aem/cece/cema/kocema joint technical liaison meeting ... › general › news › pdf › 12th ›...

AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002

AGENDA ITEM: 11.1.1 Preparation date: 19 February 2002 By: Gerald H. Ritterbusch Page 1 of 1

Title: Engine Emissions – United States

Statement of Issue: The next tier after Tier II has to be stabilizcompliant with the EPA non-road engine emission regulation.

Background: In 1998 the EPA promulgated a non-road engineestablished the criteria and effective dates for Tier II and for Tiuncertainty that is inherent with anything 8 years into the futurea technical review in 2001 so that if there were any problems waddressed sufficiently in advance of the effective date of 2006.on-again and off-again view on the criteria for Tier III. The keyaddition of a transient test for PM and any resulting limit value,that were addressed for on-road regulations. Needless to say,test method was significantly delayed and tied up in confusion.1998 became thoroughly confused by 2001. In addition the tecfrom Tier II to Tier III became increasingly confused, as there wcould be used to achieve the criteria.

Alternatives/Options: The clarity was that the transient test mand couldn’t be made ready in time for a 2006 effective date ofsensible thing to do was to not change anything with respect tocontinue the Tier II criteria as Tier III. In addition, the NOx critethere was concern that with the cooled EGR technology path, tbecause there was no interest to mandate a low sulfur fuel for eventually there would be an ultra low sulfur fuel requirement fthe basic conclusion was that the EPA should just let stand wh

Pro’s and Con’s: While this approach made reasonable sensewith no finality even to this date, has caused a significant problthat would consider alignment/harmonization with the EPA rulepoint of the industry to harmonize the emissions requirements in construction machinery. The con of this is that it is most likedisharmony between the EPA and the EU. The market will be in additional costs for each region. This will ultimately delay fuwasted funds are not spent on emission reduction. Proposed Resolution: JTLM participants are requested to coparticipants in the emissions regulatory actions and try to get mgovernment staff for the benefit of emissions reduction while enwith the ultimate benefit to the members of society.

Action X Information

Page 1 of 1

ed so that manufacturers can be

emissions regulation that er III. Because of the reasonable , the EPA introduced the idea of ith the Tier III they could be During 2001 the EPA had an uncertainty in 1998 was the and other enforcement aspects the progress on the transient Thus, what all seemed clear in hnology for the NOx reduction ere several technologies that

ethod for the PM was not ready Tier III. Thus, on that basis the the PM criteria for Tier III, but to ria still made sense although hat the fuel issue was of concern non-road as an interim because or a tier beyond Tier III. Thus, at was published in 1998.

, the drag out of the discussions em for other regions of the world . This has been a champion to facilitate trade and commerce ly that in 2006 there will be fragmented and diverse resulting rther emission reductions, as the

ntinue to work with their national ore intelligent responses from hancing trade and commerce

AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA AGENDA ITEM : 11.1.2 Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Preparation date : 28 February 2002 Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002 By : Maurice Bouillin

Page 1 of 5 Title: European Non-road Engine Emission Issues

Statement of Issues : The November 2001 EPA White paper has confirmed the Tier 3 intentions published in 1998 and final rules are expected by the end of 2002 .There is a strong probability that Tier 3 will only address Nox reduction ( 40% ) and PM reduction will be with Tier 4 ( 40%-80% ? ) . As far as EU emission regulation nothing has been yet decided for Stage III but EU Commission (J.Karlsson ) has issued early February a Discussion Paper raising many questions/issues and suggesting different alternatives . As a separate issue , some EU Member States and Parliament people are now pushing for changing the priorities with PM reduction first then NOx reduction later . This is putting at risk the global alignment of emission regulations , generating significant extra R&D expenses , product cost increase and market distortion . According to the current management plan the Commission intends to present a proposal in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 97/68/EC by the end of 2002. A co-decision procedure normally takes about 2 years. A final decision by the Council and the Parliament therefore can be expected late 2004. Then 3 years for transcription into national law and enforcement would make EU Stage III effective late 2007. The issue of effective date is not just the lead-time issue. If some EU Member States and Parliament people want now to give priority to PM rather than NOx and consequently want to regulate lower limit of PM it must be done in taking into consideration all the implementation drivers : • Single EU market for adequate fuel quality • Time to develop appropriate off road after treatment technologies • Technical limitation of PM trap applicability • Period of stability between two consecutive steps • Alignment with US and Japan regulations : dates , limits , engine test • Flexibility for introducing EU Stage III


Page 2 of 5 Background : Single EU market for adequate fuel quality : The fuel quality (sulphur content ) is the enabler for Stage III & IV predicted technologies for reducing NOx as well as Particulate Matter . It is common practice for European contractors to burn the cheapest fuel available on the local market. The expected requirements of future legislation may cause the introduction of engine technologies which are not compatible with this practice. The harmonization of Fuel Quality within Europe ( and to some extent with USA and Japan ) is a must to avoid as many solutions as countries because the fuel parameters determine, in a significant portion, the actual exhaust emission level both in terms of direct emission values and choice of the exhaust control technology in the machinery . There is now a general understanding in EU Commission and Member States experts that cooled EGR technology will require a 350 ppm sulphur fuel and 10 ppm sulphur fuel for PM trap . The combination of fuel taxation , excise systems , distribution practice and fuel quality vary among different EU countries creating significantly different operating conditions for emission control systems . Despite CE manufacturers’ prescriptions, fuel taxation and excise systems may promote misfuelling.

Fuel economy is also a major issue for the European contractors . Often the solutions that allow a reduction of specific exhaust emissions cause higher fuel consumption. Higher consumption values are directly correlated to higher CO2 emissions, thus a balanced approach to this subject is also beneficial to the scope of the global environmental policies defined in the world wide forums. Time to develop appropriate off road After Treatment technologies : With lower emissions limits, more sophisticated technological solutions will be needed on engine and on equipment . The engine basic structure is often common between on-road and off-road, but the performance requirements and the operational environment are completely different. Furthermore the engine, equipment , fuel and aftertreatment must be addressed on a system basis. Thus the on-road After Treatment (AT) technology is not directly and immediately transferable to the off- road equipments .. The packaging of AT hardware is also a major challenge for space reason , heat under the hood , noise , lack of ram air and engine enclosure .This requires more lead time to


reach conformity than when the emissions reductions were achievable within the engine alone . Page 3 of 5 Technical limitation of PM trap applicability: Given the very wide variety of engine duties, even in the same equipment, the PM trap regeneration might fail in some off-road equipments or applications . At the request of EU Commission , a common industry task force ( leaded by Euromot ) has been set in February to deliver by mid June a PM trap applicability statement .This applicability will have to be analyzed in terms of engine power categories and equipment load profiles . Period of stability between two consecutive steps : A 3 to 4 year period of stability is needed between two consecutive steps to recover the R&D and capital expenses so that a reasonable cost is transferred to the price of the equipment otherwise the market elasticity would not accept new technology equipments and would keep old / pollutant equipments in the off-road business for a longer period of time . Alignment with US and Japan regulations : The non road equipment market is a global market as equipments are widely traded across world-wide frontiers. Since US and EU ( and more recently Japan ) are the most active countries in exhaust emission control, alignment between them is the key issue to enable manufacturers to devote their resources to effective emissions reductions with the same technology applied at the same time. Different limits and effective dates would result in splitting the market and diminishing the efficiency, cost effectiveness and the use of resources to achieve meaningful emissions reduction A key factor for this alignment approach is a clear direction from the lawgivers of the long term planning of emission limits and their effective dates. Engine testing : the level of harmonization up to Stage II EU and Tier 2 USA is fairly good, even though remarkable differences remain as power bands and test fuel (partially). EU Commission ( JRC ) and EPA have appointed a Technical Committee to define a common non road transient test cycle. This transient test cycle now in the last phase of development / evaluation could be re-considered if the legislation imposes PM limits demanding AT . Type approval versus market surveillance: EU Directives on emissions emphasize the type approval procedure, while EPA allows placing on the market of engines based on manufacturers declarations and concentrates more on market surveillance. These different philosophies, coupled to different definitions of implementation dates and placing on the market cause significant discrepancies in the application of nominally


similar regulations .

