[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44565-44570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-18130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-00-7638]


NHTSA's Recommendations for Global Technical Regulations Under 
the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe 1998 Global 
Agreement; Motor Vehicle Safety

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In anticipation of the entry into force of the United Nations/
Economic Commission for Europe 1998 Global Agreement, NHTSA seeks 
public comments on its preliminary recommendations for the first motor 
vehicle safety technical regulations to be considered for establishment 
under that Agreement.

DATES: Written comments may be submitted to this agency and must be 
received by September 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket 
Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 
20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by 
logging onto the Docket Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help & Information'' or ``Help/Info'' to view 
instructions for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how 
you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical and policy issues: Ms. 
Julie Abraham, Director, Office of International Policy and 
Harmonization, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2114. 
Fax: (202) 366-2559.
    For legal issues: Nancy Bell, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, NCC-20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. 
Fax: (202) 366-3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may read the materials placed in the 
docket for this notice (e.g., the comments submitted in response to 
this notice by other interested persons) by visiting the address given 
above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket Management System (DMS) 
are indicated above in the same location.
    You may also read the materials on the Internet. To do so, take the 
following steps:
    (1) Go to the Web page of the Department of Transportation DMS 
(http://dms.dot.gov/).
    (2) On that page, click on ``search'' near the top of the page or 
scroll down to the words ``Search the DMS Web'' and click on them.
    (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), scroll down to 
``Docket Number'' and type in the four-digit docket number (7638) shown 
in the title at the beginning of this notice. After typing the docket 
number, click on ``search.''
    (4) On the next page (``Docket Summary Information''), which 
contains docket summary information for the materials in the docket you 
selected, scroll down to ``search results'' and click on the desired 
materials. You may download the materials.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. 1998 Global Agreement
    B. Why NHTSA is Issuing this Request for Comments
II. NHTSA's Preliminary Recommendations for the Initial Subjects to 
be Considered under the 1998 Global Agreement
    A. Priority Recommendations
    B. Other Recommendations
III. Technical Regulations for Future Consideration by NHTSA
IV. Issues for Public Comment
V. Future Actions

I. Background

A. 1998 Global Agreement

    On June 25, 1998, the U.S. became the first signatory to the United 
Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) \1\ Agreement 
Concerning the Establishment of Global and Technical Regulations for 
Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts Which Can Be Fitted And/or Be 
Used On Wheeled Vehicles (the ``1998 Global Agreement''). \2\ The 1998 
Global Agreement provides for the establishment of global technical 
regulations regarding the safety, emissions, energy conservation and 
theft prevention of wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts. \3\ The 
Agreement contains procedures for establishing global technical 
regulations by either harmonizing existing regulations or developing a 
new regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Economic Commission for Europe was established by the 
United Nations (UN) in 1947 to help rebuild post-war Europe, develop 
economic activity and strengthen economic relations between European 
countries and between them and the other countries of the world.
    \2\ To aid persons unfamiliar with the 1998 Global Agreement in 
gaining an understanding of its provisions, this agency has 
summarized the key aspects in an appendix to this notice. The 
complete text of the Agreement may be found on the Internet at the 
following address: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29glob.html.
    \3\ The covered equipment and parts include, but are not limited 
to, exhaust systems, tires, engines, acoustic shields, anti-theft 
alarms, warning devices and child restraint systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The establishment of global technical regulations is expected to 
lead to a significant degree of convergence in motor vehicle 
regulations at the regional and national levels. However, while in some 
instances the result may be the adoption of identical or substantially 
identical regulations at those levels, in other instances, the result 
may be regulations that differ but do not conflict with each other. 
While the Agreement obligates the Contracting Parties, under certain 
circumstances, to consider adopting the global technical regulations 
within their own jurisdictions, it does not obligate the Parties to 
adopt them. The Agreement recognizes that governments have the right to 
determine whether the global technical regulations established under 
the Agreement are suitable for their own particular safety needs. Those 
needs vary from country to country due to differences in the traffic 
environment, vehicle fleet composition, driver

