciprocal recognition of type approvals issued pursuant
to such regulations primarily for use in Europe. It has succeeded in
harmonizing many of the European vehicle safety and noise emission
standards. In addition, some ECE Regulations are recognized or applied by
some countries in non-European areas such as Asia, Australia, South Africa
and South America. The Agreement is administered by the Working Party on
the Construction of Vehicles (WP29), a subsidiary group of the ECE.
NHTSA and EPA recognize the value of a truly global standards harmonization
forum, but believe that WP29 has not yet evolved into one. Accordingly,
while the U.S. is a member of the UN/ECE, it is not a Contracting Party to
the Agreement.
In November 1995, at the 107th session of WP29 in Geneva, Switzerland, the
U.S. stated its criteria for revising the 1958 Agreement to create a truly
global forum, which would include a process for developing globally
harmonized regulations. These criteria addressed both the process of
harmonization in which nations could engage if they so choose and the
rights of nations on voting, adoption of global technical regulations, and
accession to the agreement. Dr. Martinez declared the intent of the U.S. to
sign an agreement if it satisfied those criteria.
NHTSA and EPA note that signing such an agreement would not commit the U.S.
to adopting regulations harmonized under that agreement. Adoption of those
standards would be voluntary. The U.S. would sign a revised agreement only
under terms that reserve the decision about adoption of any harmonized
regulation contingent upon the normal U.S. rulemaking processes under the
Administrative Procedure Act and authorizing statutes of NHTSA and EPA.
NHTSA and EPA revised and expanded upon their criteria at the Washington
Conference. Those criteria are contained in a document, ``Synopsis of
Principal Elements of U.S. Proposed Amendments to the WP29 Agreement,''
which has been placed in the docket for this notice.

B. Topics for the Public Meetings

  1.  Safety and Process Issues
     a. Harmonized Research.
       1.  What actions are needed by the U.S. to ensure a continuing
          commitment to coordinated research?
       2.  What kinds of data would be necessary to evaluate the effect on
          highway deaths and injuries of different standards addressing
          similar safety issues (e.g., frontal crashes, side impact, safety
          belt strength, etc.)?
       3.  If government agencies are to cooperate in their research on
          future rulemaking, must there be a single set of data to serve as
          the basis of such rulemaking?
       4.  Could governments expect to derive any financial benefits from
          such cooperative research programs, as compared with
          independently funding independent research?
       5.  Please comment on the research priorities agreed to at the 15th
          ESV Conference.
       6.  Are there other research issues, in addition to the six
          designated as priorities at the 15th ESV Conference, that should
          be on the agenda of globally harmonized research? If so, please
          explain why they should be added.
       7.  What steps should be taken to inform and involve the vehicle
          industry, the insurance companies, consumers groups, medical
          community and other interested groups and individuals regarding
          each priority research area?
          b. Mutual Recognition. (If a commenter believes that its answer
          to any question would be the same for both crash avoidance
          standards and crashworthiness standards and/or air and noise
          emission standards, please so indicate. Conversely, if the answer
          would be different, please indicate how, and why. Similarly,
          please indicate if an answer would be the same with respect to
          standards that yield relatively high benefits and standards that
          yield relatively low benefits.)
       8.  How should ``functional equivalence'' be defined?
       9.  What criteria should be used in determining the functional
          equivalence of two standards?
      10.  Are the criteria suggested by the industry conferees suitable
          for use by regulatory agencies in determining functional
          equivalence for both motor vehicle safety and environmental
          requirements?
      11.  Where divergent requirements exist, more objective comparative
          assessments could be needed to provide a determination of
          functional equivalence. For example, would additional criteria
          have to be developed with respect to analytical modeling, jury
          assessment, comparative testing, and real world crash data
          analysis?
      12.  Should ``functional equivalence'' serve as the basis for mutual
          recognition by two or more countries of their regulatory
          requirements?
      13.  Although there is general agreement that harmonization must not
          result in a reduction in real world safety or environmental
          performance, on what basis should this judgment be made?
      14.  Can the ``harm reduction'' analysis mentioned in the Section IV
          of the Working Papers and used by the Australian Federal Office
          of Road Safety in comparing the benefits of the U.S. side impact
          standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214)
          and EU side impact standard (ECE R95) be used generally to
          compare the benefits of U.S. and EU standards? The harm reduction
          method adopts a ``systematic approach to estimating benefits by
          body region injured for a range of suitable variables and uses
          objective performance data to establish likely injury
          reductions.''
          Another methodology for estimating benefits is NHTSA's ``cost per
          equivalent life saved.'' <SUP>5 In the environmental area, there
          is the EPA's ``cost per ton of pollution removed'' methodology.
          Are there other comparative methods that might be considered?
          What practical problems or limitations would those methods have?
          How could those problems and limitations be overcome or at least
          minimized?
          -----------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ In addressing the impact of proposed regulations, NHTSA performs a cost
effectiveness analysis in which nonfatal injuries are valued relative to a
fatality. These ``equivalent fatalities'' are then added to fatalities to
determine the total equivalent fatalities prevented. Any monetary impacts
which are not directly associated with bodily injury, such as property
damage or travel delay, are deducted from the cost of the countermeasure.
The remaining net cost is then divided by the total equivalent fatalities
to determine the net cost per equivalent fatality. This represents the
money society must spend under the proposed countermeasure to prevent one
death, or its equivalent in nonfatal injuries. Policy makers assess this
cost in light of current economic, social, and political considerations
before determining whether to require new safety features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA notes that the harm reduction analysis of the side impact regulations
mentioned above considered benefits only. While the primary question in
determining functional equivalence would be the relative benefits of two
regulations addressing the same issue, NHTSA must consider costs as well as

[[Page 30664]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
benefits in issuing or amending a FMVSS.