Page 4 of 5 Flexibility for introducing EU Stage III : End of February a common industry Flexibility proposal (CECE-CEMA-EUROMOT ) has been submitted to EU Commission to permit a smooth integration of Stage III engine system into machines , to provide longer period of stability for low volume products and a longer lead time to engine and associated product with short operating season . The aim is to have this Flexibility scheme identical for all EU countries ,authorizing an exemption for a limited number of previous stage compliant engines , permitting them to be built and placed on EU market after the introduction of the stage III with a low impact on emission inventory and a controlling /reporting process managed by equipment manufacturers


Page 5 of 5

Alternatives / Options : As far as emission limits and dates , the February 5, Discussion Paper issued by the EU Commission is suggesting the following scenarios:

Scenario Environmental improvements (*)

Technology available today?

Technology available in 2010?

Fuels requirements

Comments

1. NOx: - 30-40% PM: - 0-10%

Yes Yes S: 1000 ppm S: 350 ppm??

Tier 3 plus optical

2. NOx: - 30-40% PM: - 30-40%

Yes Yes S: 350 ppm Engine modification required, possible

3. NOx: - 30-40% PM: ~ 80%

No Yes S: 10 ppm PM not for the whole range of applications

4. NOx: ~ 70% PM: ~ 80%

No 2.0 g/kW/h

Yes S: 10 ppm NOx absorbers

(*) Environmental improvements as emission reduction [%] with respect to stage 2 engines tested according to ISO C1 steady-state 8-mode cycle.


Pro’s and Con’s : Comments from Member States , Associations and Companies are expected by EU Commission before March 22 . CECE , CEMA and EUROMOT will provide separate comments . In the industry , there is a general opinion that : • No one can go to the scenario 4 in one step • If the step is too big and the cost too high, the customer will not buy and hence the

step is useless. • Scenario 2might be a problem because it drives an intermediate fuel change. • Skipping scenarios 1 and 2 and going directly to 3 then 4 in the future will drive

misalignment with the EPA Tier 3 . • As far as alignment is concerned the best and most sensible choice would be :

scenario 1 then 3 then 4 of the table above

Proposed Resolutions : • Support the active commitment of the EU Commission and EPA to jointly develop

mid and long-term strategy to ensure that alignment is obtained with the necessary lead-time , period of stability and cost effectiveness .

• Stress the point that emission limits and effective dates must be consistent with the supply and distribution of adequate quality fuel and with the applicability of PM trap technology .

• Support a joint action together with other equipment and engine manufacturers , users and fuel industry associations world wide.

• Support the alignment of conformity assessment procedures

• Support a Flexibility scheme for the phase in / phase out of the next emission phases

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


AGENDA ITEM: 11.1.3 Preparation date: By: Page 1 of 1

Title: Engine Emissions - Japan

Statement of Issue: No updated information.

Background:

Alternatives/Options:

Pro’s and Con’s: Proposed Resolution: Annexes (if any)

Action Information X

Page 1 of 1


AGENDA ITEM: 11.1.4 Preparation date: 3 March 2002 By: Jan Mimer Page 1 of 1

Title: Engine emission requirements for Construction equi

Statement of Issue: The Korean government has issued new Efor Construction Equipment .

Background: As of 1 Jan 2001 Construction Equipment has beengine emission requirements by ministry of Environment. As from 21 Feb not official announced legislation have been intr Tier I is in effect Jan 2003 and limit values are equivalent to USTier II is in effect Jan 2005 and limit values equivalent to US Tie There is a need for Machine certification including engine and naccepted in accordance with the source in question. Previous certification will not be accepted which means renewedcould be conducted e.g. in Europe. Alternatives/Options: -

Pro’s and Con’s: Above information needs to be investigated. Proposed Resolution: The proposed Korean legislation regarConstruction Equipment needs to be investigated. Action through WTO, MRA and national trade related bodies


Page 1 of 1

pment in Korea

ngine emission requirements

en included in the category of

oduced structured in two Tiers:

Tier I. r II

o sell off is going to be

engine certification which

Will require burdensome costs

ding Exhaust emissions from


AGENDA ITEM: 11.1.5 Preparation date: 1 March 2002 By: Kazuhiro SUNAMURA Page 1 of 1

Title: Emission Standards for Mobile Sources in Thailand

Statement of Issue: The environmental government in Thailrequire 95/542(A)/EEC (EURO 2.) emission control for Heavy DBut it do not include the construction machinery now. Please see the detail on the following web site. http://www.pcd.go.th/Information/Regulations/air_noise/mo

Background: http://www.aqnis.pcd.go.th/ says as follow

Air pollution is one oobvious and important environmental Bangkok Metropolitan Area, regional urban communities which are currentland expanding by industrialization and

Noise pollution is problem with an increasing trend in separticularly in urban communities, arethe roads and industrial areas.

Alternatives/Options: -

Pro’s and Con’s: - Proposed Resolution: We (Hitachi) shall continue to watch would include the construction machinery.

Action Information ｖ

Page 1 of 1

and announced that they uty Diesel Engine.

bile.htm#air

s.

f the most problems of the cities, and large y developing transportation.

a continuing verity, as adjacent to

this issue. We will alarm if it

http://www.aqnis.pcd.go.th/


AGENDA ITEM: 11.2.5 Preparation date: 1 March 2002 By: Guy Raymackers Page 1 of 2 (Annexes)

Annexes

Title: Eastern countries Statement of Issue: Status of the process of negotiating Protocols to the Europe AgAssessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (PECA's) wcountries. Background: Under the terms of the Europe Agreements, candidate countriesapproximate their legislation to that of the Community. In the fieconformity assessment, the Europe Agreements aim to achieveconformity with Community technical regulations and Europeanassessment procedures. They also envisage the conclusion of arecognition in these fields. The PECA's represent recognition ofimplementing the relevant EC legislation on industrial products, administrative infrastructure. The PECA's are also important to of the internal market using a sectoral approach, on the basis ocandidate countries. Almost all of these sectors fall within the coDG. Status: The PECA with Hungary entered into force on 1 June 2001. Theentered into force on 1 July 2001. Negotiations on PECA's are also at different stages with Latvia,and Slovenia. The two annexes give an overview of the state ofproposed. DG-Trade is the responsible service for the negotiation Remark: It should be noted that Poland doesn’t appear in the tw Proposed Resolution: The informations above are available on the DG-Enterprise web http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/regulation/pecas/pec See page 2 for the annexes

Information X

Page 1 of 2

reements on Conformity ith a number of candidate

for EU membership should ld of industrial standards and the candidate countries' full standardisation and conformity greements on mutual

progress made in adopting and and in creating the necessary the EU in extending the benefits f the sectors identified by the mpetence of the Enterprise

PECA with the Czech Republic

Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia negotiations and the sectors

o annexes.

site at the following address: as.htm


AGENDA ITEM: 11.2.5 Preparation date: 1 March 2002 By: Guy Raymackers Page 2 of 2 (Annexes)

Annexes

Page 2 of 2

f any)


AGENDA ITEM: 11.3 Preparation date: 28 February 2002 By: Kenzo Tanaka Page 1 of 1

Page 1 of 1

Title: Excavator TOPS tests- Update on Test Work Statement of Issue: Progress has been made by the additional roll over testing Background: Testing in 1999 resulted in the same absorbing energy for three different excavators with the mass of 12, 20, and 45 tonnes. The reason was thought to be the difference in strength of the cab structures( currently used cab for 12t excavator and special designed TOPS for 20t and 45t excavators) corresponding to each excavator mass. The three different- strength structures hit the grounds of the same strength and it was assumed to make the different effect to the ground. Alternatives/Options: The second testing was carried out in September 2001 taking the above into consideration. The structures for 20t and 45t were so constructed that; 1. The strength level of the structures corresponding to machine’s mass should be the same level. 2. The structure should not penetrate the ground excessively (adding plates to the hitting surface of the structure, the area representing the current cab’s surface except the window glass area)

Pro’s and Con’s: The structure for 45t was strong enough to penetrate the ground severely while the structure’s deformation was so small that it resulted in small absorbing energy input to the structure. Therefore, the structure was made weaker this time. The structure for 20t was aimed at the maximum deformation where DLV would be slightly secured, but the structure broke off at several welding places, resulting in escaping of absorbing energy. The structure was made stronger this time. The result came out to be acceptable to our expectation, Bigger machine, bigger absorbing energy. Proposed Resolution: Standard of protective structure for excavator is necessary to give a criterion for some Specific worksite. JTLM participants are requested to support Japanese standard making of TOPS for excavator with a mass of 6 to 50 tonnes. Annexes (if any) The data is being studied carefully at this moment, more detailed result shall be presented at the ISO/TC 127 next meeting in Poland.