[[Page 44566]]

characteristics and seat belt usage rates. Further, the Agreement 
explicitly recognizes the right of governments to adopt and maintain 
technical regulations that are more stringently protective of health 
and the environment than the global technical regulations.
    The Agreement was negotiated under the auspices of the UN/ECE's 
World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) \4\ under 
the leadership of the United States (U.S.), \5\ the European Community 
(EC), and Japan. Becoming a Contracting Party to the 1998 Global 
Agreement accomplishes several purposes for the U.S. First, it provides 
the U.S. with a vote in the establishment of global technical 
regulations for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts under the UN/ECE 
and enables the U.S. to take a leading role in effectively influencing 
the selection of the level of vehicle safety regulations world wide. 
\6\ Second, it ensures that U.S. standards and their benefits will be 
properly considered in any effort to adopt a harmonized global 
technical regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Formerly, ``Working Party on the Construction of Vehicles 
(WP.29)''.
    \5\ The U.S. was represented in those negotiations by this 
agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    \6\ The U.S. does not have a vote under an existing earlier UN/
ECE agreement regarding wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts, known 
as the ``1958 Agreement'' because it is not a contracting party to 
that agreement. Historically, the United States did not become a 
contracting party to the 1958 Agreement because (1) it was not 
feasible to develop regulations regarding motor vehicle safety in 
what was then a primarily common European regulatory development 
forum and (2) NHTSA's enforcement procedures precluded the U.S. from 
engaging in the 1958 Agreement's mutual recognition obligations. 
Although the 1958 Agreement was amended in late 1995 to reduce the 
impediments to becoming a contracting party, the U.S. determined 
that further amendments were desirable. Ultimately, it determined in 
talks with the contracting parties to the 1958 Agreement that the 
most desirable course of action was to develop a new, parallel 
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Why NHTSA Is Issuing This Request for Comments

