[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5181]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 8, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Revision of the 1958 United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe Agreement Regarding the Regulation of Motor Vehicle Equipment
and Parts
AGENCY: National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces that NHTSA and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), on behalf of the United States Government,
will participate in negotiations regarding a proposed revision to the
1958 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Agreement
Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Conditions of Approval and
Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and
Parts. The Agreement provides procedures for establishing uniform
regulations regarding new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment
and for reciprocal recognition of such regulations. Regulations adopted
by Contracting Parties govern the approval of motor vehicles and
equipment for sale in those countries.
The United States is a member of the UN/ECE, but is not a
Contracting Party to the 1958 Agreement. Depending on the outcome of
these negotiations, it may be appropriate for the United States to
become a Contracting Party to the Agreement as it may be revised.
However, a decision has not yet made regarding that course of action.
Notwithstanding the revised Agreement's goal of harmonization of
motor vehicle standards, were the United States to become a Contracting
Party, it would not adopt a regulation that would lower the level of
protection provided by current U.S. domestic safety and environmental
standards. Further, there would be no change in the process by which
Federal Motor vehicle regulations are adopted and put into effect in
the United States. These regulations would continue to be promulgated
pursuant to legislation enacted by Congress and through rulemaking
proceedings conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act and any
other applicable statute. Thus, a regulation under the proposed
revision to the 1958 Agreement could be adopted by the United States
only if the relevant Federal agency complies with these requirements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Frances J. Turpin, Director, Office of International Harmonization,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, room 5220, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-2144; or Mr.
Thomas M. Baines, Senior Technical Advisor, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105, telephone
(313) 668-4366. Copies of the 1958 Agreement and of the proposed
revision to the Agreement are available from Mr. Turpin or Mr. Baines
upon request.
Telephone inquiries addressing safety standard issues should be
directed to Mr. Turpin and those concerning environmental standard
issues should be directed to Mr. Baines.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that NHTSA and EPA
will participate, on behalf of the United States Government, in
negotiations regarding a proposed revision to the 1958 United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Agreement Concerning the
Adoption of Uniform Conditions of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition
of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts (the ``1958
Agreement'' or the ``Agreement''). The Agreement is administered by the
Working Party on the Construction of Vehicles (WP29), a subsidiary
group of the ECE. Negotiations concerning the proposed revision of the
Agreement involve countries that are Contracting Parties to the 1958
Agreement and other interested countries, such as the United States.
The 1958 Agreement
The 1958 Agreement provides procedures for establishing uniform
regulations regarding new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment
and for reciprocal acceptance of approvals issued under these
regulations. Regulations adopted by Contracting Parties pursuant to the
Agreement govern the approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle
equipment for sale in those countries. The Agreement was originally
intended to address safety standards but has since been amended to
encompass environmental (air and noise pollution emission) and energy
standards. The United States is a member of the UN/ECE, but is not a
Contracting Party to the Agreement.
The goal of the Agreement and of WP29 is to promote harmonization
of motor vehicle regulations and otherwise to facilitate trade in motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Agreement provides a
mechanism of Contracting Parties to develop harmonized motor vehicle
regulations, and for reciprocal acceptance of approvals issued under
these regulations. The Agreement requires compliance with regulations
through type approval (i.e., testing or witness of testing by a
government-designated authority and government approval), the system
generally used by European countries.
Under the Agreement, any two or more Contracting Parties wishing to
adopt a regulation may propose a draft regulation for annexation to the
Agreement. The draft regulation enters into force as a regulation
annexed to the Agreement with respect to each Contracting Party that
has declared its intention to adopt it. A Contracting Party that has
adopted an annexed regulation is allowed to grant type approvals for
motor vehicle equipment and parts covered by the regulation and is
required to accept the type approval of any other Contracting Party
that has adopted the same regulation. Regulations under the Agreement
are required to include test methods and conditions for granting type
approvals.