Action Information x


AGENDA ITEM: 11.4.1 Preparation date 02-03-11 By G. Raymackers Page 1 of 2

Title: TABD 2001

Statement of Issue: Results of the participation of HEI in theTA Background: In the year 2001, HEI decided to present only onNon-Road diesel exhaust emissions. This issue was at that mocritical one as far as alignement between EU and US Tier 3/Staconcerned. Experts started to work on a TABD paper when the 24 Septembthe TABD Stockolm Conference was cancelled: Only a leadershplace in Washington Experts from the machine industry and engine industry from EUparticipated in the elaboration of an expert group paper. This padressed the following points:

• Harmonisation/alignement • Determination of the longest lead time aspect of futu• Compliance procedure • Testing methods • Certification

This expert group paper was the basis document for the conferethe Construction and engine industry from EU and US ,that tookteleconference resulted in a consensus and a final document thTABD office Friday 12, October.This document appeared in TABbe found on the TABD website (www.tabd.com) The recommendations of this document are detailed in the attac Pro’s and Con’s: Pro’s: The final communiqué, available on the TABD website rethe CEO’s conference of the 11 of October. (www.tabd.com) Con’s 1) EPA released its Staff Technical paper on the content of

TABD and without consultation with the DG-Environmenalignment between the US and EU for the Tier3/Stage IIimpact of the TABD decision on this issue?

2) DG-Environment has constantly refused to participate to

basis that it has established with EPA a more effective s 3) We wonder what is the added value of the TABD proces

points we have requested without success the help of th

Action x Information x

Page 1 of 2

BD process in 2001

e issue in the TABD process: ment(and still is) the most ge III requirements are

er industry was informed that ip team conference would take

and US continued to work and aper , ready the 2 of October,

re stage/tiers

nce call betweren 5 CEO’s of place the 11 of October. The at was sent to the US and EU D final communique, that can

hed annex.

flects exactly the conclusion of

the US Tier III just after the t. This put in jeopardy the I. We wonder what is the real

the TAB Conference on the ystem of bi-lateral meetings.

s. On some minor particular e TABD office.


AGENDA ITEM: 11.4.1 Preparation date 02-03-11 By G. Raymackers Page 2 of 2

Page 2 of 2

Recommendation: HEI should have decided for the next TABD mid-year meeting to participate or not the 2000 TABD Conference. Annexes :Text of the CEO’s recommendations a) Industry requests that the TABD process be used to identify the key elements for

comprehensive regulatory co-ordination, including a first step for the EPA to fully dialogue with the EU DG ENV so as to achieve maximum harmonisation and then articulate its intent with respect to the Tier 3 program. The TABD requests that the EU DG ENV and EPA make it a priority to elevate their efforts toward the development of fully integrated and harmonised future requirements for the control of emissions from non-road engines and machinery.

b) The TABD requests that EU DG ENV co-ordinate their emissions and noise directives

so as to reflect the reality of the impact of reduction of both engine emissions and noise. c) The TABD requests that the EPA and EU DG ENV complete their

respective regulatory processes for harmonised/aligned emissions requirements in a timely manner to achieve the air quality goals while providing to the engine, machinery and fuel industries the necessary lead-time and period of stability.


AGENDA ITEM: 11.4.2 Preparation date: 08 March 02 By: Darrin Drollinger Page 1 of 1

Title: TABD 2002 Program and Goals

Statement of Issue: Lack of TABD progress toward harmonizadiesel exhaust emission requirements to date and the need for Background: Harmonization/alignment of non-road diesel exhwas the sole issue brought to the TABD table for 2001 by the HSector. Final HEI recommendations were developed and submagenda item 11.4.1) Alternatives/Options: The HEI recommendations made in 200today as when submitted, specifically for the EU Commission D(EU DG ENV) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Uelevate to completion fully integrated and harmonized future reqemissions from non-road engines and machinery, in order to acall of society. Clearly the JTL members would like to see action on this recomHEI TABD involvement include: Remain engaged in the process Disengage from the process Modify our approach

Pro’s and Con’s: The issue of global harmonization/alignmentremains the single most important issue to the off-road industryand influential forum for attracting the attention of EU Commissgovernment officials. The progress to date has been less than salternatives for desirable action are limited. Proposed Resolution: Because of the significance of the issuindustry, it is recommended that the HEI remain engaged in the Annexes: http://www.tabd.org


Page 1 of 1

tion/alignment of non-road meaningful action in 2002.

aust emission requirements eavy Equipment Industry (HEI) itted on 11 October 2001 (see

1 to TABD remain as relevant irectorate General Environment S EPA) to make it a priority to uirements for the control of hieve air quality goals benefiting

mendation. 2002 options for

of non-road exhaust emissions . TABD is also the most visible ioners and high-ranking U.S. atisfying, but meaningful

e to the construction equipment TABD process.

http://www.tabd.org/

From: Darrin DrollingerSent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:16 PMTo: Barbara ToeckerSubject: FW: 14 March - TABD Update from 2002 Working Chair

Barb,

Include this under 11.4.2

-----Original Message-----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:59 PMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; [email protected];2001_US_Leadership_Team_Working_Contacts@AMERICAS-US.INTL.pwcglobal.com;[email protected]: 14 March - TABD Update from 2002 Working Chair

Message from Bob Bott, the Boeing Company & TABD 2002 US Working Chair:To the U.S. Steering Committee:I am delighted to announce Phil Condit, Chairman and CEO of The Boeing Company, hasassumed the U.S. Chairmanship of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) for 2002. Phil has asked me to be the Working Chair, and I look forward to meeting each of yousoon.In my brief introduction to TABD, I have been impressed by the achievements of the 2001Chair, Jim Schiro, CEO of PricewaterhouseCoopers, and the 2001 Working Chair AllenWeltmann. They successfully instituted reforms that have prioritized and streamlinedthe TABD process, and secured the new U.S. Administration's strong support for theTABD, particularly Secretary Evans'. With your help, we at Boeing look forward tobuilding on the work of 2001 and pushing ahead with implementation of TABD'srecommendations.The Boeing Company took on this challenge because the U.S. and EU trade relationship isthe driving component of our global economy. The EU and U.S. are each other's largestpartners, and respectively our largest trading markets. In the current economicenvironment, it is critical that we in industry contribute our expertise to thegovernment policymaking process to reinvigorate business opportunities, job growth andglobal trade liberalization. As the new TABD Working Chair, I am very much lookingforward to working closely with all of you to promote both our priority and expertgroup issues.Our 2002 Mid Year Meeting (we will announce date and location shortly) will be anexcellent opportunity to press for implementation of our 2001 recommendations, to raisenew issues relevant to this year's policy agenda, and to set up expectations forachievements at the Fall CEO Conference (date and location also to be announcedshortly).I very much appreciate your patience as we set up the structure for this year, and lookforward to working with you. To begin this process, we are planning the first steeringcommittee for early April. We will send out date & time to you early next week.If you have questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact either myself,Lisa Schroeter([email protected]) or Jeffrey Werner [email protected]).Best regards,

Robert F. BottVice President, Business IntegrationThe Boeing Company----------------------------------------------------------------

file:///C¦/WINDOWS/ﾃﾞｽｸﾄｯﾌﾟ/11.4.2A TABD.txt

file:///C¦/WINDOWS/ﾃﾞｽｸﾄｯﾌﾟ/11.4.2A TABD.txt [2002/03/26 15:16:21]


AGENDA ITEM: 11.5 Preparation date: 28 Feb 02 By: Reinhold Nelissen Page 1 of 1

Title: “Recognition of Global Standards in National Regulat

Statement of Issue: EMM (Earth-Moving Machinery) Industry, as a major stake holder place, must take a pro-active approach in promoting the recognitiregulation when required.

