Title: Korea Position on Draft Revised 1958 Agreement for IWVTA

Presenter’s Name: Seongkyun Cho

Economy: Republic of KOREA

Self Certification Type ApprovalResponsibility

i.e) Wrong type approval -> Not having been checked by manufacturer-> failure to pass the post compliance test

The manufacturer will be dealt with as false self certification or delinquency of self certification

There will be argument who were responsible for to what amount…

Main body to check the conformity

Manufacturer-> it should have capacity to self certify and be investigated about it before putting the product on the market

Competent authority accredited by the Economy

Marking Unique mark representing manufacturer’s responsibility and certification

E-mark representing the total type approval procedure and the authority’s decision

1. Difference between Type approval and self certification

Before After

Article 1.1 The only alternativeprocedure generally known and applied in certain Member States of the EconomicCommission for Europe is the self-certification by which the manufacturercertifies, without any preliminary administrative control, that each productput on the market conforms to the given Regulation; the competentadministrative authorities may verify by random sampling on the market thatthe self-certified products comply with the requirements of the givenRegulation.

The term "applying a UN Regulation" indicates that a UN Regulation enters into force for a Contracting Party. When doing so, Contracting Parties have the possibility to keep their own national/regional legislation. If they wish, they may substitute their national/regional legislation by the requirements of the UN Regulations they are applying, but they are not bound by the Agreement to do so. However, Contracting Parties have to accept as an alternative to the relevant part of their national/regional legislation UN type approvals pursuant to the latest version of UN Regulations they are applying.

Analysis The definition of ‘Self Certification’ needs to be reviewed because there are administrative investigation about manufacturer’s capacity to self certify and marking self certifying attachment before each product’s being put on the market

Multiple interpretation about accepting UN type approval as relevant part of national legislation can be possible. Do we replace all parts of national legislation with the Type approval or Can we select only relevant parts from our legislation to be replaced by the type approval

2. Changes between the old version and the draft of the agreement

Before After

Article 2 Each Contracting Party applying Regulations largely through type approvalshall grant the type approvals and approval markings described in anyRegulation for the types of wheeled vehicles, equipment or parts covered bythe Regulation, provided that it has the technical competence and is satisfiedwith the arrangements for ensuring conformity of the product with the approvedtype as set out in Appendix 2.

Each Contracting Party applying a UN Regulation shall grant the type approvals and the affixing of approval markings described in the UN Regulation for the types of wheeled vehicles, equipment or parts covered by the UN Regulation, provided that it has the technical competence to verify compliance with the UN Regulation, and has verified such compliance and is satisfied with the arrangements for ensuring conformity of the product with the approved type.

Analysis Sharing E- mark is restricted to the nations operating type approval so that self certification nations do not have to grant the Mark.

Sharing E-mark came to be a responsibility even for the self certifying countries if they apply the UN regulation.

Comment from WP 29 secretariat

As long as Korea doesn’t have technical competence, she does not have grant type approval, meaning having neither to follow overall administrative procedure such as COP nor to affixing/accepting E-mark. However, due to ‘mutual recognition’ of the agreement, Korea has to accept UN type approval in her national legislation procedure such as using the technical provision of the UN regulation applied by her in her compliance test procedures

2. Changes between the old version and the draft of the agreement

Before After

Article 3 Contracting Parties applying UN Regulations shall, by mutual recognition, accept for the placing on their markets, and subject to the provisions of Articles 1 & 12, type approvals granted pursuant to these UN Regulations, without requiring any further testing, documentation, certification and marking related to these type approvals. 

Analysis Self certification is based on the capacity for the manufacturer to self certify such as testing facility or human resources so that government investigates the capacity before its product’s being put on market. Self-certifying mark affixed before sale is also indispensable representation of the limitless responsibility of the manufacturers. Those things are blocked by these sentences.

Comment from WP 29 secretariat

These sentences should be reviewed because it interprets the mutual recognition in different way from in which the original version interpreted it.

2. Changes between the old version and the draft of the agreement

- 6 -

Draft revised 1958 Agreement submitted to WP29 in March 2013

“Applying a UN Regulation ”

Article 1.1. The term "applying a UN Regulation" indicates that a UN Regulation enters into force for a Contracting Party. When doing so, Contracting Parties have the possibility to keep their own national/regional legislation. If they wish, they may substitute their national/regional legislation by the requirements of the UN Regulations they are applying, but they are not bound by the Agreement to do so. However, Contracting Parties have to accept as an alternative to the relevant part of their national/regional legislation UN type approvals pursuant to the latest version of UN Regulations they are applying. The rights and obligations of Contracting Parties applying a UN Regulation are detailed in the various Articles of this Agreement

3. Korea Position having been submitted on the draft

-> Although1958 Agreement is based on the principle of mutual recognition of Type approvals, Article 1.1 must be clarified to apply UN regulations for certain contracting party which is not operating Type approval system

-> Draft revised 1958 Agreement have to ensure flexibility of use of UN Regulations

- 7 -

3. Korea’s Position having been submitted on the draft

Korea Position : Proposed to insert self-certification system and to allow applying the relevant part of UN regulation in revised 1958 Agreement Article 1.1.

~ Contracting Parties have to accept as an alternative to the relevant part of their national/regional legislation UN type approvals pursuant to the latest version of the corresponding part of UN regulation they are applying as appropriate. In that case, the Contracting party may notify the corresponding part of the UN regulation to other Contracting Parties.

- Korea can apply only technical requirements with the exception of other administrative procedures including COP - So, Korea submitted this proposal to IWVTA informal meeting and discussed this issue at WP29 March session in 2013

Results: Need to more consideration with EU, Japan, WP29 secretary and all contracting parties until next WP29 June session

- 8 -

“Granting Type approval”

Article 3 Contracting Parties applying UN Regulations [through type approval] shall, by mutual recognition, accept for the placing on their markets, and subject tothe provisions of Articles 1 & 12, type approvals granted pursuant to these UN Regulations, without requiring any further testing, documentation,certification and marking related to these type approvals

3. Korea Position on Draft revised 1958 Agreement

-> Article 3 of draft revised 1958 Agreement is possible only among Contracting Parties operating type approval-> In case of Korea, It is very difficult to recognize type approval by mutual recognition because Korea has operated self-certification system and has not issued any type approval of each UN regulation

Korean Proposal : insert this wording

Korea proposed this proposal to IWVTA informal Group meeting and discussed this issue at WP29 March session in 2013

- 9 -

3. Korea Position on Draft revised 1958 Agreement

-> So, ‘through type approval’ is necessary for clarification. The paragraph without the clarification is contradictory to article 1.1 acknowledging Contracting parties with national/regional legislation other than type approval

Results: Need to do more consideration with EU, Japan, WP29 secretary and all contracting parties until next WP29 June session

- 10 -

4. Future direction

There can be various alternatives for Korea to maintain self certification in the frame of 1958 agreement depending on the situations

Depending on how much contracting parties respect the heterogeneous systems of the other members

- 11 -

Thank you very much ! !