(A copy of the analysis, ``Harm Reduction for Estimating Countermeasure
Benefits,'' by Brian Fildes and Kennerly Digges, has been placed in the
docket for this notice.)
15. Is the process underlying the format for making a functional
equivalence determination shown in Attachment IV-2 to the Safety Working
Paper a suitable basis for determining functional equivalence between U.S.
and EU standards? For an example of the process format, see the Appendix to
this notice.
16. If there were an accepted body of data that describes the real world
performance of a given requirement, would a regulatory agency have the
ability to justify a statement that two different regulations, addressing
the same aspect of motor vehicle safety or environmental pollution, are
functionally equivalent? 17. If scientific techniques such as crash data
analysis, analytic modeling, and comparative testing were applied to
understanding real world safety performance of differing regulatory
requirements, would there be an objective basis for defending a judgment of
a functional equivalence?
18. How are the problems of harmonization between a regulatory system based
on self-certification and one based on type approval to be minimized? Is it
practicable to have one mutually acceptable certification process? If so,
what steps should be taken to move in that direction?
19. What impact would mutual recognition have on NHTSA's and/or EPA's
compliance testing? What implications would amending the FMVSSs to permit
compliance with functionally equivalent ECE regulations have for NHTSA's
compliance testing costs and enforcement? What implications would amending
the EPA air and noise emission regulations have for EPA's compliance
testing costs and enforcement? c. UN/ECE 1958 Agreement. (The first two
questions below are based on recommendations by the industry conferees in
Section III of the Working Papers.)
20. Would it be possible for the U.S. to participate in the development of
new regulatory requirements through WP29 with the intent of adopting them
into national or regional laws, to the extent possible?
21. What actions are statutorily or administratively necessary to permit
the U.S. to participate in the development of new regulatory requirements
through WP29 with the intent of adopting them into law, to the extent
possible, and for WP29 to fulfill this task? 22. The statutory provisions
authorizing NHTSA's and EPA's standard setting and the Administrative
Procedures Act would prevent both agencies from committing to adopt
international regulations adopted by WP29, now or in the future. However,
it would be permissible to establish a policy of publishing notices
requesting public comment on new regulations as they are adopted by WP29.
Were the UN/ECE 1958 Agreement revised sufficiently to make it appropriate
for the U.S. to become a Contracting Party, should NHTSA and EPA consider
establishing such a policy?
4. Environmental Issues. The public meeting on July 11 will focus on the
issues in the Working Paper on the Environment (Section V). 5. Other
Issues. NHTSA and EPA invite comment on any other issues raised by the
``Overall Conclusions'' and ``Working Papers'' of the Washington Conference
and any other issue relevant to international harmonization.

C. Procedural Matters regarding the Public Meetings and Written Comments

  1.  Public Meeting Procedures
     All interested persons and organizations are invited to attend the
     meetings. Persons wishing to speak at the public meeting regarding
     safety and regulatory process issues should so inform the NHTSA
     contact person by July 5, 1996. Persons wishing to speak at the public
     meeting regarding environmental issues should so inform the EPA
     contact person by July 5, 1996. A schedule of persons making oral
     statements will be available in the designated meeting room at the
     beginning of the meetings.
     Oral statements should be limited to 20 minutes. If the number of
     requests for oral statements exceeds the available time, the agencies
     may ask prospective speakers and organizations with similar views to
     combine or summarize their statements. If the statement will include
     slides, motion pictures, or other visual aids, please inform the NHTSA
     contact person so that the proper equipment may be made available.
     NHTSA will place a copy of any written statement for oral presentation
     in the docket for this notice. A verbatim transcript of the meetings
     will be prepared and also placed in the docket as soon as possible
     after the meeting.
     The presiding officials may ask questions of any person making an oral
     statement. The public may not directly question persons making oral
     statements. However, the public may submit, in writing, suggested
     questions for the officials to consider addressing to the presenters.
     To facilitate communication, NHTSA will provide auxiliary aids to
     participants as necessary, during the meetings. Thus, any person
     desiring assistance of ``auxiliary aids'' (e.g., sign-language
     interpreter, telecommunications, devices for deaf persons (TDDs),
     readers, tape texts, braille materials, or large print materials
     and/or magnifying device), should inform the NHTSA contact person.
  2.  Written Comment Procedures
     Any interested person can submit written comments in response to this
     notice. Persons wishing to submit written comments need not attend the
     meeting. It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies be
     submitted.
     All written comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR
     553.21). Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions
     without regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to
     encourage commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise
     fashion.
     To facilitate the distribution and reading of comments relating to a
     particular issue area, commenters are requested to divide their
     written comments into two segments: (1) safety and regulatory process,
     and (2) environment.
     All comments received before the close of business on the comment
     closing date indicated will be considered, and will be available for
     examination in the docket at the above address both before and after
     that date. Comments filed after the closing date will also be docketed
     and, to the extent possible, considered. The agencies will continue to
     file relevant information in their respective dockets as it becomes
     available after the closing date. Accordingly, it is recommended that
     interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
     Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their written
     comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
     postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
     comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail. If a
     commenter wishes to submit certain information relating to safety or
     regulatory process under a claim of confidentiality, three copies of
     the complete submission, including purportedly confidential business
     information, should be submitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
     street