Background: Over the last 30 plus years, the EMM industry sector has contribudevelopment of ISO Standards for the purpose of (1) global protepeople and the environment and (2) to assure global market accethese ISO standards. ISO/TC 127 has published a complete portfperformance based standards. Article 2.4 of the WTO ( World TraBarriers to Trade) Agreement states: “ When technical regulationsinternational standards exist or their completion is imminent, Memrelevant part of them, as a basis for their technical regulations…”endorsed at the 2001 JTL Meeting, at the ICSCA VII (International Conformity Assessment) Assembly Meeting and was put on the Cand consideration by their member countries.

Alternatives/Options: Not Applicable

Pro’s and Con’s: ♦ Recognition of global standards in national regulations will as

health and safety of EMM users and contribute to the harmonplace.

♦ Disregarding global standards as the basis for national regulaplace, increase product cost, complicate market access, and bAgreement.

Proposed Resolution: The AEM/CECE/CEMA JTL Committee agrees that the EMM inpro-active approach in promoting ISO standards in national/regibodies, and partner with organisations like UN ECE WP 6, TEPagrees to establish a small WG with representatives from AEM,charter to propose a most effective approach and report back to Annex – ICSCA VII Presentation

ions”

Action Information x

Page 1 of 1

in a globally harmonized market on of global standard in national

ted significantly in the ction of the health and safety of ss of EMM in compliance with olio of “state of the art” de Organization) TBT (Technical are required and relevant bers shall use them, or the

. The annexed presentation was Cooperation on Standards and OPANT website for information

sure uniform protection of ization of the global market

tions will fragment the market e in violation with the WTO TBT

dustry sector must take a more onal SDO’S, national regulatory , etc.. The JTL meeting further CECE and CEMA with the JTL at it’s next meeting.

1

EARTH MOVING AND PURPOSE BUILT FORESTRY MACHINERY (EMM & PBFM)

INDUSTRY SECTOR

Recognition of Global Standards in National Regulations.Presented at ICSCA VII, Singapore, 21/22 February 2001

Industry Cooperationon Standards &

Conformity Assessment

2

Global Market PlaceWhat is our market?◆ Manufacturing and marketing is global. ◆ Contractors operate globally and move machines

country to country and cross continents.◆ Re-marketing of products is global.◆ Suppliers base is global.◆ Companies around the world support the need for

global harmonization of product performance and conformity assessment requirements.

3

Global Manufacturing & Marketing

`

Locations Combined

4

Global Market Outlook

What are our needs ?◆ Common Product Design Platform for

global markets to ensure:◆ uniform protection of health and safety ◆ lowest cost product possible by avoiding costly

country by country modifications - estimated at $ 110,000, 000. - for EMM Industry.

◆ Suppliers Declaration of Compliance (SDoC) to enter markets quickly

5

Standards for the Global Market

Where are we today ?

◆ Over last 30 years developed a “State of the Art”Portfolio of market relevant and value added ISO Standards with private and public input from 38 countries.

6

PORTFOLIO OF ISO STANDARDSROPS/ FOPS

OPERATOR SPACE EMC ZONES OF REACH

OPERATOR ENVIRONMENT ENGINE POWER CONTROLS

SLOPE CAPACITY

OPERATOR VISIBILITY

OPERATING LOAD

NOISE

LIGHTING

GUARDING

BOOM LOCK

SAFETY SIGNS

SYMBOLS

TERMINOLOGY

STEERING BRAKES

WARNING ALARM

SIP

SEAT DIM

SEAT BELT

SEAT

VIBRATION

LOAD

HOLDING VALVE

ACCESS DIM.

7

Standards for the Global MarketWhere are we today ?

◆ Over last 30 years developed a “State of the Art”Portfolio of market relevant and value added ISO Standards with private and public input from 38 countries.

◆ ISO/TC 127 Standards are recognized as national and/or regional standards globally.

10

Standards for the Global MarketWhere are we today ? ◆ Over last 30 years developed a “State of the Art”

Portfolio of market relevant and value added ISO Standards with private and public input from 38 countries.

◆ ISO/TC 127 Standards are recognized as national and/or regional standards globally.

◆ Rapid development of new technologies and continuing product improvements based on consumer feed back present new challenges for standards developers, regulatory agencies and industry.

11

National/Regional Regulations

Where are we today ? cont’d ◆ National Regulations often burden market access

because of required machine modifications, design specifications and time consuming/expensive non-value added conformity assessment schemes.

◆ USA and EU have implemented regulations recognizing voluntary standards for “presumption of conformity”.

◆ WTO TBT Agreement in principle encourages the use of “international standards” in National Regulations.

12

Nat. Recognition of Standards & SDoC

Voluntary Standards in Regulations:◆ Circular A-119 to implement US Public Law 104-113:

Policy is to rely on voluntary standards with first choice to International Standards.

◆ European New Approach: Specify only Essential Requirements in Regulations with Voluntary Standards providing technical means for compliance, e.g. Directives for Health & Safety, EMC, Noise,etc..

◆ Both Regulations permit Self-Declaration of Conformity -SDoC

13


How to meet the needs of Private and PublicSectors ?◆ Strengthen the WTO TBT Agreement in support of

ISO/IEC Standards◆ Support the UN/ECE WP 6 “Common Regulatory

Objectives”◆ Industry to request a permanent seat on UN/ECE WP 6

to ensure our needs are recognized.◆ Expand “TABD” and “TEP” Negotiations globally.◆ ICSCA Outreach -Global promotion of

“11SDoC”

14

Recognition of ISO/IEC Standards in WTO TBT Agreement

WTO Article 2.4, TBT Agreement:

“Where technical regulations are required and relevant international standards exist or their completion is imminent, Members shall use them, or the relevant part of them, as a basis for their technical regulations …”

15



ISO/IEC Standards◆ Support the UN/ECE WP 6 “Common Regulatory

Objectives”◆ Industry to request a permanent seat on UN/ECE WP 6


“11SDoC”

16

Model for Recognition of Global Standards in UN/ECE

UN/ECE WP 6 Initiative:

Draft Project for “ An International Model for Implementing Good Regulatory Practice for the Preparation, Adoption, and Application of Technical Regulations via the use of International Standards”

17



ISO/IEC Standards◆ Support the UN/ECE WP 6 Sectorial “Common

Regulatory Objectives”◆ Industry to request a permanent seat on UN/ECE WP 6


“11SDoC”

18

ICSCA’s Outreach Network per Country and Organization as of January 2001

◆ The understanding is (1) that the companies and persons mentioned take the lead in promoting the ICSCA goals, visions and interest in the respective country, particularly towards the relevant

• standardization organizations, • regulatory agencies and • certification/accreditation bodies,

◆ supported by other mentioned ICSCA companies; and ◆ (2) that feed-back is given to all ICSCA members on actions taken and

resulting information.

UN/ECE WP 6Regulatory Harmonization Siemens Th Fischer

International Organization Main Acting Company Supported by

19

SUMMARY - NEED “NEW THINKING”

“The Significant Problems that we havecannot be solved at the same level of thinkingwe were at when we created them”

----- Albert Einstein

20

GLOBAL ALIGNMENT

WTO-TBTUN-ECE

TABD/TEPICSCA-

OUTREACH

GLOBAL RECOGNITION OF INTERNATIONAL STDANDARDS IN REGULATIONS

ISO / IECETSI / EQUIV.

