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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96-43, Notice 3]

International Regulatory Harmonization, Motor Vehicle Safety;

Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines and the Environment

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

ACTION: Notice of public workshop on a process for the assessment of

functional equivalence of regulatory requirements; request for

comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces a public workshop to discuss a

proposed step-by-step process for determining functional equivalence of

U.S. and other international regulatory requirements, and the

implications of the process for possible rulemaking actions. This

document also seeks comments from a broad spectrum of participants on

the proposed process. The purpose of the workshop is to present and

explain the recommended process for determining functional equivalence

to all attendees. In addition, the agency wishes to obtain input on the

flow and logic of the process, and to have an exchange of views among

participants regarding the ability of the process to not only preserve

the established levels of safety, but to also potentially lead to

higher levels. The information gathered at this meeting will assist the

agency in deciding its future course of action regarding international

harmonization, specifically functional equivalence as outlined in the

globally harmonized research agenda agreed upon at the May 1996 15th

International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles

(ESV) in Melbourne, Australia. The agency will soon be issuing a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking addressing the procedures for filing petitions

requesting a determination of Functional Equivalence.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on Thursday, January 16, 1997,

and will begin at 9:00 a.m.

Those wishing to participate in the workshop should contact Mr.

Francis J. Turpin, at the address and telephone number listed below, by

January 6, 1997.

Written comments: Written comments to be addressed during the

workshop may be submitted to the agency and must be received no later

than January 6, 1997.

All written comments and statements on the subjects discussed at

the meeting must be received by the agency no later than January 31,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in Room 6200 of the Nassif

Building, 400 Seventh St, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Written comments should refer to above-referenced docket and notice

number, and should be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590. Docket room hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Monday through Friday. It is requested, but not required, that 10

copies of the comments and attachments, if any, be submitted. However,

submissions containing information for which confidential treatment is

requested should be submitted with three copies to Chief Counsel,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh

Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Seven additional copies from which

the purportedly confidential information has been deleted should be

submitted to the Docket Section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Francis J. Turpin, Director,

Office of International Harmonization, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Tel:(202)-366-2107, and Fax:(202)-366-2106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 10 and 11, 1996, NHTSA held a public

meeting to seek comments on the recommendations made by U.S. and

European automotive industry for actions by U.S. and European Union

governments concerning (1) the international harmonization of motor

vehicle safety and environmental regulation, (2) the intergovernmental

regulatory process necessary to achieve such harmonization, and (3) the

coordination of vehicle safety and environmental research. During the

meeting NHTSA also sought comments on the International Harmonization

Research Agenda (IHRA) priority items set forth at the 15th ESV

Conference, which included functional equivalence. NHTSA specifically

requested input on what a step-by-step process for determining

functional equivalence might be. NHTSA also extended the deadline for

receiving comments until October 1, 1996, to provide all interested

parties enough time to comment on all aspects of the issues addressed

at the meeting. Based on the responses received from industry, consumer

and advocacy groups, and other interested parties, NHTSA designed a

process that it believes to be responsive to all major issues presented

on functional equivalence and foremost, the considerations of

preserving the highest levels of safety and/or the upgrade of existing

standards to achieve the same.

On November 14, 1996, a meeting of the IHRA committee will be held

in Geneva to discuss the progress of each research item outlined in the

international research agreement. During the meeting, the proposed

flowchart will be shared with committee members and comments will be

requested.

For a detailed summary of supplementary materials, please refer to

notices 1 and 2 of this docket.1 In addition, the docket includes

a transcript of the July 10 and 11 public meeting referenced above.

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

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

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

I. Comments Received on Functional Equivalence

Since the July 1996 public meeting, the agency received comments

covering a wide range of International Harmonization topics. A summary

of comments addressing functional equivalence can be found in the

docket.

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

After reviewing all comments submitted under notices 1 and 2, NHTSA

has developed a suggested flowchart outlining its vision of a

functional equivalence process. A copy of the flowchart can be found in

Appendix I to this notice. Additionally, NHTSA plans to issue a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the procedure to be followed for the

submission of petitions for functional equivalence.

In general, the flowchart suggests that two regulations will be

considered

[[Page 58363]]

candidates for a determination that they are functionally equivalent

when all three of the following screening guidelines are met:

1. The two regulations have mandatory requirements designed to meet

a particular safety objective (i.e., have the same intent);

2. The test procedures, test devices, test conditions, and

performance criteria are at least similar if not necessarily identical.

However, the alternative regulation does not violate the underlying

basis of the original regulation, and the minor differences do not

cause to have a negative impact on safety;

3. The safety impact in terms of vehicle safety performance under

both regulations can be demonstrated to be equivalent using objective

test procedures and scientific analyses of test and other data. Any

standard determined to be equivalent or more stringent than another

would be considered to be functionally equivalent to the latter; and

4. The above steps would be followed by rulemaking proceeding.

Public Workshop

All interested persons and organizations are invited to attend the

workshop. To assist interested parties to prepare for the workshop, the

agency has developed a preliminary outline, shown below, of major

topics to be discussed at the meeting. Any additional agenda items of

interest could be included by making a request to the agency at the

address given in the notice.

A. Purpose

The agency is holding a workshop instead of its typical,

legislative-type public meeting in order to facilitate the interactive

exchange and development of ideas among all participants. The purpose

is to present and discuss the proposed process for determining

functional equivalence. NHTSA hopes that through an interactive

discussion, an evaluation of the recommended process' ability to

preserve or improve the existing levels of safety, and the implications

of the process for possible rulemaking can be made.2

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

\2\ If NHTSA tentatively concluded that a foreign standard is

functionally equivalent to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS), the agency would initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend

the FMVSS. The proceedings would be conducted in accordance with the

agency's authorizing legislation concerning vehicle safety (49

U.S.C. 3010 et seq.) and the Administrative Procedure Act.