A Contracting Party may choose not to adopt any regulation annexed
to the Agreement. The regulation would therefore have no effect on the
Contracting Party. The Agreement also contains a mechanism for a
Contracting Party, upon notice, to adopt a regulation after it has been
annexed to the Agreement or to stop applying a regulation that it has
already adopted. An amendment to an annexed regulation may be proposed
by any Contracting Party that is applying the regulation. The proposed
amendments may be vetoed, however, by the Contracting Party that is
applying the regulation.
The effectiveness of the 1958 Agreement is demonstrated by the
integration of a single market in motor vehicles within the member
States of the European Union (EU) and the fact that 23 European
countries have become Contracting Parties, including 11 EU member
States. Furthermore, the Agreement has led to the annexation of
approximately 90 ECE regulations concerning passenger cars, light
trucks, heavy trucks, trailers, mopeds and motorcycles, public service
vehicles, and other vehicle types. These regulations have been adopted
to varying degrees by the Contracting Parties.
The major benefit of the Agreement has been harmonization of safety
and environmental regulations relating to new motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment in Europe. Over the past 36 years, numerous European
national motor vehicle regulations have been used as the basis for
establishing ECE regulations that have subsequently been adopted by the
Contracting Parties pursuant to the Agreement and incorporated into
their respective regulatory systems.The reciprocal recognition of type
approvals among Contracting Parties applying the regulations has
facilitated trade in motor vehicles and equipment throughout Europe. In
recent years, the ECE/WP29 forum has been used to harmonize ECE
regulations and EU Directives.
The United States is a member of the ECE, and on this basis has
been participating as a technical advisor in the work of WP29 and its
subsidiary bodies over the past decade. By such participation, the
United States has been able to keep itself informed about European
motor vehicle safety and environmental regulatory developments. This
participation has also encouraged a certain degree of compatibility
among the technical standards contained in United States and European
motor vehicle safety and environmental regulations. The United States
and relevant European countries have fostered such compatibility while
adhering to the substantive and procedural requirements of their
respective regulatory systems. With respect to vehicle standards in the
United States, these requirements include the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. section 1381 et seq.),
the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. section 7401 et seq.), the
Noise Control Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. section 4901 et seq.), the
Motor vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, as amended (15 U.S.C.
section 2001 et seq.), and the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended
(5 U.S.C. section 551 et seq.).
The United States has not, however, become a Contracting Party to
the 1958 Agreement because the United States has not wished to incur
the Agreement's reciprocal acceptance obligations nor develop its
regulations in a common European regulatory development forum. One of
the reasons for this position is that the Agreement is premised on the
use of a type approval system for the regulation of motor vehicles and
equipment. The United States relies generally on a self-certification
system to regulate motor vehicle safety and noise, pursuant to statute.
Under this system, the manufacturers are responsible for compliance
with the applicable standards (subject to verification testing), but
need not obtain a certificate of conformity before introducing vehicles
into commerce. The United States air emissions regulatory program is
based on type approval, since manufacturers must obtain a government
certification of conformity to introduce their vehicles into commerce.
However, the U.S. air emissions regulatory program is not compatible
with the European system because responsibilities and authorities are
assigned differently, including responsibility for testing vehicles,
interpreting regulations, and issuing certificates of conformity. In
addition, the U.S. air emissions program does rely to some extent on
manufacturer test data, which is characteristic of a self-certification
system.
Conversion of these United States regulatory programs to a
European-style system would require additional legislation. Such a
change would not necessarily contribute to achieving current
statutorily-mandated United States vehicle regulatory goals. Neither
the relevant Federal regulatory agencies nor other interested parties
have sought this change.
If the United States were currently a Contracting Party to the 1958
Agreement, the U.S. would have to invoke Article 1(6) of the Agreement,
which allows a country to become a Contracting Party without adopting
the regulations then annexed to the Agreement. This would be necessary
because the United States is unable to adopt regulations under this
Agreement in the absence of additional conforming legislation that
resolves the conflict between the United States self-certification
system and the requirement in Article 2 of the Agreement for a type
approval system.