    The 1998 Global Agreement is nearing entry into force. The 
Agreement provides that it will enter into force 30 days after the 
number of Contracting Parties \7\ reaches eight. There are now seven 
Contracting Parties and an eighth country has signed the Agreement 
subject to ratification. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As used here and in the balance of this notice, 
``Contracting Parties'' refers to Contracting Parties to the 1998 
Global Agreement.
    \8\ The first seven Contracting Parties are: Canada, the EC, 
France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and the U.S. The Republic of 
South Africa has signed the Agreement subject to ratification. The 
Russian Federation reports that its signing of the Agreement is 
imminent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In early 1999, NHTSA began making preparations for the 1998 Global 
Agreement's entry into force by issuing a notice requesting public 
comments on a draft policy statement describing the agency's activities 
and practices for facilitating public participation with respect to 
motor vehicle safety issues that arise in the implementation of the 
Agreement. \9\ The draft statement also set forth the general 
substantive policy goals regarding vehicle safety that the agency will 
pursue in participating in the implementation of the agreement. Those 
goals are: (a) Advance vehicle safety by identifying the best safety 
practices among the safety standards from around the world and 
incorporating those practices into the U.S. standards or by developing 
and adopting new standards reflecting anticipated technological 
advances and current and anticipated safety problems, \10\ (b) preserve 
the agency's ability to adopt standards that meet U.S. vehicle safety 
needs, and (c) harmonize the U.S. safety standards with those of other 
countries to the extent consistent with maintaining or improving 
existing levels of motor vehicle safety in the U.S. NHTSA will issue a 
final version of the policy statement shortly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Draft NHTSA statement of policy concerning the agency's 
goals in the implementation of the 1998 Global Agreement. (January 
5, 1999; 64 FR 563)
    \10\ For example, if the U.S. examined its standard and those of 
other countries addressing a particular safety problem and concluded 
that the standard of country A represented best safety practices, 
i.e., produced more safety benefits than all the other counterpart 
standards, the U.S. would propose to raise its standard to the level 
of country A's standard. Consideration of anticipated technological 
advances and current and anticipated safety problems might lead the 
U.S. to propose to raise its standard even higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now that the Agreement's entry into force appears imminent, NHTSA 
is issuing this notice to obtain public comments on a list of 
preliminary recommendations of standards or aspects of standards for 
consideration by the Contracting Parties in prioritizing the 
development and establishment of global technical regulations under the 
Agreement. The agency believes that the recommendations will serve the 
interest of improving motor vehicle safety in the U.S. They will also 
help to carry out the 1998 Global Agreement's goal of continuously 
improving and seeking high levels of safety around the world. In turn, 
accomplishing that goal will promote the development of new and/or 
better U.S. standards, thus leveraging NHTSA's resources available for 
such development.
    NHTSA cautions that its list of preliminary recommendations for the 
initial priorities under the 1998 Global Agreement should not be 
mistaken for the much more inclusive list of its activities under the 
former National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 
et seq. (``the Vehicle Safety Act'').
    Based on available information and analysis concerning the relative 
level of stringency and benefits of U.S. and foreign standards and 
regulations, NHTSA has placed its preliminary recommendations into two 
categories: (1) Priority recommendations, and (2) Other 
recommendations.
    The ``priority recommendations'' category includes some foreign 
standards or aspects of those standards that may represent best current 
safety practices among the existing national and regional standards and 
should therefore be considered by the Contracting Parties when 
establishing global technical regulations.\11\ If those standards or 
aspects of standards do, in fact, represent best practices, their 
addition to the U.S. standards would improve vehicle safety in the 
U.S.\12\ In allocating its resources among its preliminary 
recommendations, the agency will give priority to the recommendations 
in this category. If NHTSA's research and analysis indicates that a 
foreign standard, in whole or in part, is indeed more beneficial to 
safety, the agency anticipates that it will propose under the Vehicle 
Safety Act to raise its standards at least to the level of that foreign 
standard.\13\ The standards in this category were largely drawn from 
NHTSA's ongoing upward harmonization activities under the Vehicle 
Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NHTSA wants to emphasize that neither the list in this 
category nor the list in the second category is exhaustive. The 
purpose in developing these lists is not to provide a complete 
census of all standards or aspects of standards that may represent 
best practices. Instead, the purpose is to provide recommendations 
regarding a limited number of standards on which the Contracting 
Parties should initially focus their efforts.
    \12\ Whether a standard or aspect of a standard actually 
represents best practices is best determined through analysis of 
real world crash data and research data.
    \13\ During the development of all proposals and during WP.29 
proceedings, best available technology and future technology will be 
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``other recommendations'' category includes some U.S. standards 
or aspects of those standards that appear to represent best current 
safety practices and should therefore be considered by the Contracting 
Parties when establishing global technical regulations. NHTSA would 
like to obtain international review and feedback concerning these U.S. 
standards. Such feedback and review

[[Page 44567]]

may lead to improvements in the U.S. standards. Further, the agency 
believes that it is important to ensure that global technical 
regulations are established at levels not less than those of the U.S. 
standards. The standards in this category were selected largely because 
they address safety problems that are the subject of either NHTSA's 
ongoing upward harmonization activities under the Vehicle Safety Act or 
WP.29's ongoing activities.
    In anticipation of the 1998 Global Agreement's entry into force, 
interest groups and other governments have also begun to make 
recommendations concerning vehicle safety priorities for harmonization 
activities under the Agreement. At the 120th Session of WP.29 in March 
2000, the U.S. and other Contracting Parties were asked to develop 
their own recommendations. We have placed a document in the docket for 
this notice, entitled ``Summary of Suggestions by the Governments of 
Japan and the Russian Federation and by Various Industry and Consumer 
Groups for Technical Regulations to be Established under 1998 Global 
Agreement.'' The documents from which those suggestions were drawn have 
also been placed in the docket for this notice.

