Revision of the 1958 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Agreement Regarding the Regulation of Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts

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