[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 221 (Thursday, November 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58362-58365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29213]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96-43, Notice 3]


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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop on a process for the assessment of 
functional equivalence of regulatory requirements; request for 
comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces a public workshop to discuss a 
proposed step-by-step process for determining functional equivalence of 
U.S. and other international regulatory requirements, and the 
implications of the process for possible rulemaking actions. This 
document also seeks comments from a broad spectrum of participants on 
the proposed process. The purpose of the workshop is to present and 
explain the recommended process for determining functional equivalence 
to all attendees. In addition, the agency wishes to obtain input on the 
flow and logic of the process, and to have an exchange of views among 
participants regarding the ability of the process to not only preserve 
the established levels of safety, but to also potentially lead to 
higher levels. The information gathered at this meeting will assist the 
agency in deciding its future course of action regarding international 
harmonization, specifically functional equivalence as outlined in the 
globally harmonized research agenda agreed upon at the May 1996 15th 
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles 
(ESV) in Melbourne, Australia. The agency will soon be issuing a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking addressing the procedures for filing petitions 
requesting a determination of Functional Equivalence.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on Thursday, January 16, 1997, 
and will begin at 9:00 a.m.
    Those wishing to participate in the workshop should contact Mr. 
Francis J. Turpin, at the address and telephone number listed below, by 
January 6, 1997.
    Written comments: Written comments to be addressed during the 
workshop may be submitted to the agency and must be received no later 
than January 6, 1997.
    All written comments and statements on the subjects discussed at 
the meeting must be received by the agency no later than January 31, 
1997.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in Room 6200 of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh St, S.W., Washington, D.C.
    Written comments should refer to above-referenced docket and notice 
number, and should be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. Docket room hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. 
Monday through Friday. It is requested, but not required, that 10 
copies of the comments and attachments, if any, be submitted. However, 
submissions containing information for which confidential treatment is 
requested should be submitted with three copies to Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh 
Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Seven additional copies from which 
the purportedly confidential information has been deleted should be 
submitted to the Docket Section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Francis J. Turpin, Director, 
Office of International Harmonization, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 
Tel:(202)-366-2107, and Fax:(202)-366-2106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 10 and 11, 1996, NHTSA held a public 
meeting to seek comments on the recommendations made by U.S. and 
European automotive industry for actions by U.S. and European Union 
governments concerning (1) the international harmonization of motor 
vehicle safety and environmental regulation, (2) the intergovernmental 
regulatory process necessary to achieve such harmonization, and (3) the 
coordination of vehicle safety and environmental research. During the 
meeting NHTSA also sought comments on the International Harmonization 
Research Agenda (IHRA) priority items set forth at the 15th ESV 
Conference, which included functional equivalence. NHTSA specifically 
requested input on what a step-by-step process for determining 
functional equivalence might be. NHTSA also extended the deadline for 
receiving comments until October 1, 1996, to provide all interested 
parties enough time to comment on all aspects of the issues addressed 
at the meeting. Based on the responses received from industry, consumer 
and advocacy groups, and other interested parties, NHTSA designed a 
process that it believes to be responsive to all major issues presented 
on functional equivalence and foremost, the considerations of 
preserving the highest levels of safety and/or the upgrade of existing 
standards to achieve the same.
    On November 14, 1996, a meeting of the IHRA committee will be held 
in Geneva to discuss the progress of each research item outlined in the 
international research agreement. During the meeting, the proposed 
flowchart will be shared with committee members and comments will be 
requested.
    For a detailed summary of supplementary materials, please refer to 
notices 1 and 2 of this docket.1 In addition, the docket includes 
a transcript of the July 10 and 11 public meeting referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     1 (61 F.R. 30657, June 17, 1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Comments Received on Functional Equivalence

    Since the July 1996 public meeting, the agency received comments 
covering a wide range of International Harmonization topics. A summary 
of comments addressing functional equivalence can be found in the 
docket.