II. NHTSA's Preliminary Recommendations for the Initial Subjects To 
Be Considered Under the 1998 Global Agreement

A. Priority Recommendations

    Head Restraints: NHTSA received a petition from the former American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and the Association of 
International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) requesting that NHTSA 
recognize the ECE head restraint standard as functionally equivalent to 
the U.S. head restraint standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 202). Based on the agency's comparison of the dimensional 
requirements of the standards, the ECE standard appears to be more 
stringent in several important respects. NHTSA intends to propose 
upgrading the U.S. head restraint standard to at least the level of the 
ECE standard.
    Steering column movement: Currently, the ECE regulation limits 
rearward and vertical movement of the steering column, while the U.S. 
standard (FMVSS No. 204) limits rearward movement only. Vertical 
displacement and misalignment of the steering wheel may result in head, 
upper chest and abdominal injuries. NHTSA has begun studying the safety 
consequences of rearward and vertical displacement as part of its 
offset frontal crash test evaluation program. (See the next entry 
entitled ``Frontal offset.'')
    Frontal offset: NHTSA believes that the use of a full frontal crash 
test, supplemented by a frontal offset crash test, would enhance the 
safety of all passengers. The full frontal crash test requirements have 
led to significant reductions in head, neck and chest injuries, while 
frontal offset crash test requirements are expected to reduce lower 
extremity injuries.
    In fiscal years 1996 and 1997, Congress provided NHTSA with funds 
to be used toward establishing a U.S. standard for frontal offset crash 
testing. It directed NHTSA to work with interested parties, including 
the automotive industry, to develop such a standard under established 
rulemaking procedures and further stated that these activities should 
reflect ongoing efforts to enhance international harmonization of 
safety standards. NHTSA has been evaluating the European offset test 
and plans to propose a high speed belted offset test with a fixed 
deformable barrier as a supplement to its existing full frontal test. A 
lower speed offset requirement (i.e., 40 kmph) already has been 
incorporated as part of the agency's advanced air bag final rule issued 
in May 2000. That test is intended to ensure that crash sensors work 
properly in offset crashes.
    Dummy (10 year old child): Currently, the largest dummy specified 
in the ECE child restraint regulation is a 10 year old dummy, while the 
largest child dummy specified in the U.S. child restraint standard 
(FMVSS No. 213) is a 6 year old dummy. A 10 year old dummy represents 
children weighing 70-75 lb., while a 6 year old dummy represents 
children weighing about 50 lb. NHTSA's addition of a 10 year old dummy 
to FMVSS No. 213 would allow it to assess the safety of 70-75 lb. 
children restrained in lap/shoulder belt with or without a booster 
seat, as well as in belt positioning devices that are marketed for use 
by older children and small-statured adults. The addition of that dummy 
to the U.S. occupant protection (air bags and seat belts) standard 
(FMVSS No. 208) could also aid in minimizing the risk of air bag-
induced injuries to children in that weight range.
    Side impact dummy (SID): In 1996, Congress instructed NHTSA to 
develop a plan to harmonize the U.S. side impact standard and the ECE 
side impact regulation. In 1997, NHTSA received a petition from AAMA, 
AIAM and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to recognize the 
ECE regulation as functionally equivalent to the U.S. standard (FMVSS 
No. 204). NHTSA has recently denied the petition based on test results 
and analyses (May 24, 2000; 65 FR 33508). However, in its denial, as 
well as its report to Congress, NHTSA stated that it will consider 
proposing to adopt EuroSID-2, a modified version of the ECE dummy, 
EuroSID-1, and the ECE injury assessment criteria.\14\ The EuroSID-2 
measures the potential for injury not only to the same portions of body 
measured by the U.S. dummy, but also to portions (i.e., head, upper 
neck and abdomen) that the U.S. dummy does not measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Status of NHTSA Plan for Side Impact Regulation 
Harmonization and Upgrade, Report to Congress, March 1999.'' See 
Docket No. NHTSA-98-3935-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Car tires: The Rubber Manufacturers Association and five other tire 
industry organizations from around the world petitioned NHTSA to amend 
the U.S. standard (FMVSS No. 109) to adopt a standard, Global Tire 
Standard 2000, which was agreed upon by the tire industry worldwide. 
The same proposal was submitted to WP.29 for consideration as a global 
regulation. The agency considers tire harmonization to be a priority 
because FMVSS No. 109, which was developed primarily for bias-ply 
tires, needs to be updated and upgraded for radial tires. The agency 
also believes that certain test requirements in other national 
standards are more appropriate for radial tires and that their adoption 
would be an improvement over the bias-ply tire provisions in the U.S. 
standard. The goal is to harmonize the performance requirements of 
tires by adopting best practices in national tire standards from around 
the world and, to the extent that supporting data are available, 
improve those practices.
    Signal lamp visibility: The ECE lighting performance requirements 
are set forth in several different regulations. We are seeking to 
harmonize the ECE regulations and any other national regulations 
regarding signal lamp visibility with the counterpart provisions in the 
U.S. standard on lighting (FMVSS No. 108).
    NHTSA has issued a notice for proposed rulemaking (NPRM) based on 
the ECE requirements for signal lamp visibility. The agency initiated 
this rulemaking in response to a petition by Working Party ``Brussels 
1952'' (also known as Groupes Travails Bruxelles (GTB)), a association 
of lighting and vehicle manufacturers' technical experts, requesting 
that the U.S. adopt more objective lamp visibility requirements. The 
geometric visibility angles for some lamps are greater under the ECE 
regulation. The proposal uses