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

B. Preliminary Outline of Topics for Public Workshop

1. Overview and a brief summary of comments on functional

equivalence.

2. Discussion of the suggested screening guidelines and the

proposed flowchart of a process for the determination of functional

equivalence.

3. Summary of the workshop.

The agency intends to conduct the meeting informally. The presiding

official will first give a brief overview of the workshop, followed by

a presentation and a discussion of all suggested screening guidelines

and all steps of the flowchart outlining the proposed process for

determining functional equivalence. As each step is presented, the

participants will be asked for comments and input. In addition, at the

end of the workshop, there will be a period of interactive discussion

and a summary of all conclusions reached and all recommendations made

during the workshop. Also, at any point during the workshop, and upon

request, the presiding official, will allow participants to ask

questions or provide comments. When commenting, participants should

approach the microphone and state their name and affiliation for the

record. All participants are asked to be succinct. Participants may

also submit written questions to the presiding official to be

considered for response by particular participants or presenters.

The agency will provide an overhead projector, a slide projector

and a TV-VCR system. Persons planning to use other visual aids during

the workshop should please indicate to the agency their requirements. A

copy of any charts, slides and other materials presented must be

provided to the agency for the docket at the end of the workshop.

Comments

The agency invites all interested parties to submit written

comments. The agency notes that participation in the public workshop is

not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. Written comments

should be sent to the address and follow the same requirements

specified above in section ADDRESSES.

No comment may exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This

limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion. Necessary attachments may be appended

to a comment without regard to the 15-page limit. All comments that are

submitted within two weeks after the date of the public workshop will

be included in the public record of the workshop. Those persons who

desire to be notified upon receipt of their written comments in the

Docket Section should enclose, in the envelope with their comments, a

self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receipt, the docket supervisor

will return the postcard by mail.

A verbatim transcript of the meeting will be prepared by NHTSA and

placed in the docket as soon as possible after the meeting.

Issued on November 8, 1996.

Francis J. Turpin,

Director, Office of International Harmonization.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 58364]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14NO96.003

[[Page 58365]]

Explanation of Flowchart

Ultimate Goal

The ultimate goal in comparing standards addressing a particular

problem is assessing the real world performance of the covered vehicles

or equipment in reducing fatalities and injuries. The most reliable

basis for making that assessment is fatality and injury data directly

drawn from actual crashes. Accordingly, the countries involved in

making functional equivalence determinations should make appropriate

efforts to assure the availability of such data.

Guiding Principles

Best Available Evidence

Country A should base its FE determinations on the best available

evidence. If available, estimates of real world safety benefits based

on fatality and injury data directly drawn from actual crashes are the

best evidence. If such data are not available, then estimates based on

other information, such as compliance test data, may be used, although

increased caution needs to be exercised in making judgment based on

those estimates. If sufficient crash data regarding real world safety

benefits are available, and a comparison of those benefits shows that

the Country B standard is less beneficial than the Country A standard,

Country A could avoid wasting resources making comparisons on the basis

of less definitive types of evidence.

Sufficiency of Evidence

Many types of data are available for a comparison of two standards.

Often there is an abundance of one type of data and little or no data

from other sources. If insufficient data are available, and such data

either cannot be generated through engineering analysis (e.g., real

world safety benefits estimates), or conducting additional research and

development is not cost effective, then Country A should immediately

stop consideration of such data and consider the other available data

instead.

The horizontal path through the flowchart is intended to illustrate

the sources of data that will be considered and a rough idea of the

priority they will receive. Each step branches independently to the

tentative determination of functional equivalency by its ``yes'' path.

This may seem to preclude later steps once any ``yes'' path is

encountered. In practice, however, all data sources will be considered

to the extent that they are available before a determination of

functional equivalency is made.

Best Practices

Country A should pursue a ``best practices'' policy, i.e., Country

A should propose to upgrade its standards when it concludes that a

Country B standard offers greater benefits than its counterpart Country

A standard.

Conservatism

Country A should place priority on preserving the safety benefits

of its standards. Country A can best preserve those benefits by being

conservative in reaching any conclusion that Country B standard is FE

to its counterpart Country A standard.

Reciprocity

Country A should take steps to encourage reciprocity by Country B.

When Country A's comparison of standards indicates that one of its

standards has benefits equal to or greater than its counterpart Country

B standard, Country A should forward the results of that comparison to

Country B and request consideration be given by Country B to

determining that the Country A standard is FE to its counterpart

Country B standard.

Notes

1. Instead of issuing a proposal to amend its standard by adding

the alternative of complying with Country B's standard, Country A

may decide to propose seeking to harmonize its standard with the

foreign standard. This approach would enable Country A to maintain a

single set of requirements and test procedures in its standard,

thereby minimizing any effect on its enforcement resources.

2. There may be circumstantial differences, such as special

environmental conditions, driver demographics, driver behavior,

occupant behavior (e.g., level of safety belt use), road conditions,

size distribution of vehicle fleet (e.g., proportion of big versus

small vehicles and disparity between extremes), that could influence

real world safety benefits. These differences may result in a

particular standard having a safety record in one political

jurisdiction that does not translate to the other jurisdiction.

3. Differences from model to model and manufacturer to

manufacturer in margins of compliance may confound efforts to assess

the relative stringency of two standards.

[FR Doc. 96-29213 Filed 11-13-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P