II. Step-by-Step Process for Functional Equivalence Determination

    After reviewing all comments submitted under notices 1 and 2, NHTSA 
has developed a suggested flowchart outlining its vision of a 
functional equivalence process. A copy of the flowchart can be found in 
Appendix I to this notice. Additionally, NHTSA plans to issue a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the procedure to be followed for the 
submission of petitions for functional equivalence.
    In general, the flowchart suggests that two regulations will be 
considered

[[Page 58363]]

candidates for a determination that they are functionally equivalent 
when all three of the following screening guidelines are met:
    1. The two regulations have mandatory requirements designed to meet 
a particular safety objective (i.e., have the same intent);
    2. The test procedures, test devices, test conditions, and 
performance criteria are at least similar if not necessarily identical. 
However, the alternative regulation does not violate the underlying 
basis of the original regulation, and the minor differences do not 
cause to have a negative impact on safety;
    3. The safety impact in terms of vehicle safety performance under 
both regulations can be demonstrated to be equivalent using objective 
test procedures and scientific analyses of test and other data. Any 
standard determined to be equivalent or more stringent than another 
would be considered to be functionally equivalent to the latter; and
    4. The above steps would be followed by rulemaking proceeding.

Public Workshop

    All interested persons and organizations are invited to attend the 
workshop. To assist interested parties to prepare for the workshop, the 
agency has developed a preliminary outline, shown below, of major 
topics to be discussed at the meeting. Any additional agenda items of 
interest could be included by making a request to the agency at the 
address given in the notice.

A. Purpose

    The agency is holding a workshop instead of its typical, 
legislative-type public meeting in order to facilitate the interactive 
exchange and development of ideas among all participants. The purpose 
is to present and discuss the proposed process for determining 
functional equivalence. NHTSA hopes that through an interactive 
discussion, an evaluation of the recommended process' ability to 
preserve or improve the existing levels of safety, and the implications 
of the process for possible rulemaking can be made.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If NHTSA tentatively concluded that a foreign standard is 
functionally equivalent to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS), the agency would initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend 
the FMVSS. The proceedings would be conducted in accordance with the 
agency's authorizing legislation concerning vehicle safety (49 
U.S.C. 3010 et seq.) and the Administrative Procedure Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Preliminary Outline of Topics for Public Workshop

    1. Overview and a brief summary of comments on functional 
equivalence.
    2. Discussion of the suggested screening guidelines and the 
proposed flowchart of a process for the determination of functional 
equivalence.
    3. Summary of the workshop.
    The agency intends to conduct the meeting informally. The presiding 
official will first give a brief overview of the workshop, followed by 
a presentation and a discussion of all suggested screening guidelines 
and all steps of the flowchart outlining the proposed process for 
determining functional equivalence. As each step is presented, the 
participants will be asked for comments and input. In addition, at the 
end of the workshop, there will be a period of interactive discussion 
and a summary of all conclusions reached and all recommendations made 
during the workshop. Also, at any point during the workshop, and upon 
request, the presiding official, will allow participants to ask 
questions or provide comments. When commenting, participants should 
approach the microphone and state their name and affiliation for the 
record. All participants are asked to be succinct. Participants may 
also submit written questions to the presiding official to be 
considered for response by particular participants or presenters.
    The agency will provide an overhead projector, a slide projector 
and a TV-VCR system. Persons planning to use other visual aids during 
the workshop should please indicate to the agency their requirements. A 
copy of any charts, slides and other materials presented must be 
provided to the agency for the docket at the end of the workshop.