[[Page 30665]]

address given above, and seven copies from which the purportedly
confidential information has been deleted should be submitted to the Docket
Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in the agency's confidential
business information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512. If a commenter wishes to
submit certain information relating to environmental issues under a claim
of confidentiality, the commenter should contact the office of the EPA
General Counsel.

Issued on: June 12, 1996.
Frank Turpin,
Director, NHTSA Office of International Harmonization.

                                                  Appendix--FMVSS 209 77/541/EEC, ECE R16 Safety Belts
                                         [Safety Working Paper, Attachment IV-2, Functional Equivalent Process]

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

                                                                                           Technical        Performance
             Item                     FMVSS               EU                ECE         differences in    differences for   Prodcut impact      Safety
                                                                                          regulations        products                          benefits

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

Subject.......................  Seat belt          Safety belts and  Safety belts and
                                 assemblies--209.   Restraint         Restraint
                                                    Systems for       Systems for
                                                    Adult Occupants   Adult Occupants
                                                    of Power-driven   of Power-driven
                                                    Vehicles--77/     Vehicles--ECE R-
                                                    541/EEC.          16.
Vehicle Application...........  Passenger cars,    Power-driven      Power-driven      77/541/EEC is
                                 MPV's, trucks      vehicles with     vehicles with     applicable to
                                 and buses.         four wheels, a    three or more     M1 vehicles--a
                                                    design speed >    wheels and        passenger
                                                    25 km/h and       intended for      vehicle with a
                                                    intended as       use as            capacity of 9
                                                    individual        individual        passengers or
                                                    equipment by      equipment, by     less including
                                                    adult persons     persons of        driver.
                                                    in forward        adult build
                                                    facing position.  occupying seats
                                                                      facing forward.
Safety Belt System Hardware     Type 2 front and   Type A (lap/      Type A (lap/      Basically the     ................  Seat belt
 Application.                    rear outboard      shoulder belt)    shoulder belt)    same for three                      systems
                                 seat positions.    for front and     for front and     and two point                       hardware are
                                 Type 1 or 2        rear outboard     rear outboard     belt systems.                       basically the
                                 front and rear     seat positions.   seat positions.   Except (1) EEC/                     same, except
                                 center seat        Type A or B       Type A or B       ECE retractors                      for compliance
                                 positions. FMVSS   (lap belt) in     (lap belt) in     require two                         to some unique
                                 208 upper torso    front and rear    front and rear    emergency                           performance
                                 requires           center            center            locking                             requirements
                                 emergency          positions.        positions.        sensors; FMVSS                      and procedures
                                 locking                                                209 requires                        noted below.
                                 retractor, lower                                       one. (2) FMVSS
                                 torso (lap belt)                                       209 requires a
                                 requires ELR,                                          child seat
                                 ALR or manual                                          locking device
                                 adjustment                                             [except
                                 device.                                                driver's seat]
                                                                                        that is
                                                                                        integral with
                                                                                        belt &
                                                                                        retractor
                                                                                        assembly.

[[Page 30666]]



Test Procedures and Webbing Webbing FMVSS 209 does ................ Both
FMVSS 209 Compliance with

 Requirements.                   Sensitivity: If    Sensitivity:      not require                         and 77/541/       EEC/ECE
                                 the retractor is   Retractor must    locking by this                     EEC.ECE 16 have   requirements
                                 sensitive to       not lock at       requirement.                        a no-lock         may be
                                 webbing            strap                                                 requirement,      considered a
                                 withdrawal it      accelerations                                         but only 77/541/  nuisance to
                                 must not lock      of less than                                          EEC.ECE 16 has    U.S. consumers
                                 before the         0.8g in the                                           a lock            because of
                                 webbing extends    direction of                                          requirement.      higher
                                 2 inches (50.8     unreeling. If                                         This does not     frequency of
                                 mm) when the       locking does                                          have any effect   belt lock-ups.
                                 retractor is       not occur                                             on retractor
                                 subjected to an    before 50 mm of                                       lock-up because
                                 acceleration <     webbing is                                            both
                                 or = to 0.3g--     unwound, this                                         regulations
                                 test with          is considered                                         h