CEN ASAE ASANSI CENELEC

SAE CSA ASTMASME GOST JIS

SABS SASO JISetc., etc.

21

ICSCA VII Singapore, February 2001, Draft Resolutions

Adoption of Global Standards and Referencing them in Regulation,demands and limits (in the frame of the Global Market Sector Concept)ICSCA member companies re-emphasize their support for the

- recognition of international standards which have been chosen by a sector tobest serve its needs and

- to promote their reference in National Regulations via the WTO Agreementand in other related government fora selected by the sectors.

ICSCA recognize the specific activities of the “heavy vehicle/off –road” industrysector, which is successfully using ISO, UN/EC and WTO to globally harmonizetheir industry.Owner: Deere, Reinhold Nelissen

1 START/AG/11 (Draft) (11 February 2002) DRAFT AGENDA Eleventh meeting of the Ad hoc Team of Specialists on Standardization And Regulatory Techniques (“START” Team) and meeting of Coordinators and Rapporteurs of UN/ECE Working Party on Technical Harmonization and Standardization Policies (Working Party 6)

(Geneva, 13 March 2002; Palais des Nations)

The “START” meeting will start on 10 a.m. and is expected to be finished by1 p.m. The meeting of Coordinators/Rapporteurs will start on 2 p.m. and is expected to be finished by 5 p.m. 11-th meeting of the “START” Team 1. Results of the October 2001 WP.6 session and follow up to the “International Model”. (see attached “START” Team’s terms of reference in document TRADE/WP.6/2001/8 add.1. annex 2) .2. Information on relevant developments (VIII ICSCA meeting, etc) 3. Dissemination of information on “International Model”-distribution of tasks among members of the Team. (see attached the final edited text of the “Model” as a Recommendation “L”) 4. Possible sectoral applications for the “Model” - possible projects at UNECE (“in–house” follow up)

- possible “outside” projects and follow up in concrete sectors (earth-moving machinery, lifts, telecom).

(for details, as discussed at WP.6 in October 2001, see attached document TRADE/WP.6/2001/8 add.1, annex 3) 5. Future meetings, etc. 6. Other business.

2 Meeting of WP.6 Coordinators and Rapporteurs 1. Elaboration of the draft provisional agenda for WP.6 session in October 2002 and proposals

on major issues to be included in the agenda (draft agenda to be sent) 2. “Forum on market surveillance on transition economies”- proposals on major issues to be

included in the agenda of he Forum , agencies/speakers to be invited, etc. (draft programme to be sent) 3. Distribution of tasks (preparation of documents and other matters) for October 2002 session. 4. Information on the forthcoming meetings and other developments relating to WP.6 (discussions at CTIED Bureau on 11 February 2002, establishing of an ad hoc team of experets on quality –joint venture of WP:6 and WP:8 etc.). 5. Other business. Note. At the proposal of the WP.6 chairman members of the “START” team are kindly invited to participate as observers in the meeting of Coordinators/Rapporteurs.


AGENDA ITEM: 11.5.2 Preparation date: 11 March 2002 By: Gerald H. Ritterbusch Page 1 of 1

Title: International Model for Technical Harmonization BasPractice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of TUse of International Standards

Statement of Issue: Trade is negatively affected by differing tecountries. Thus, if common technical regulations existed, then order to help countries who are looking to adopt technical regucould simply adopt a “model” that would provide them with the technical regulation. The whole concept is based on the agreeobjectives”, (CROs) which would guide countries in the processwould call for the use of international standards for the basis of

Background: The impetus for this stems from the World TradeBarriers to Trade work where it has been determined that differestablish barriers to trade. As the UN ECE is a forum that cancountries, they have taken on this project to attempt to developproduced a document that provides the code. The main impetinternational standards as the basis for the technical requireme

Alternatives/Options: While industry is not necessarily interesregulations, the reality is that as more countries develop they wThus, left to their own devices, they will likely invent somethingwe have a new scheme with which to deal. The better option isinto this business of having technical regulations would use thetechnical regulation such that the provisions would be commonbenefit of a technical regulation without imposing the trade barregulation.

Pro’s and Con’s: The value of this is that if the process were fdiversity of technical regulations for the industry. The con sidethat haven’t even yet thought of having technical regulations toestablishing technical regulations. Thus, more countries mightthe opportunity to do further mischief in the area of conformity Proposed Resolution: The JTLM members should support thInternational Model to provide guidance for countries that haveregulations.

ed on Good Regulatory echnical Regulations via the

Action Information X

Page 1 of 1

chnical regulations in different trade would be facilitated. In lations, it would be helpful if they necessary ingredients for their ment with “common regulatory of limiting what is included and requirements.

Organization, Technical ing technical regulations address issues covering various this “model”. They have us of the code is to use nts.

ted in more technical ill institute technical regulations. that has no antecedent and thus that any country wanting to get “model” to develop their and afford the country the riers of a yet different technical

ollowed, there would be less is that it might prompt countries get into the business of have technical regulations with assessment.

e work to develop the a desire to establish technical



Page 1 of 2

Title: “International Model for Technical Harmonization Based on Good Regulatory Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Technical Regulations via the Use of International Standards”

Statement of Issue: Regulators can deploy a number of means to prevent technical regulations from constituting unnecessary barriers to trade. The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade explicitly refers to using international standards as a basis for technical regulations, and to accept as equivalent technical regulations of other Members. To build up the proposed international model UN/ECE Working Party 6 was established. The "International model" provides a set of voluntary principles and procedures for sectoral application.

Background: Proposal for a Model for the Harmonization of Technical Regulations and Free Circulation of Compliant Products Basic elements for harmonization and free circulation

1. The “International Model” addresses the steps to be followed when harmonization of technical regulations is favoured by a number of UN member countries. The nature of such harmonization should preferably be limited to agreeing on Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs). Such objectives will address legitimate concerns of governments, for instance, those related to public health, safety or the protection of the environment. The principal elements to be included in a CRO are set out in Annex B. The CRO shall not be prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. The CROs would be transposed into technical regulations at national level by those countries who agreed on them. The mechanism for national transposition of CROs is to be defined by individual UN member countries according to their national legal practice. For demonstration of compliance with CROs a possible means could be recourse to relevant international standards.

2. A distinction should be made between the specifications applicable to products, as such,

and the conformity assessment requirements to be used to ensure that the products placed on the market conform to the characteristics required. The CROs shall cover these issues.

3. If the system of CROs is to be effective in facilitating trade, there would need to be

mechanisms to ensure that products falling within the scope of the CRO, that complied with its terms, and were properly attested as doing so, could be placed on the market in the countries that have agreed on the CRO.

4. Countries that have agreed on a CRO would assure that products, which comply with

the CRO, could be placed on their market for free circulation without being subject to any additional product or conformity assessment requirements (e.g. testing or certification). If a country imposes additional requirements, despite having agreed on a CRO, it shall inform the other countries (through the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)) of these measures. The other countries would, under such circumstances, be free to take appropriate measures and ultimately restrict the free circulation on their markets of relevant products from the country that has approved additional requirements




Page 2 of 2

Claim of conformity with a CRO by the supplier Products covered by the scope of a CRO would carry some means (e.g. a SDoC or a certificate of conformity) demonstrating either that the supplier claims conformity with the CRO or that conformity has been assessed and attested to by a RCAB. In either case, documented evidence should be provided with the product. The type of such evidence should be specified in the CRO. All claims of compliance must include the reference to applicable CRO, for example, the registration number allocated by the United Nations (UNECE) for the applicable CRO. Alternatives/Options: -

Pro’s and Con’s: Implementation of the "International model" will benefit World Wide harmonization of Safety requirements by using ISO standards. Proposed Resolution: JTLM should support implementation of the "International model" by participating in a pilot study under supervision by UN/ECE WP 6. Follow up and when possible influence.