[[Page 44568]]

the area measurement method for determining signal visibility as 
contained in the current U.S. standard and, as an alternative, the 
light intensity measurement of the ECE regulation. The proposal also 
includes specified angles for viewing locations that are specified only 
in the ECE regulation. The adoption of this proposal would improve 
enforceability through increasing objectivity and improve safety 
through increasing the visibility of some lamps.
    Vehicle classification: Vehicle classification is a fundamental 
issue because it affects the applicability of all safety standards and 
regulations. A significant difference in classification is that vans 
and sport utility vehicles are classified as passenger cars in many 
countries, but as multipurpose passenger vehicles in the U.S. and 
Canada.
    In response to a submission by Japan, the Administrative Committee 
of WP.29 agreed during the 121st Session of WP.29 in July 2000 that an 
informal group should be established under the Working Party on General 
Safety Provisions for the purpose of developing common definitions of 
vehicle classes and vehicle mass and dimensions for vehicle safety 
purposes. The Committee agreed further that the group should be chaired 
by Japan. One possible outcome of revising the definitions would be to 
increase the extent to passenger carrying vehicles are regulated in 
similar ways.

B. Other Recommendations

    Upper interior impact protection: WP.29 is contemplating the 
possibility of updating the ECE head impact regulation. Thus, the 
opportunity exists for developing a harmonized global regulation. The 
development of such a regulation should reflect due consideration of 
NHTSA activity in this area in the mid-1990's. NHTSA upgraded the U.S. 
interior impact protection standard (FMVSS No. 201) in 1995 by adding 
performance requirements for the upper interior of vehicles. The 
standard utilizes an up-to-date free motion headform that is propelled 
into various interior target locations at various angles. The standard 
was later amended to incorporate a side impact pole test in order to 
allow and/or encourage inflatable devices that provide superior head 
protection.
    Full frontal crash test: For the reasons stated above, NHTSA 
believes that the safety of all passengers would be enhanced by 
assessing the protection provided to both 50th percentile adult male 
dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies in a full frontal crash 
test, and a supplementary frontal offset crash test. NHTSA notes that 
the ECE regulations do not currently specify a full frontal crash test. 
Further, the ECE offset crash test regulation does not assess the 
protection of 5th percentile adult female dummies and does not assess 
the risks posed by air bags to either those dummies or child dummies.
    Lower anchors and tethers for children: The U.S. standard (FMVSS 
No. 225) requires a new, dedicated system of anchorages for securing 
child restraints in motor vehicles. The system consists of two 
anchorages in the vehicle seat bight (i.e., the area where the seat 
back and the seat cushion meet) and a top tether. \15\ The U.S. 
strength requirements differ from the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) \16\ requirements for lower anchorages and the 
Canadian requirements for tethers. This is because the U.S. 
requirements are intended to protect children who weigh up to 50 
pounds, while both the ISO and Canadian requirements are based on a 3 
year old, 33-pound child. Further, new child seats have recently been 
marketed for use to restrain children weighing up to 65 pounds. NHTSA 
has made efforts to ensure that the requirements in the U.S. standard 
are objective and meet the need to protect those larger children. For 
example, NHTSA specified the failure of an anchorage in terms of a 
measurable displacement instead of a subjective criterion such as 
