[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