[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30657-30667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
1. Safety and Process Issues
a. Harmonized Research
b. Mutual Recognition
c. UN/ECE 1958 Agreement
2. Environmental Issues
3. Other Issues
D. Procedural Matters regarding the Public Meetings and Written
Comments
1. Public Meeting Procedures
2. 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--
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)
Participating in the preparation by international
standardizing bodies of international standards, with a view towards
harmonizing regulations. (Article 2.6)
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 Directorate-
General 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 1 and participating in
the development of new UN-ECE regulations with the intent of adopting
them to the maximum extent feasible.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 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.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:
Develop a process for agreeing upon ``functional
equivalence'' of dissimilar existing standards addressing the same
aspect of performance;
Develop a process for mutual recognition of (1) similar
standards addressing the same aspect of performance and (2)
certification procedures;
Develop a plan for coordinating research, both by industry
and government; and
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 longer-
term regulatory process actions be initiated in November 1996,
including:
Cooperation in developing new testing procedures and
regulations; and
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:
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.
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.)
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.)
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:
By June 1996, initiate a process to establish
collaborative development and
[[Page 30660]]
exchange of NHTSA-EU regulatory agendas.
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):
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.
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.
Develop a project for the next generation of side impact
testing, including dummy development and injury tolerance criteria.
Develop a project for globally acceptable frontal impact
configuration.
Develop a project for a globally acceptable child dummy
for child restraint testing.
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.
Develop a project to define a common procedure for
gathering accident data and uniform analysis.
Coordinate global research on glazing performance
requirements.
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:
Prepare work plans to harmonize noise, electromagnetic
compatibility, and smoke test procedures; and
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:
Conduct cooperative pre-regulatory research leading to
regulatory harmonization.
Cooperate in developing markets to eliminate use of ozone-
depleting 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--
Assuring that there is no degradation of motor vehicle
safety.
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.
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--
The major vehicle producing countries and/or regions have
an appropriate voice in setting and implementing priorities;
Equal and transparent consideration is given to all
relevant existing national regulations in establishing international
regulations; and
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--
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.
The significant reductions in other fuel combustion
related pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide (NOX), known to cause
lung tissue damage and increased respiratory illness; sulfur dioxide
(SO2), 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--
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.
To continue to exercise care in assessing potential
adverse impacts that a specific harmonization action may have on
current or future environmental goals.
As a matter of policy, not to undertake the harmonization
of environmental standards or regulations if such harmonization will
result in decreased environmental benefits.
To participate, to the extent possible, in any
harmonization activity that contributes to improving the global
environment.
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--
Open membership.
Transparent proceedings.
Equitable voting structure.
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 pre-
regulatory 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--
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'' 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 have a vehicle
webbing at 75% satisfied. sensing lock-up
extension--apply Retractor--must feature as a
acceleration of lock within 50 primary method.
0.3g within 0.05 mm of strap EEC/ECE
seconds or at a movement at requires two
rate > or = to webbing accel methods of
6g's/sec. relative to the sensing
retractor of emergency (or
not less than inertia) lock-
2.0g--test with up, whereas
300 mm + or-3mm FMVSS requires
of webbing only one.
remaining in Apparent
the retractor-- benefit is that
apply accel at occupant can
a rate > 25 g's/ verify that the
sec and < 150 retractor will
g's/sec. lock-up by
quickly pulling
on belt. This
feature is
considered as a
back-up to
vehicle sensing
lock-up, even
though there is
no evidence
that such a
feature is
required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S./EU Harmonization--Examples of Performance Elements Regulated in
the U.S. and EU
Safety Working Paper, Attachment IV-1, EU/U.S. Listing of Regulations
Short Term
Windshield defrosting and defogging systems
Windshield wiping and washing systems
Tire selection and rims
Headlamp concealment devices
Occupant protection in interior impact (frontal)
Head restraints
Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system
Steering control rearward displacement
Glazing materials
Door locks and door retention components
Seating systems
Medium Term
Controls and displays
Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment
Rearview mirrors
Theft protection
Vehicle identification number--basic requirements
Air brake systems
Passenger car brake systems
Seat belt assemblies
Seat belt assembly anchorages
Child restraints systems
Seating reference point
Side impact anthropomorphic test dummy
Long Term
Occupant crash protection in frontal impact
Side impact protection
Occupant protection in interior impact (other than frontal)
Fuel system integrity
Flammability of interior materials
Bumpers
Side impact barrier
[[Page 30667]]
Child anthropomorphic test dummies
[FR Doc. 96-15331 Filed 6-12-96; 5:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P