Proposed Revision to the 1958 Agreement
Efforts are under way to revise the 1958 Agreement in ways that
might make it appropriate for the United States to consider becoming a
Contracting Party. The efforts began in 1989, when WP29 issued a
mission statement announcing the goal of promoting worldwide
harmonization of motor vehicle regulations. Participants in WP29 agreed
that serious consideration should be given to revising the Agreement
given the many changes that had occurred in the field of motor vehicle
regulation since 1958, including the establishment of different vehicle
standards programs in various countries around the world (e.g., the
United States, Canada, Japan, and Australia), the accelerated rate of
change in automotive technology and design, the globalization of the
motor vehicle industry and market, and the creation of an integrated
market among EU member states.
In 1990, WP29 decided to develop a revised Agreement which would
seek to promote worldwide harmonization of motor vehicle regulations
and would encourage membership by other countries, particularly the
United States, Japan, Canada, and Australia. This latter goal was to be
accomplished primarily by revising the Agreement so that type approval
would not be mandatory for Contracting Parties.
One of the most significant changes under the proposed revision to
the Agreement (the ``proposed revision'') would be to limit the
application of the provisions regarding type approval to those
Contracting Parties who choose to promulgate motor vehicle regulations
on the basis of a type approval system. Thus, a type approval
regulatory system would no longer be a precondition to a country being
able to become a Contracting Party and thereby participating in the
Agreement. Since a number of non-European countries are members of or
participate in activities of the ECE, the possibility of these
countries (including the United States) becoming Contracting Parties
provides an opportunity to create a forum for promoting compatibility
among motor vehicle regulations on a wider scale than currently exists.
As Contracting Parties, these non-European countries would gain the
right to vote and to propose new regulations as well as changes in
existing ones.
Other major changes contained in the proposed revision involve the
procedures for annexing a regulation to the Agreement and for amending
an annexed regulation. WP29 views the provision in the current
Agreement allowing two or more Contracting parties to add a new
regulation as an impediment to harmonization because the provision
makes it too easy to adopt a regulation that is to be applied by only a
small number of Contracting Parties.
Conversely, the current procedures for amending a regulation
annexed to the Agreement are considered to be burdensome because any
one Contracting Party that has adopted the regulation has the right to
veto the proposed amendment. This amendment process may impede the
ability of the regulatory development process to respond to
technological changes in a timely manner.
The proposed revision would, on the one hand, make it more
difficult for a new regulation to be annexed to the Agreement and, on
the other hand, make it easier to amend an already-annexed regulation.
The proposed revision to the Agreement provides for an Administrative
Committee composed of all Contracting Parties. A proposed regulation
would be ``established'' if \2/3\ of the Committee members present at a
meeting so vote. (At least half of the total number of Contracting
Parties would have to be present at such meeting for the vote to be
taken.) All Contracting Parties would be notified of the Committee
decision. The regulation would be considered adopted as a regulation
annexed to the Agreement unless, within 6 months of such notification,
at least \1/3\ of the Contracting Parties have communicated their
disagreement with the regulation. If the requisite number of
Contracting Parties did not communicate their disagreement in a timely
manner, the annexed regulation would enter into force for all
Contracting Parties that did not communicate their disagreement.
The proposed revision also changes the way in which an annexed
regulation may be amended. An amendment to an already-annexed
regulation would be ``established'' if \2/3\ of the Administrative
Committee members from countries applying the regulation present at a
meeting so vote. (At least half of the total number of Contracting
Parties that have adopted the regulation would have to be present at
such meeting for the vote to be taken.) All Contracting Parties that
have adopted the regulation would be notified of the Committee
decision. The amendment would be considered adopted unless, within 6
months of such notification, at least \1/3\ of the Contracting Parties
that have adopted the regulation have communicated their disagreement
with the amendment. If the requisite number of Contracting Parties did
not communicate their disagreement in a timely manner, the amendment
would be binding upon those Contracting Parties that have adopted the
regulation and have not declared their disagreement with the amendment.
The proposed revision also provides that, if at least 20 percent of
the Contracting Parties that have adopted the regulation declare that
they wish to continue applying the unamended regulation, the unamended
regulation would be regarded as an option to the amended regulation and
would be incorporated formally as such in the regulation. Further, the
proposed revision allows countries to enforce more stringent standards
than those contained in the annexed regulations by either electing not
to adopt any particular regulation annexed to the Agreement, or, if the
country has in fact adopted a particular regulation and has failed to
have the regulation amended, by ceasing to apply the regulation upon
one year's notice.
