[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 221 (Thursday, November 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58362-58365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29213]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96-43, Notice 3]
International Regulatory Harmonization, Motor Vehicle Safety;
Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines and the Environment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public workshop on a process for the assessment of
functional equivalence of regulatory requirements; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces a public workshop to discuss a
proposed step-by-step process for determining functional equivalence of
U.S. and other international regulatory requirements, and the
implications of the process for possible rulemaking actions. This
document also seeks comments from a broad spectrum of participants on
the proposed process. The purpose of the workshop is to present and
explain the recommended process for determining functional equivalence
to all attendees. In addition, the agency wishes to obtain input on the
flow and logic of the process, and to have an exchange of views among
participants regarding the ability of the process to not only preserve
the established levels of safety, but to also potentially lead to
higher levels. The information gathered at this meeting will assist the
agency in deciding its future course of action regarding international
harmonization, specifically functional equivalence as outlined in the
globally harmonized research agenda agreed upon at the May 1996 15th
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
(ESV) in Melbourne, Australia. The agency will soon be issuing a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking addressing the procedures for filing petitions
requesting a determination of Functional Equivalence.
DATES: The public workshop will be held on Thursday, January 16, 1997,
and will begin at 9:00 a.m.
Those wishing to participate in the workshop should contact Mr.
Francis J. Turpin, at the address and telephone number listed below, by
January 6, 1997.
Written comments: Written comments to be addressed during the
workshop may be submitted to the agency and must be received no later
than January 6, 1997.
All written comments and statements on the subjects discussed at
the meeting must be received by the agency no later than January 31,
1997.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in Room 6200 of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh St, S.W., Washington, D.C.
Written comments should refer to above-referenced docket and notice
number, and should be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590. Docket room hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Monday through Friday. It is requested, but not required, that 10
copies of the comments and attachments, if any, be submitted. However,
submissions containing information for which confidential treatment is
requested should be submitted with three copies to Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh
Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Seven additional copies from which
the purportedly confidential information has been deleted should be
submitted to the Docket Section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Francis J. Turpin, Director,
Office of International Harmonization, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Tel:(202)-366-2107, and Fax:(202)-366-2106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 10 and 11, 1996, NHTSA held a public
meeting to seek comments on the recommendations made by U.S. and
European automotive industry for actions by U.S. and European Union
governments concerning (1) the international harmonization of motor
vehicle safety and environmental regulation, (2) the intergovernmental
regulatory process necessary to achieve such harmonization, and (3) the
coordination of vehicle safety and environmental research. During the
meeting NHTSA also sought comments on the International Harmonization
Research Agenda (IHRA) priority items set forth at the 15th ESV
Conference, which included functional equivalence. NHTSA specifically
requested input on what a step-by-step process for determining
functional equivalence might be. NHTSA also extended the deadline for
receiving comments until October 1, 1996, to provide all interested
parties enough time to comment on all aspects of the issues addressed
at the meeting. Based on the responses received from industry, consumer
and advocacy groups, and other interested parties, NHTSA designed a
process that it believes to be responsive to all major issues presented
on functional equivalence and foremost, the considerations of
preserving the highest levels of safety and/or the upgrade of existing
standards to achieve the same.
On November 14, 1996, a meeting of the IHRA committee will be held
in Geneva to discuss the progress of each research item outlined in the
international research agreement. During the meeting, the proposed
flowchart will be shared with committee members and comments will be
requested.
For a detailed summary of supplementary materials, please refer to
notices 1 and 2 of this docket.1 In addition, the docket includes
a transcript of the July 10 and 11 public meeting referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (61 F.R. 30657, June 17, 1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Comments Received on Functional Equivalence
Since the July 1996 public meeting, the agency received comments
covering a wide range of International Harmonization topics. A summary
of comments addressing functional equivalence can be found in the
docket.
II. Step-by-Step Process for Functional Equivalence Determination
After reviewing all comments submitted under notices 1 and 2, NHTSA
has developed a suggested flowchart outlining its vision of a
functional equivalence process. A copy of the flowchart can be found in
Appendix I to this notice. Additionally, NHTSA plans to issue a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the procedure to be followed for the
submission of petitions for functional equivalence.
In general, the flowchart suggests that two regulations will be
considered
[[Page 58363]]
candidates for a determination that they are functionally equivalent
when all three of the following screening guidelines are met:
1. The two regulations have mandatory requirements designed to meet
a particular safety objective (i.e., have the same intent);
2. The test procedures, test devices, test conditions, and
performance criteria are at least similar if not necessarily identical.
However, the alternative regulation does not violate the underlying
basis of the original regulation, and the minor differences do not
cause to have a negative impact on safety;
3. The safety impact in terms of vehicle safety performance under
both regulations can be demonstrated to be equivalent using objective
test procedures and scientific analyses of test and other data. Any
standard determined to be equivalent or more stringent than another
would be considered to be functionally equivalent to the latter; and
4. The above steps would be followed by rulemaking proceeding.
Public Workshop
All interested persons and organizations are invited to attend the
workshop. To assist interested parties to prepare for the workshop, the
agency has developed a preliminary outline, shown below, of major
topics to be discussed at the meeting. Any additional agenda items of
interest could be included by making a request to the agency at the
address given in the notice.
A. Purpose
The agency is holding a workshop instead of its typical,
legislative-type public meeting in order to facilitate the interactive
exchange and development of ideas among all participants. The purpose
is to present and discuss the proposed process for determining
functional equivalence. NHTSA hopes that through an interactive
discussion, an evaluation of the recommended process' ability to
preserve or improve the existing levels of safety, and the implications
of the process for possible rulemaking can be made.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ If NHTSA tentatively concluded that a foreign standard is
functionally equivalent to a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS), the agency would initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend
the FMVSS. The proceedings would be conducted in accordance with the
agency's authorizing legislation concerning vehicle safety (49
U.S.C. 3010 et seq.) and the Administrative Procedure Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Preliminary Outline of Topics for Public Workshop
1. Overview and a brief summary of comments on functional
equivalence.