whether the anchorage ``withstands'' a specified force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Each lower anchorage will include a rigid round rod or 
``bar'' unto which a hook, a jaw-like buckle or other connector can 
be snapped. The upper anchorage will be a ring-like object to which 
the upper tether of a child restraint system can be attached.
    \16\ The International Standards Organization (ISO) is a non-
governmental, worldwide federation of national standards bodies from 
approximately 130 countries. (http://www.iso.ch/) It was established 
in 1947. Its mission is to promote the development of 
standardization and related activities in the world with a view to 
facilitating the international exchange of goods and services, and 
to developing cooperation in the spheres of intellectual, 
scientific, technological and economic activity. Its work is carried 
out through a hierarchy of technical committees, subcommittees, and 
working groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WP.29 is currently working on upgrading the ECE child restraint 
regulation and is leaning toward adopting slightly different bars and 
using legs, i.e., braces extending between the lower front of the child 
restraint and the vehicle floor, instead of tethers. Working with WP.29 
at this stage will minimize divergences in the U.S. standard and the 
ECE regulations while ensuring that children worldwide receive the best 
protection possible.
    Door retention components: The existing U.S. and foreign standards 
have been in place a long time. NHTSA has already begun work to upgrade 
the U.S. standard (FMVSS No. 206). Sharing this work with WP.29 and 
seeking comments at the outset about current and future best practices 
could eliminate potential future divergences and lead to a global 
technical regulation.
    Fuel system integrity: The existing U.S. and foreign standards are, 
for the most part, similar and have been in place a long time. NHTSA 
has already begun work to upgrade the U.S. standard (FMVSS No. 301). 
Sharing this work with WP.29 and seeking comments at the outset about 
current and future best practices could eliminate potential future 
divergences and lead to a global technical regulation.
    Controls and displays: No ECE regulation exists on this subject. 
Further, the European Union (EU) directive on this subject lacks many 
of the location and illumination requirements of the U.S. standard 
(FMVSS No. 101) and concentrates mainly on symbols. WP.29 is interested 
in developing an ECE regulation on controls and displays and has asked 
the U.S. and Canada to develop a draft harmonized standard that will 
incorporate control and display requirements currently in standards of 
other countries. The draft will include requirements regarding 
visibility, illumination and location of controls and displays, and 
will specify many standardized ISO symbols as mandatory or optional.
    Area of windshield cleared by defrosters, defoggers, and windshield 
wipers: The agency was petitioned by the AAMA and AIAM to recognize the 
EU directive as functionally equivalent to the U.S. standards (FMVSS 
No. 103 and 104). Based on its assessment of the differences between 
the directive and standard, NHTSA denied the petition. The swept and 
cleared areas in the U.S. standards are greater that those in the EU 
directive. In its denial notice, NHTSA announced that it will seek a 
globally harmonized regulation under WP.29 that would include the 
larger swept and cleared areas under the U.S. standards. WP.29 is 
interested in establishing a global regulation on this subject.

III. Technical Regulations for Future Consideration by NHTSA

    Under the International Harmonized Research Activities (IHRA), 
working groups have been formed to address specific issues. These six 
groups are: (1) Biomechanics, (2) Side Impact, (3) Advanced Offset 
Frontal Crash

[[Page 44569]]