In addition, while the Agreement addresses the regulation of
``motor vehicle equipment and parts,'' the proposed revision to the
Agreement provides for the regulation of ``wheeled vehicles, equipment
and parts.'' The proposed revision, however, does not recognize other
classes of products that are mobile sources of air pollutants, such as
off-highway engines.
Possible U.S. Action Concerning the Proposed Revised Agreement
The United States is considering whether it should become a
Contracting Party to the proposed revised Agreement. In considering
this option, NHTSA and EPA note that the Agreement does not explicitly
recognize any regulatory and enforcement system (such as that of the
United States) other than a type approval system, notwithstanding a
provision of the proposed revision which implicitly gives a Party that
adopts a regulation the option of electing not to implement that
regulation through a type approval system. NHTSA and EPA believe that
if the United States is to consider becoming a Contracting Party to the
proposed revision, explicit recognition in the revised Agreement of the
United States motor vehicle safety and environmental regulatory/
enforcement system is necessary so that regulations promulgated under
the United States system would have a status equal to that of the
European regulatory/enforcement system under the Agreement. It is
unclear under the proposed revision what the relationship and
obligations would be among those Contracting Parties that implement
regulations through a type approval system and those Contracting
Parties that implement the same regulations through other regulatory
enforcement systems, such as a self-certification system.
In addition, explicit recognition of non-type approval regulatory
enforcement systems in the proposed revision could encourage countries
that do not already have a regulatory system that addresses motor
vehicle safety and environmental standards to consider adoption of one
of those systems. If, as the proposed revision currently stands, only
the type approval system is explicitly recognized, countries that
currently do not have a regulatory system would be more likely to
respond in either of two ways. They would be likely to adopt the type
approval system or to develop completely novel systems. If the former
occurs, the type approval system could become so widely adopted that
there would be increasing pressure on countries using other regulatory/
enforcement systems to convert to a type approval system. If the latter
occurs, there could be a proliferation of different novel regulatory/
enforcement systems.
As with all United States regulations, a regulation under the
proposed revision to the Agreement could not be adopted by any Federal
agency unless there is domestic legislation to authorize such adoption
and the agency follows the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) and any other applicable statute. Since the APA
requires the appropriate Federal agency to solicit and consider public
comments in promulgating regulations, the United States cannot agree in
advance to adopt a proposed or annexed ECE regulation as a final rule.
Thus, if the United States were to become a Contracting Party to
the proposed revision, the United States could not accept a regulation
proposed for annexation by other countries unless the regulation is
identical to a regulation already adopted by the United States or is
proposed and adopted through the United States rulemaking procedures
described above. It would therefore vote against ``establishment'' of
the regulation, indicate its disagreement with the annexation of the
regulation, or elect not to adopt the regulation in the event of
annexation. Further, notwithstanding the fact that the Agreement is
being revised to promote compatibility of motor vehicle standards, the
United States would not adopt a regulation that would lower the level
of protection provided by current U.S. domestic safety and
environmental standards.
Under the revision as proposed, the United States would probably
not be able to have its regulations adopted by Contracting Parties and
annexed to the Agreement. The United States could not propose a
regulation for annexation unless the regulation is identical to a
regulation already adopted by the United States. The test procedures in
United States regulations are premised partially or wholly on a self-
certification system and therefore, unless a self-certification system
were explicitly recognized in the proposed revision to the Agreement, a
U.S. safety regulation would, in all likelihood, not be accepted by the
requisite number of Contracting Parties. This is because the regulation
might not be enforceable through a type approval system. However,
explicit recognition of other enforcement systems could, for example,
allow for different enforcement options within an annexed regulation.
For air and noise pollution emissions regulations also, the regulatory
systems of the current Contracting Parties are also sufficiently
different from the U.S. systems so that the current Contracting Parties
would not be likely to accept regulations proposed by the United States
for the same reason.
Issued on: March 2, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-5181 Filed 3-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