1

L. INTERNATIONAL MODEL FOR TECHNICAL HARMONIZATION BASED ON GOOD REGULATORY PRACTICE FOR THE PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION

OF TECHNICAL REGULATIONS VIA THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS Note from the secretariat 1. A proposal for an “International Model” was prepared by the ad hoc Team of Specialists on STandardization And Regulatory Techniques ("START" Team) and submitted to the UNECE Working Party on Technical Harmonization and Standardization Policies at its session in October 2001 (documents TRADE/WP.6/2001/8, TRADE/WP.6/2001/8 Corr.1; and TRADE/WP.6/2001/8 Add.1). . 2. At the session the Working Party decided:

- that there is a clear market need and interest from Governments in further reducing trade barriers and facilitating market access;

- that the elaborated “International Model” provides a voluntary framework which could contribute to facilitating market access through establishing sectoral agreements between interested member countries;

- to request the UNECE secretariat to include the text of the “International Model” in the set of UNECE Recommendations on Standardization Policies

- to call on the “START” Team: • as a follow-up to a request from the UNECE Committee for Trade, Industry and

Enterprise Development (see ECE/TRADE 280, paragraph 64), to explore with UNECE subsidiary bodies the possibilities of using the principles and concept of the “International Model” in their areas of competence so as to identify potential pilot projects;

• assist in forthcoming sectoral initiatives from interested parties based on the “International Model”, as requested

3. Recommendation “L” forms part of the set of UNECE Recommendations on Standardization Policies which serves as reference material for those concerned in national Governments, regulatory authorities and standardizing bodies, as well as in regional and international cooperation. Background 3. Regulators can deploy a number of means to prevent technical regulations from constituting unnecessary barriers to trade. The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) explicitly refers to using international standards as a basis for technical regulations (Art. 2.4 and Art. 2.6), and to accepting as equivalent the technical regulations of other Members (Art. 2.7). It also encourages the use of relevant international guides or recommendations as a basis for conformity assessment procedures (Art. 5.4), and the conclusion of agreements for the mutual recognition of the results from each other’s conformity assessment procedures (Art. 6.3). 4. At the First Triennial Review, the WTO/TBT Committee reiterated that good regulatory practice for preparing, adopting and applying technical regulations was a priority for WTO Members to facilitate trade, and it was agreed at the Second Triennial Review to continue an information exchange in this regard while noting that minimizing the use of mandatory technical regulations and using voluntary international standards, where appropriate, could reduce the regulatory burden and open up market access opportunities. WTO members also agreed on this occasion that regular information exchange between the TBT Committee and other relevant bodies would be useful. 5. The UNECE Working the Party on Technical Harmonization and Standardization Policies (WP.6) has for more than 30 years provided an interface between the regulatory and the standardization community, for instance by keeping an “ECE Standardization List” by which regulators can flag areas where they would consider it useful for voluntary standards to be developed, possibly for subsequent use in relation with technical regulations. The UNECE also has a longstanding record in offering member countries a platform

2

for the harmonization of national technical regulations such as in the areas of Motor Vehicles and Transport of Dangerous Goods. 6. However, international technical harmonization could be even further advanced by reducing the regulatory burden and using international standards where appropriate. For this purpose, in 1999, Working Party 6 established the ad hoc team of specialists on Standardization and Regulatory Techniques ("START" Team). 7. The “International Model” recognizes that there exists in the WTO Agreement on TBT a framework for ensuring that technical regulations and standards do not create barriers to trade. The Model adds to this framework by suggesting solutions for the practical implementation of technical harmonization and draws from existing schemes for good regulatory practice to be used in the process of international technical harmonization. 8. The Model provides a set of voluntary principles and procedures for sectoral application. Countries that would like to harmonize their technical regulations may wish to implement the principles and procedures as suggested by the “Model”. To this end the details of procedures for such application will have to be drawn up by the interested countries. Introduction 9. Discussions within different international organizations and forums show a clear desire for the convergence of technical regulations with a view to limiting obstacles to international trade and to facilitating market access. Some international technical regulations exist, but they tend to be cumbersome and burdened with details. They have also proven to be difficult to prepare. As a consequence, such regulations, once in place, can be difficult to amend. Detailed agreements between a large number of regulatory authorities are frequently difficult to obtain, and such regulations tend not to achieve full consensus. 10. A regulatory framework comprising broad common regulatory objectives might be easier to compile and might more easily find consensus. For the detailed requirements that implement common regulatory objectives recourse could be made to established mechanisms of International Standardizing Bodies, which provide a forum for all interested parties (including regulatory authorities), and have established a degree of trust at the international level. 11. These problems have been recognized by the UNECE Working Party on Technical Harmonization and Standardization Policies (WP.6), which at its ninth session in May 1999 commissioned a team of specialists to investigate the question. This team was established under the acronym “START” (STandardization And Regulatory Techniques), and the UNECE Committee for Trade, Industry and Enterprise Development has confirmed its formation. The work of the Team is intended to provide guidance for good regulatory practice and a mechanism for co-operation between regulatory authorities, standardizers and industry, so that legislation can make appropriate use of standards. 12. There are major efforts regarding the elimination of technical barriers to trade, particularly under the WTO/TBT Agreement, and it is appropriate to develop further the practical dimensions of procedures that are complementary to and coherent with the TBT Agreement. This could be done by way of a general mechanism for linking harmonized technical regulations and international standards. Information used in the development of the following proposed, provisional “International Model” was also derived from useful work undertaken in other international forums. These include the WTO work on trade policy review, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) work on regulatory reform and international standards, and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) work on creating guidelines on good regulatory practice. 13. It is, for example, assumed that whenever a new or revised technical regulation (TR) (for abbreviations used, see Annex A) is being prepared, regulators should follow the principles found in the WTO/TBT Agreement. In particular, it is assumed that TRs should be based on relevant international standards, when

3

they exist or their completion is imminent, except when such standards would be ineffective or inappropriate for the technical regulation in question; that TRs should not be more trade-restrictive then necessary and that they should be non-discriminatory. 14. Where harmonization is deemed useful by interested countries, the draft “International Model” provides practical steps aimed at facilitating and accelerating the harmonization of technical regulations by agreeing on Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs) for applicable products or product areas (sectors). Proposal for a Model for the Harmonization of Technical Regulations and Free Circulation of Compliant Products Basic elements for harmonization and free circulation 15. The “International Model” addresses the steps to be followed when harmonization of technical regulations is favoured by a number of United Nations member countries. The nature of such harmonization should preferably be limited to agreeing on Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs). Such objectives will address legitimate concerns of governments, for instance, those related to public health, safety or the protection of the environment. The principal elements to be included in a Common Regulatory Objective are set out in Annex B. The Common Regulatory Objective shall not be prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. The Common Regulatory Objectives would be transposed into technical regulations at national level by those countries who agreed on them. The mechanism for national transposition of Common Regulatory Objectives is to be defined by individual United Nations member countries according to their national legal practice. For demonstration of compliance with Common Regulatory Objectives a possible means could be recourse to relevant international standards. 16. A distinction should be made between the specifications applicable to products, as such, and the conformity assessment requirements to be used to ensure that the products placed on the market conform to the characteristics required. The Common Regulatory Objectives shall cover these issues. 17. If the system of Common Regulatory Objectives is to be effective in facilitating trade, there would need to be mechanisms to ensure that products falling within the scope of the CRO, that complied with its terms, and were properly attested as doing so, could be placed on the market in the countries that have agreed on the CRO. 18. Countries that have agreed on a Common Regulatory Objective would assure that products, which comply with the CRO, could be placed on their market for free circulation without being subject to any additional product or conformity assessment requirements (e.g. testing or certification). If a country imposes additional requirements, despite having agreed on a CRO, it shall inform the other countries (through the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)) of these measures. The other countries would, under such circumstances, be free to take appropriate measures and ultimately restrict the free circulation on their markets of relevant products from the country that has approved additional requirements. Identification of the need for harmonization 19. The responsibility for technical regulations and their harmonization lies with national regulatory authorities. The need for harmonization might be identified by one, among others, of the following ”trigger” mechanisms:

• Studies by specialists from a particular sector/industry that are specially commissioned by governments, international organizations, business groups, or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and raised in national, regional or international forums;

• Through initiatives by one or more particular countries to harmonize their TRs at an international level;

• Through ”complaint-based” initiatives when a country is responding to complaints from foreign or national business operators concerning its TR regime;

4

20. When it concerns new or revised TRs, the existing notification procedures under the WTO/TBT Agreement require that proposed technical regulations/conformity assessment procedures to be systematically notified. This might also be regarded as a “trigger” mechanism for examining the need for a TR. If this need is recognized by other countries, they might be willing to state their interest in having the proposed TR internationally harmonized. Process of establishing a Common Regulatory Objective 21. A United Nations member country interested in using the mechanism of this “International Model” for harmonizing technical regulations through establishing Common Regulatory Objectives could address the United Nations (UNECE) to launch a Call for Participation by other member countries of the United Nations (procedures to be elaborated in Annex C). The purpose of such a Call would be to explore the interest in international harmonization via agreed upon Common Regulatory Objectives for the products or product areas in question. If such a Call were positively responded to by other member countries of the United Nations, the countries concerned would cooperate in formulating CROs. 22. The procedure proposed for the preparation or revision of Common Regulatory Objectives and legal formats for their approval is set out in Annex C. Based on the proposal for CROs, interested countries, (effectively, any country that had responded positively to a Call for Participation) shall cooperate in formulating CRO. During the preparation of Common Regulatory Objectives by the group of interested countries any other United Nations member country could join this group or participate in the work as an observer. 23. Upon completion of the text of the CROs, the United Nations member countries having agreed on them would, with a view to having an open and transparent process, announce to the United Nations their intention to nationally implement them in national technical regulations. Other member countries of the United Nations would be invited, on a voluntary basis, to implement them either immediately or in due time. The United Nations would register the Common Regulatory Objectives and their implementation in national technical regulations. Such information would be made publicly accessible. 24. In parallel to the preparation of CROs, countries should explore the existence of relevant international standards to be considered for reference in formulating CROs. In case no relevant standards exist, countries may consult with relevant international standardizing bodies, through their official representatives, regarding the initiation of new standards work to support specific Common Regulatory Objective provisions. It is assumed that countries collaborating on a Common Regulatory Objective would support related standards development activities, within the limits of their available resources. It is also expected that they would refrain from activities that would conflict with or jeopardize this standardization work in preparation. 25. When the relevant international standards are available from international standardizing bodies they should be referred to in the Common Regulatory Objective and the conditions for their use should be specified in the CRO. Determining and assuring conformity with a CRO 26. The Common Regulatory Objective should contain requirements related to how conformity with its terms is to be assured and demonstrated. Whenever appropriate, the means of assuming compliance should be a Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (SDoC). However, in other cases, particularly when safety and health concerns are important, the United Nations member countries agreeing on a Common Regulatory Objective may find it necessary to make recourse to more stringent conformity assurance procedures. In either case - where the SDoC is considered sufficient, or where a more stringent procedure is required, the procedures should be specified in the CRO. If third party assessment is deemed necessary, the Common Regulatory Objective should state that compliance be assessed and attested by Recognized Conformity Assessment Bodies (RCABs). Recognized Conformity Assessment Bodies (RCABs)

5

27. The requirements with regard to the technical competence of the Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) in the field defined by the Common Regulatory Objective should be set out as an integral part of the CRO. The countries, which have agreed on the CRO, could designate CABs as recognized to perform assessment and attestation under the CRO. A list of such recognized bodies (RCABs) should be made publicly available, for instance, by annexing it to the Common Regulatory Objective and such bodies should be registered by the United Nations (UNECE). Claim of conformity with a Common Regulatory Objective by the supplier 28. Products covered by the scope of a Common Regulatory Objective would carry some means (e.g. a SDoC or a certificate of conformity) demonstrating either that the supplier claims conformity with the Common Regulatory Objective or that conformity has been assessed and attested to by a RCAB. In either case, documented evidence should be provided with the product. The type of such evidence should be specified in the CRO. All claims of compliance must include the reference to applicable CRO, for example, the registration number allocated by the United Nations (UNECE) for the applicable CRO. Market surveillance and protection clause 29. Countries having agreed on Common Regulatory Objectives are responsible for market surveillance on their territory and have the right to withdraw products from their national markets if the products are not in compliance with the CRO. 30. In case a product is in conformance with a CRO, but is found to endanger health and safety or other legitimate objectives, a country can take necessary steps to withdraw such a product from the market or restrict its free circulation by evoking the protection clause of a Common Regulatory Objective (for details see Annex B). 31. Countries should report such actions both relating to domestic and foreign products to the United Nations (UNECE) and indicate the reasons for this decision.

* * * * * *

6

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX A List of abbreviations used in the International Model ANNEX B Principal elements to be included in a CRO ANNEX C Administrative Procedures and Institutional Provisions

7

ANNEX A

List of abbreviations used in the “International Model”

CAB Conformity Assessment Body CRO Common Regulatory Objective ISB International Standardizing Body PC Protection Clause RCAB Recognized Conformity Assessment Body SDoC Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity TR Technical Regulation UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

_______________

8

ANNEX B

Principal elements to be included in a CRO

A Common Regulatory Objective is a mutually agreed document registered by the United Nations (UNECE) and publicly available. By establishing such a document the interested countries agree on elements such as: Scope statement A statement of the products or product areas that are covered by the CRO. Countries should agree on the products for which legitimate regulatory objectives are required. For this purpose countries may use international classification schemes such as the harmonized commodity description and coding system. Product requirements Legitimate regulatory objectives reflect the requirements of Governments to protect public interest in areas such as human health or safety, animal or plant life or health or the environment. The requirements needed for protection of legitimate objectives should lay down the principle issues of concern and be specified in terms of performance requirements rather than design or descriptive characteristics. Requirements should be limited to relevant aspects and be proportionate to the hazard inherent to a given product or product areas. The detailed provisions on how to meet the requirements of the Common Regulatory Objective should preferably be specified in international standards. Such standards will be referenced in the CRO. Reference to standards clause The Common Regulatory Objective should contain a list of applicable international standards which correspond wholly or partially to the requirements. The Common Regulatory Objective may contain a provision that products complying with the referenced international standards are presumed to comply with the requirements. Compliance clause The Common Regulatory Objective should contain a provision on how compliance is demonstrated. Countries should agree on the range and contents of possible conformity assessment procedures which are considered to give the necessary level of protection under the CRO. The Common Regulatory Objective should also specify the conditions under which suppliers can make a choice if more than one option is provided for. Such options are, for instance, supplier’s declaration of conformity, third party certification or inspection. When applicable, the Common Regulatory Objective should also contain provisions on the conformity assessment bodies which are recognized to assess and attest compliance as well as the competence criteria to be fulfilled by such bodies. Market surveillance and Protection clause Countries having agreed on Common Regulatory Objectives are responsible for market surveillance on their territory and have the right to withdraw products from their national markets if not in compliance with the CRO.

9

The Common Regulatory Objective should contain a provision (protection clause) that if a country finds products claiming conformity with a Common Regulatory Objective that do not actually conform with its requirements, the country may, with the intention to preserve legitimate objectives, withdraw such a product from its market. Furthermore, the Common Regulatory Objective should contain a provision that the country using the Protection Clause should state, to the United Nations (UNECE), specifically what products have been removed from the market and what requirements of the Common Regulatory Objective have been claimed to be met but have not been met. In a case where products are in conformance with the Common Regulatory Objective or the applicable international standards but are still found to endanger legitimate objectives, a country having agreed on a Common Regulatory Objective could withdraw such products from the market or restrict free circulation. In this case, the use of the Protection Clause should also be subject to the condition that the country using it should declare its use to the United Nations (UNECE) and indicate the reasons for this decision

_______________

10

ANNEX C

Administrative Procedures and Institutional Provisions (including the Call for participation in formulating “Common Regulatory

Objectives” and the preparation of these Objectives

Article 1

General Institutional framework

1. The process of registering Common Regulatory Objectives and interpreting the provisions of the “International Model” shall be the task of the UNECE Working Party on Technical Harmonization and Standardization Policies (WP.6) which shall ensure coordination of the work on requests for technical harmonization received by the UNECE secretariat. If deemed appropriate, Working Party 6 could set up groups of experts to monitor and implement such work in practice.