2. Discussion of the suggested screening guidelines and the
proposed flowchart of a process for the determination of functional
equivalence.
3. Summary of the workshop.
The agency intends to conduct the meeting informally. The presiding
official will first give a brief overview of the workshop, followed by
a presentation and a discussion of all suggested screening guidelines
and all steps of the flowchart outlining the proposed process for
determining functional equivalence. As each step is presented, the
participants will be asked for comments and input. In addition, at the
end of the workshop, there will be a period of interactive discussion
and a summary of all conclusions reached and all recommendations made
during the workshop. Also, at any point during the workshop, and upon
request, the presiding official, will allow participants to ask
questions or provide comments. When commenting, participants should
approach the microphone and state their name and affiliation for the
record. All participants are asked to be succinct. Participants may
also submit written questions to the presiding official to be
considered for response by particular participants or presenters.
The agency will provide an overhead projector, a slide projector
and a TV-VCR system. Persons planning to use other visual aids during
the workshop should please indicate to the agency their requirements. A
copy of any charts, slides and other materials presented must be
provided to the agency for the docket at the end of the workshop.
Comments
The agency invites all interested parties to submit written
comments. The agency notes that participation in the public workshop is
not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. Written comments
should be sent to the address and follow the same requirements
specified above in section ADDRESSES.
No comment may exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary
arguments in a concise fashion. Necessary attachments may be appended
to a comment without regard to the 15-page limit. All comments that are
submitted within two weeks after the date of the public workshop will
be included in the public record of the workshop. Those persons who
desire to be notified upon receipt of their written comments in the
Docket Section should enclose, in the envelope with their comments, a
self-addressed stamped postcard. Upon receipt, the docket supervisor
will return the postcard by mail.
A verbatim transcript of the meeting will be prepared by NHTSA and
placed in the docket as soon as possible after the meeting.
Issued on November 8, 1996.
Francis J. Turpin,
Director, Office of International Harmonization.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 58364]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14NO96.003
[[Page 58365]]
Explanation of Flowchart
Ultimate Goal
The ultimate goal in comparing standards addressing a particular
problem is assessing the real world performance of the covered vehicles
or equipment in reducing fatalities and injuries. The most reliable
basis for making that assessment is fatality and injury data directly
drawn from actual crashes. Accordingly, the countries involved in
making functional equivalence determinations should make appropriate
efforts to assure the availability of such data.
Guiding Principles
Best Available Evidence
Country A should base its FE determinations on the best available
evidence. If available, estimates of real world safety benefits based
on fatality and injury data directly drawn from actual crashes are the
best evidence. If such data are not available, then estimates based on
other information, such as compliance test data, may be used, although
increased caution needs to be exercised in making judgment based on
those estimates. If sufficient crash data regarding real world safety
benefits are available, and a comparison of those benefits shows that
the Country B standard is less beneficial than the Country A standard,
Country A could avoid wasting resources making comparisons on the basis
of less definitive types of evidence.
Sufficiency of Evidence
Many types of data are available for a comparison of two standards.
Often there is an abundance of one type of data and little or no data
from other sources. If insufficient data are available, and such data
either cannot be generated through engineering analysis (e.g., real
world safety benefits estimates), or conducting additional research and
development is not cost effective, then Country A should immediately
stop consideration of such data and consider the other available data
instead.
The horizontal path through the flowchart is intended to illustrate
the sources of data that will be considered and a rough idea of the
priority they will receive. Each step branches independently to the
tentative determination of functional equivalency by its ``yes'' path.
This may seem to preclude later steps once any ``yes'' path is
encountered. In practice, however, all data sources will be considered
to the extent that they are available before a determination of
functional equivalency is made.
Best Practices
Country A should pursue a ``best practices'' policy, i.e., Country
A should propose to upgrade its standards when it concludes that a
Country B standard offers greater benefits than its counterpart Country
A standard.
Conservatism
Country A should place priority on preserving the safety benefits
of its standards. Country A can best preserve those benefits by being
conservative in reaching any conclusion that Country B standard is FE
to its counterpart Country A standard.
Reciprocity
Country A should take steps to encourage reciprocity by Country B.
When Country A's comparison of standards indicates that one of its
standards has benefits equal to or greater than its counterpart Country
B standard, Country A should forward the results of that comparison to
Country B and request consideration be given by Country B to
determining that the Country A standard is FE to its counterpart
Country B standard.
Notes
1. Instead of issuing a proposal to amend its standard by adding
the alternative of complying with Country B's standard, Country A
may decide to propose seeking to harmonize its standard with the
foreign standard. This approach would enable Country A to maintain a
single set of requirements and test procedures in its standard,
thereby minimizing any effect on its enforcement resources.
2. There may be circumstantial differences, such as special
environmental conditions, driver demographics, driver behavior,
occupant behavior (e.g., level of safety belt use), road conditions,
size distribution of vehicle fleet (e.g., proportion of big versus
small vehicles and disparity between extremes), that could influence
real world safety benefits. These differences may result in a
particular standard having a safety record in one political
jurisdiction that does not translate to the other jurisdiction.
3. Differences from model to model and manufacturer to
manufacturer in margins of compliance may confound efforts to assess
the relative stringency of two standards.
[FR Doc. 96-29213 Filed 11-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