Protection, (4) Vehicle Compatibility, (5) Pedestrian Safety, and (6) 
Intelligent Transportation Systems. The working groups are comprised of 
government officials and of industry and other nongovernmental 
organization members nominated by their respective governments.
    The following working groups are conducting research in areas that 
the NHTSA foresees contributing to future harmonization activity:
    Side impact (side impact barrier and test procedure): The group is 
considering a proposal for a dynamic side crash test. The details of 
the test procedures are still under discussion. It is hoped that the 
quantified requirements that evolve will be flexible enough to allow 
the various countries to select requirements suited to their individual 
needs. Participating members of the working group will test vehicles to 
assess the validity of the proposed test procedures.
    Advanced offset frontal crash: The working group's approach is to 
develop a fixed deformable barrier offset test for the near term, and 
for the long term to develop a test procedure based on the use of a 
moving deformable barrier. Major topics of discussion have included 
vehicle categories for consideration, type of barrier (rigid vs. 
deformable), impact speed, performance criteria, air bag performance, 
impact angle, and trolley characteristics.
    Vehicle compatibility: The aim of this work is to develop 
internationally agreed upon test procedures designed to improve the 
compatibility of passenger car and light truck structures in front-to-
front and in front-to-side impacts, thus enhancing the level of 
occupant protection in these crash modes. A concept for improved 
vehicle compatibility that has emerged from discussions to date 
involves limiting the amount of crush that the occupant compartment 
sustains while also limiting the magnitude and location of crash 
loading that a colliding vehicle can impose during a crash. Activities 
have been recently initiated by the working group members to explore 
this concept.
    Pedestrian safety: The working group is assembling field data from 
the various countries into a unified database. Research priorities are 
being established based on these data, with the first priority given to 
head protection for both adults and children. Adult leg protection is 
also high on the priority list. Existing component level test 
procedures for head, leg, and thigh/pelvis are being examined for 
future harmonization efforts.

IV. Issues for Public Comment

    To facilitate NHTSA's selection of the initial technical 
regulations to be recommended for development under the 1998 Global 
Agreement, NHTSA requests responses to the following questions. If you 
respond to any of the questions by suggesting changes to the agency's 
list of preliminary recommendations, we request that you support your 
suggestions with real world crash data and research data.
    1. Should any changes be made to the agency's list of preliminary 
recommendations? If you believe that any changes should be made to the 
list, describe the changes and explain why they should be made.
    For example, should the agency add to its list any other standards 
(e.g., brakes and lighting) on which significant amounts of time and 
resources have already been spent in an effort to update/upgrade and 
harmonize them? Should the agency add any of the standards that are 
being harmonized under an earlier agreement administered by WP.29 known 
as the ``1958 Agreement''? \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The full formal title of the 1958 Agreement is the 
``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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Should any of the standards or items listed in ``Summary of 
Suggestions by the Governments of Japan and the Russian Federation and 
by Various Industry and Consumer Groups for Technical Regulations to be 
Established under 1998 Global Agreement'' be added to the agency's list 
of preliminary recommendations? (As noted above, that document has been 
placed in the docket for this notice.) If so, explain why they should 
be added.
    3. In the long term, what relationship should NHTSA establish 
between its rulemaking activities under the Vehicle Safety Act and 
WP.29's priority activities under the 1998 Global Agreement? To what 
extent, and how, should those two different sets of activities be 
linked so that both sets advance vehicle safety?

V. Future Actions

    NHTSA will take all public comments into account and publish a 
revised list of recommendations. The agency will present its list to 
WP.29 in November and use it in deliberating with other Contracting 
Parties concerning the establishment of priorities under the 1998 
Global Agreement.