Article 2

Call for Participation 1. Country/Countries (at least three wishing to harmonize their technical regulations according to the “International Model” and to invite other countries to join such a process) shall make a “Call for Participation” through the UNECE secretariat to all United Nations member States. The “Call” should contain the necessary information for formulating a Common Regulatory Objective (cf. Annex B). Countries wishing to join the work under such a “Call” should respond to the secretariat within three months (from the date of the transmission of the “Call” by UNECE secretariat) stating their interest in participating in the work. The countries which expressed an interest to join the work can start the technical harmonization process three months after the date of transmission of the “Call”. 2. Based on responses to the “Call”, an open-ended task force composed of interested countries shall be set up with the purpose to jointly develop common regulatory objectives (CROs) regarding the safety, health, environmental protection and other legitimate concerns of governments regarding the products or group of products in question. 3. These open-ended task forces should work in a transparent way and participation in them shall be open at any moment to any other United Nations member state that expresses the wish to join the work. The Task Forces will agree on their own working procedures. The Task Forces should inform the UNECE secretariat about their work which will be made publicly available by appropriate means (for example, via the internet).

Article 3

UNECE Registry of Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs) 1. A registry shall be created and maintained by the UNECE secretariat for the Common Regulatory Objectives developed under the “International Model”. The registry shall be known as the “UNECE Registry for CROs”. 2. The countries that agreed on a Common Regulatory Objective shall submit it to Working Party 6 through the UNECE secretariat. 3. The agreed Common Regulatory Objective specified in the paragraph above shall contain the principal elements as specified in Annex B to the “International Model”. The Common Regulatory Objective shall not be prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade.

11

4. If formal elements in the agreed Common Regulatory Objective (as specified in the Model) are met, the Common Regulatory Objective shall be considered to be established in the UNECE Registry on the date of its submission to the UNECE secretariat. 5. The Secretariat shall, when registering the CRO, append copies of all relevant documentation to that CRO. All documentation received by the UNECE secretariat under the provisions of this Article shall be made publicly available by appropriate means (for example, via the internet). 6. The process of the further revision of the already agreed Common Regulatory Objectives should follow procedures as specified for a “Call for participation” under Article 2.

Article 4

National adoption and notification of application of Registered Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs)

1. A Country that has agreed on a Common Regulatory Objective shall submit the Common Regulatory Objective to the process used by it to adopt technical requirements specified in the Common Regulatory Objective into its own legislation. Any other country at any moment may inform the UNECE secretariat about its intention to implement and use the Common Regulatory Objective (and, thus, it will follow the procedures as specified under this Article). 2. A Country that adopts a Common Regulatory Objective into its own legislation shall notify the UNECE secretariat in writing of the date on which it will begin to apply that CRO. The notification shall be provided by the country within 60 days after its adoption of the CRO. 3. A Country that is specified in paragraph 1 of this Article and that has not, by the end of the one-year period after the date of the registration of the Common Regulatory Objective in the UNECE Registry, adopted the Common Regulatory Objective into its legislation, shall report on the status of the Common Regulatory Objective in its domestic process. A status report shall be submitted for each subsequent one-year period if no such action has been taken by the end of that period. 4. A Country that is specified in paragraph 1 of this Article and that accepts products that comply with the technical requirements of a registered Common Regulatory Objective without adopting the Common Regulatory Objective into its own legislation shall notify the UNECE secretariat in writing of the date on which it began to or will begin to accept such products.

* * * * * **

E Economic and Social Council

UNITED NATIONS

Distr. GENERAL TRADE/WP.6/2001/8/Add.1 18 October 2001

ENGLISH ONLY

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

COMMITTEE FOR TRADE, INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT Working Party on Technical Harmonization and Standardization Policies Eleventh session, 29-31 October 2001 Item 7(b) of the provisional agenda

DRAFT PROPOSAL*/ FOR

“AN INTERNATIONAL MODEL FOR TECHNICAL HARMONISATION BASED ON GOOD REGULATORY PRACTICE FOR THE PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND APPLICATION OF

TECHNICAL REGULATIONS VIA THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS" Annex 1: Draft Annex C to the “International Model” Annex 2: Terms of Reference of the Ad Hoc Team of Specialists on Standardization

and Regulatory Techniques (“START” Team) Annex 3: “START” Team contacts for possible cross-sectoral initiatives

This paper was prepared on the basis of discussions held at the tenth meeting of the ad hoc Team of Specialists on STandardization And Regulatory Techniques ("START" Team) in September 2001. It contains the first draft of annex C to an "International Model", terms of reference of the “START” Team and information on its cross-sectoral initiatives. It is recalled that the first draft of the "International Model" as it was presented to the tenth session of the Working Party in November 2000 can be found in UNECE document TRADE/WP.6/2000/8. The present document is reproduced in the form and language in which it was received by the secretariat. */ This paper is being submitted without formal editing.

TRADE/WP.6/2001/8/Add.1 page 2

GE. 01-


ANNEX 1

Draft Annex C to the “International Model” Administrative Procedures and Institutional Provisions

(including the Call for participation in formulating “Common Regulatory Objectives” (CROs) and the preparation of CROs)

Article 1

General Institutional framework

1. The process of registering Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs) and interpreting the provisions of the “International Model” shall be the task of the UNECE Working Party on Technical Harmonization and Standardization Policies (Working Party 6-WP.6) which shall ensure coordination of the work on requests for technical harmonization received by the UNECE secretariat. In practice, Working Party 6 could set up groups of experts to monitor and implement such work in practice.

Article 2

Call for Participation 1. Country/Countries (at least three wishing to harmonize their technical regulations according to the International Model and to invite other countries to join such a process) shall make a “Call for Participation” through the UNECE secretariat to all UN member states. The “Call” should contain the necessary information for formulating a CRO (cf Annex B). Countries wishing to join the work under such a “Call” should respond to the secretariat within three months (from the date of the transmission of the “Call” by UNECE secretariat) stating their interest to participate in the work. The countries which expressed an interest to join the work can start the technical harmonization process three months after the date of transmission of the “Call”. 2. Based on responses to the “Call”, an open-ended task force composed of interested countries shall be set up with the purpose to jointly develop common regulatory objectives (CROs) regarding the safety, health, environmental protection and other legitimate concerns of governments regarding the products or group of products in question. 3. These open-ended task forces should work in a transparent way and participation in them shall be open at any moment to any other UN member state that expresses the wish to join the work. The Task Forces will agree on their own working procedures. The Task Forces should inform the UNECE secretariat about their work which will be made publicly available by appropriate means (for example, by posting it on a special web page).


Article 3

UNECE REGISTRY OF COMMON REGULATORY OBJECTIVES (CROs

1. A registry shall be created and maintained by the UN ECE secretariat for the CROs developed under the “International Model”. The registry shall be known as the “UNECE Registry for CROs”. 2. The countries that agreed on a CRO shall submit it to Working Party 6 through the UN ECE secretariat. 3. The agreed CRO specified in the paragraph above shall contain the principal elements as specified in Annex B to the “International Model”. The CRO shall not be prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. 4. If formal elements in the agreed CRO (as specified in the Model) are met the CRO shall be considered to be established in the UNECE Registry on the date of its submission to the UN ECE secretariat. 5. The Secretariat shall, when registering the CRO, append copies of all relevant documentation to that CRO. All documentation received by the UNECE secretariat under the provisions of this Article shall be made publicly available by appropriate means (for example, by posting on a special web page). 6. The process of the further revision of the already agre

aem/cece/cema/kocema joint technical liaison meeting ... › general › news › pdf › 12th ›...

Documents