[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19106-19108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9705]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 99-5403]
RIN 2127-AH22 and RIN 2127-AH20
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petitions for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies petitions, submitted jointly by the
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and the
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) to amend
two Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), one on windshield
defrosting and defogging and one on windshield wiping and washing, by
accepting a European Union (EU) Directive as an optional ``functionally
equivalent'' alternative to each safety standard. NHTSA has determined
that both EU Directives require windshield minimum cleared areas which
are smaller by up to 20 percent than those required by the counterpart
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency has concluded that
the requirements of the European regulations provide less driving
visibility and cannot assure equivalent safety performance. However,
the agency believes that harmonization of windshield wiping, washing,
defrosting and defogging regulations is possible using worldwide best
practices in the context of a Global Technical Regulation developed
under the UN/ECE Working Party 29, and it is pursuing such an approach.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick Boyd, Office of Safety
Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590. Mr. Boyd's telephone number is: (202) 366-6346. His facsimile
number is (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The harmonization of product standards has
become a matter of increasing importance in the last several decades.
The manufacturing and marketing of products have become increasingly
globalized. In response to that trend, countries and regions have moved
to adjust and coordinate their regulatory practices to the extent
consistent with consumer protection policies. Efforts to coordinate
regulatory practices on a global scale have resulted in several
international agreements that seek to promote and guide the process of
harmonization, while taking care to preserve the right of countries and
regions to adopt and maintain standards they believe necessary to
address safety, environmental and other needs within their respective
jurisdictions.
The United States is a party to several international agreements,
including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That agreement
was most recently amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements. One of those
agreements is the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The
TBT Agreement seeks to avoid creating unnecessary obstacles to trade,
while recognizing the right of signatory countries to establish and
maintain technical regulations for the protection of human, animal and
plant life and health and the environment. Among other things, the TBT
Agreement also provides that a party to the Agreement will consider
accepting as equivalent the technical regulations of other party
nations, provided they adequately fulfill
[[Page 19107]]
the objectives of the party's existing domestic standards.
On May 13, 1998, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) amended 49 CFR Part 553, Rulemaking Procedures, by adding a new
Appendix B setting forth a statement of policy about the process that
it intends to follow in considering whether to commence a rulemaking
proceeding based on a claim that a foreign motor vehicle safety
standard is better than or at least functionally equivalent to its
counterpart among the FMVSSs and in making determinations about
relative benefits and functional equivalence (63 FR 26508). The
amendment reaffirmed the agency's policy of focusing its international
harmonization activities on identifying and adopting those foreign
vehicle safety standards that clearly reflect best practices, i.e.,
that require significantly higher levels of safety performance than the
counterpart U.S. standards. It also announced the agency's policy
regarding those instances in which the agency's comparison of standards
indicates that the safety performance required by a foreign standard is
not significantly higher, but is still better than or at least as good
as that required by the counterpart U.S. standard.
The amendment also emphasized that the agency's policy is to deny
any rulemaking petition seeking to have a foreign standard added to its
counterpart U.S. standard as a compliance alternative or to harmonize
the U.S. standard with the foreign standard if the petition does not
contain an analysis of the relative benefits of the two standards. This
policy is necessary to minimize the impact that NHTSA's consideration
of such rulemaking petitions might otherwise have on the agency's use
of its resources to upgrade its safety standards.
In a submission dated August 13, 1997, the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), petitioned the agency to amend
several FMVSSs to permit vehicle manufacturers to choose to comply with
either the existing requirements of those FMVSSs or the counterpart
requirements of vehicle safety standards recognized in most European
countries. These European standards are in the form of European Union
Directives and often are taken from a body of standards developed by
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE). In this
case, the petitions asked that the requirements of EU Directives EEC
78/317 and EEC 78/318 be accepted as optional alternatives to the
requirements of FMVSS No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging
Systems, and FMVSS No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems,
respectively. At present, there are no Economic Commission for Europe
(ECE) model regulations for windshield defrosting/defogging and wiping/
washing. The common safety objective of both the EU Directives and the
FMVSSs is to maintain driving visibility under conditions which would
otherwise obscure vision through the windshield.