Appendix--Highlights of the 1998 Global Agreement

     The Agreement establishes a global process under the 
United Nations, Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE), for 
developing and harmonizing global technical regulations ensuring 
high levels of environmental protection, safety, energy efficiency 
and anti-theft performance of wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts 
which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles. Motor 
vehicle engines are included. (Preamble, Art. 1)
     Members of the ECE, as well as member countries of the 
United Nations that participate in certain ECE activities, are 
eligible to become Contracting Parties to the 1998 Global Agreement. 
Specialized agencies and organizations that have been granted 
consultative status may participate in that capacity. (Art. 2)
     The Agreement will enter into force when a minimum of 
eight (8) countries or regional economic integration organizations 
become Contracting Parties. At least one of the eight must be either 
the EC, Japan, or the U.S. (Art. 11)
     The Agreement explicitly recognizes the importance of 
continuously improving and seeking high levels of safety and 
environmental protection and the right of national and subnational 
authorities, e.g., California, to adopt and maintain technical 
regulations that are more stringently protective of health and the 
environment than those established at the global level. (Preamble)
     The Agreement explicitly states that one of its 
purposes is to ensure that actions under the Agreement do not 
promote, or result in, a lowering of safety and environmental 
protection within the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties, 
including the subnational level. (Art. 1)
     To the extent consistent with achieving high levels of 
environmental protection and vehicle safety, the Agreement also 
seeks to promote global harmonization of motor vehicle and engine 
regulations. (Preamble)
     The Agreement recognizes that governments have the 
right to determine whether the global technical regulations 
established under the Agreement are suitable for their needs. 
(Preamble)
     The Agreement emphasizes that the development of global 
technical regulations will be transparent. (Art. 1)
    Annex A provides that the term ``transparent procedures'' 
includes the opportunity to have views and arguments represented at:
    (1) Meetings of Working Parties of Experts through organizations 
granted consultative status; and
    (2) Meetings of Working Parties of Experts and of the Executive 
Committee (i.e., the Contracting Parties to the 1998 Global 
Agreement) through pre-meeting consulting with representatives of 
Contracting Parties.
     The Agreement provides two different paths to the 
establishment of global technical regulations. The first is the 
harmonization of existing standards. The second is the establishment 
of a new global technical regulation where there are no existing 
standards. (Article 6.2 and 6.3)

[[Page 44570]]

     The process for developing a harmonized global 
technical regulation includes a technical review of existing 
regulations of the Contracting Parties and of the UN/ECE 
regulations, as well as relevant international voluntary standards 
(e.g., standards of the International Standards Organization). If 
available, comparative assessments of the benefits of these 
regulations (also known as functional equivalence assessments) are 
also reviewed. (Art. 1.1.2, Article 6.2)
     The process for developing a new global technical 
regulation includes the assessment of technical and economic 
feasibility and a comparative evaluation of the potential benefits 
and cost effectiveness of alternative regulatory requirements and 
the test method(s) by which compliance is to be demonstrated. 
(Article 6.3)
     To establish any global technical regulation, there 
must be a consensus vote, i.e., all Contracting Parties present and 
voting must vote for establishment. Thus, if any Contracting Party 
votes against a recommended global technical regulation, it would 
not be established. (Annex B, Article 7.2)
     The establishment of a global technical regulation does 
not obligate Contracting Parties to adopt that regulation into its 
own laws and regulations. Contracting Parties retain the right to 
choose whether or not to adopt any technical regulation established 
as a global technical regulation under the Agreement. (Preamble, 
Article 7)
     Consistent with the recognition of that right, 
Contracting Parties have only a limited obligation when a global 
technical regulation is established under the Agreement. If a 
Contracting Party voted to establish the regulation, that 
Contracting Party must initiate the procedures used by the Party to 
adopt such a regulation as a domestic regulation. (Article 7)
    For the U.S., this would likely entail initiating the rulemaking 
process by issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 
or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). If the U.S. were to adopt 
a global technical regulation into national law, it would do so in 
accordance with all applicable procedural and substantive statutory 
provisions, including the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 
et seq., the Vehicle Safety Act, and comparable provisions of other 
relevant statutes, such as the Clean Air Act.
     The Agreement allows the inclusion in global technical 
regulations of a ``global'' level of stringency for most parties and 
``alternative'' levels of stringency for developing countries. In 
this way, all countries, including the developing ones, will have an 
interest in participating in the development, establishment, 
adoption and implementation of global technical regulations. It is 
anticipated that a developing country may wish to begin by adopting 
one of the lower levels of stringency and later successively adopt 
higher levels of stringency. (Article 4)

    Issued on: July 12, 2000.
Julie Abraham,
Director, Office of Harmonization.

[FR Doc. 00-18130 Filed 7-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P