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

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 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