During the development of NHTSA's policies on ``functional
equivalence'' rulemakings, the European windshield defrosting/defogging
and wiping/washing regulations were considered model candidates. In a
public meeting on functional equivalence, the agency mentioned them as
examples of foreign standards which differed in the coordinate system
and points of reference for geometric measurements of vehicles but
which appeared to require essentially identical performance. Both the
U.S. and European windshield wiping regulations define a large area of
the windshield which must be swept at least 80% and a much smaller area
directly in front of the driver which must be swept at least 99% (98%
in the European regulation). The U.S. wiping regulation also measures
performance in another intermediate sized area of the windshield, but
the third swept area requirement is not carried over to the defrosting
requirements. Both the U.S. and European defrosting regulations have
identical requirements for the clearing time and cleared percentages of
the small area in front of the driver defined in the wiping regulation,
of a symmetric area on the passenger side, and of the large area
defined in the wiping regulation. The principal requirements of the
corresponding U.S. and European regulations would be the same if the
windshield test areas were identical.
The U.S. and European regulations both define the various areas on
the windshield by means of fields of view originating from driver
vision reference points. The U.S. regulation defines ellipsoids
containing the probable eye locations of drivers in a range of statures
referenced to the seating position. The fields of view are defined by
lines drawn tangent to the eye position ellipsoids at specified angles.
The European regulation defines two distinct points, which represent
average eye positions for tall and short drivers referenced to a
vehicle coordinate system and a seat back angle. The fields of view are
defined by lines drawn at specified angles directly intersecting the
two vision reference points. The European method of defining critical
windshield areas is a simplification of the method of the U.S.
regulations.
The petitioners described the test zone differences as follows:
The test zones used by each standard are generated using
different methods. The European test zones use the ISO
(International Organization for Standardization) ``V'' points while
the US zones are based on the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
eye-ellipse. However, the ISO ``V'' points are a derivative of the
SAE eye-ellipse, and generate substantially similar zones. While the
zones are not identical, the differences are insignificant and do
not affect real world safety.
NHTSA asked the petitioners to develop detailed comparisons
overlaying the U.S. and European test zones on actual example vehicles
to quantify the differences. The petitioners supplied comparisons using
the 1997 Cadillac Seville, 1997 Ford Contour and 1998 Chrysler Sebring
as examples. In every case, the European test zone was smaller than the
corresponding U.S. test zone. On average, the test zone representing
the critical area in front of the driver generated by the European
method was only 81.3 percent as large as the corresponding area
generated by the U.S. method. The larger European test zone
representing the bulk of the windshield averaged 88.3 percent of the
area of the corresponding U.S. test zone. The petitioners did not
supply information addressing the effects on vision or safety of the
reductions in minimum area represented by the European regulations.
NHTSA does not agree with the petitioners that the differences in
minimum cleared areas for windshield wiping and defrosting between the
U.S. and European regulations are insignificant. The petitioners have
provided no evidence to rebut the obvious presumption that sizable
reductions in cleared area will reduce visibility and provide less
safety. The agency does not find European directives EEC 78/317 and EEC
78/318 functionally equivalent to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards Nos. 103 and 104, respectively.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
review of the petitions. The agency has concluded that there is no
reasonable possibility that the amendments requested by the petitioners
would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding.
Accordingly, it denies the AAMA/AIAM petitions dealing with FMVSS Nos.
103 and 104.
However, the agency believes that harmonization of windshield
wiping,
[[Page 19108]]
washing, defrosting and defogging regulations is possible using
worldwide best practices. AAMA has informed the agency that a European
organization is preparing a proposal for a Global Technical Regulation
on the subject for consideration by the UN/ECE Working Party 29. The
agency participates in Working Party 29 and will support a Global
Technical Regulation that incorporates best practices to resolve the
issue of minimum cleared areas.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: April 14, 1999.
Stephen R. Kratzke.
Acting, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-9705 Filed 4-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
