13 Vehicle type approval
| (27427)
8301/06
COM(06) 150
| Draft Decision on the position of the European Community regarding the adaptation to technical progress of Regulation 51 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
|
| Legal base | Articles 95, 130 and 300 EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 12 June 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxvii (2005-06), para 2 (3 May 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not yet known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
13.1 In 1997 the Community decided to accede to the Revised United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) 1958 Agreement
concerning the adoption of uniform conditions of approval and
reciprocal recognition of approval for motor vehicles, equipment
and parts. The Community simultaneously adopted 78 UN-ECE Regulations.
Although adoption of new UN-ECE Regulations is subject to Council
approval, amendments to existing UN-ECE Regulations are normally
dealt with at Commission level on the advice of the regulatory
Committee for Adaptation to Technical Progress (CATP) under a
comitology procedure.[45]
13.2 In relation to motor vehicles and the environment,
emission limits are set by the Community and the equivalent UNECE
Regulations are aligned. UN-ECE working groups have been considering,
and have subsequently proposed, amendment of UN-ECE Regulation
51 concerning the noise of motor vehicles. This amendment would
provide for a new noise test, but it would not apply for the purpose
of type-approving new vehicles with respect to noise emissions
until new noise limits (which are under discussion) are agreed
and additional supplementary test procedures finalised.
13.3 The Commission does not agree with this approach.
So in this document the Commission has sought a Decision authorising
it to vote for an alternative amendment to UN-ECE Regulation 51
which it has tabled. This is because the CATP has not agreed to
the Commission's proposal and the latter has referred the matter
to the Council. The Council must make a Decision, for or against,
within three months, that is by 4 July 2006. Failing that the
Commission's view prevails.
13.4 When we considered this document earlier this
year we noted the Government's generally positive view of the
Commission proposal. But we also noted its reservations about
the period of double testing (that is under the present regime
and under the proposed new one) and about the choice of tyres
used in testing. We said that before considering the matter further
we should like to know whether the Government regarded its reservations
as sufficiently important as for it to oppose the draft Decision,
if it did not gain satisfaction on them. We did not clear the
document.[46]
The Minister's letter
13.5 The Minister of State, Department of Transport
(Dr Stephen Ladyman) tells us that there is now an expectation
that the Commission will propose acceptable amendments minimising
the burden of double testing however, possible amendments on the
choice of tyres are unlikely to fully meet the Government's concerns.
The Minister continues that if nevertheless the Commission tables
satisfactory amendments on both issues the Government will vote
for the proposal. But if there is not a satisfactory commitment
on both issues the Government will vote against the whole proposal
even though this is unlikely to prevent its adoption (because
there is unlikely to be a qualified majority either for or against
the proposal, so allowing the Commission view to prevail).
Conclusion
13.6 We are grateful to the Minister for this
information. We have no further questions and clear the document.
45 Comitology is the system of committees which oversees
the exercise by the Commission of legislative powers delegated
to it by the Council and the European Parliament. Comitology committees
are made up of representatives of the Member States and chaired
by the Commission. There are three types of procedure (advisory,
management and regulatory), an important difference between which
is the degree of involvement and power of Member States' representatives. Back
46
See headnote. Back
| 