Comments

    The agency invites all interested parties to submit written 
comments. The agency notes that participation in the public workshop is 
not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. Written comments 
should be sent to the address and follow the same requirements 
specified above in section ADDRESSES.
    No comment may exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This 
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary 
arguments in a concise fashion. Necessary attachments may be appended 
to a comment without regard to the 15-page limit. All comments that are 
submitted within two weeks after the date of the public workshop will 
be included in the public record of the workshop. Those persons who 
desire to be notified upon receipt of their written comments in the 
Docket Section should enclose, in the envelope with their comments, a 
self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receipt, the docket supervisor 
will return the postcard by mail.
    A verbatim transcript of the meeting will be prepared by NHTSA and 
placed in the docket as soon as possible after the meeting.
    Issued on November 8, 1996.
Francis J. Turpin,
Director, Office of International Harmonization.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 58364]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14NO96.003



[[Page 58365]]

Explanation of Flowchart

Ultimate Goal

    The ultimate goal in comparing standards addressing a particular 
problem is assessing the real world performance of the covered vehicles 
or equipment in reducing fatalities and injuries. The most reliable 
basis for making that assessment is fatality and injury data directly 
drawn from actual crashes. Accordingly, the countries involved in 
making functional equivalence determinations should make appropriate 
efforts to assure the availability of such data.

Guiding Principles

Best Available Evidence
    Country A should base its FE determinations on the best available 
evidence. If available, estimates of real world safety benefits based 
on fatality and injury data directly drawn from actual crashes are the 
best evidence. If such data are not available, then estimates based on 
other information, such as compliance test data, may be used, although 
increased caution needs to be exercised in making judgment based on 
those estimates. If sufficient crash data regarding real world safety 
benefits are available, and a comparison of those benefits shows that 
the Country B standard is less beneficial than the Country A standard, 
Country A could avoid wasting resources making comparisons on the basis 
of less definitive types of evidence.
Sufficiency of Evidence
    Many types of data are available for a comparison of two standards. 
Often there is an abundance of one type of data and little or no data 
from other sources. If insufficient data are available, and such data 
either cannot be generated through engineering analysis (e.g., real 
world safety benefits estimates), or conducting additional research and 
development is not cost effective, then Country A should immediately 
stop consideration of such data and consider the other available data 
instead.
    The horizontal path through the flowchart is intended to illustrate 
the sources of data that will be considered and a rough idea of the 
priority they will receive. Each step branches independently to the 
tentative determination of functional equivalency by its ``yes'' path. 
This may seem to preclude later steps once any ``yes'' path is 
encountered. In practice, however, all data sources will be considered 
to the extent that they are available before a determination of 
functional equivalency is made.
Best Practices
    Country A should pursue a ``best practices'' policy, i.e., Country 
A should propose to upgrade its standards when it concludes that a 
Country B standard offers greater benefits than its counterpart Country 
A standard.
Conservatism
    Country A should place priority on preserving the safety benefits 
of its standards. Country A can best preserve those benefits by being 
conservative in reaching any conclusion that Country B standard is FE 
to its counterpart Country A standard.
Reciprocity
    Country A should take steps to encourage reciprocity by Country B. 
When Country A's comparison of standards indicates that one of its 
standards has benefits equal to or greater than its counterpart Country 
B standard, Country A should forward the results of that comparison to 
Country B and request consideration be given by Country B to 
determining that the Country A standard is FE to its counterpart 
Country B standard.

Notes

    1. Instead of issuing a proposal to amend its standard by adding 
the alternative of complying with Country B's standard, Country A 
may decide to propose seeking to harmonize its standard with the 
foreign standard. This approach would enable Country A to maintain a 
single set of requirements and test procedures in its standard, 
thereby minimizing any effect on its enforcement resources.
    2. There may be circumstantial differences, such as special 
environmental conditions, driver demographics, driver behavior, 
occupant behavior (e.g., level of safety belt use), road conditions, 
size distribution of vehicle fleet (e.g., proportion of big versus 
small vehicles and disparity between extremes), that could influence 
real world safety benefits. These differences may result in a 
particular standard having a safety record in one political 
jurisdiction that does not translate to the other jurisdiction.
    3. Differences from model to model and manufacturer to 
manufacturer in margins of compliance may confound efforts to assess 
the relative stringency of two standards.

[FR Doc. 96-29213 Filed 11-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P