Subgroup report
The Sub-group Chair reported on the recent activities of Sub-group “1958 Agreement”.
– 50 proposed actions have been reflected in the proposed revision of the 1958 Agreement. The guidance by IWVTA Informal Group will be sought for the other proposed actions which were recognized by the Sub-group.
– The major purposes of the revision of the 1958 Agreement are as follows:
(1) Increase the attractiveness of the 1958 Agreement and also increase the number of Contracting Parties to the Agreement by:
i) allowing to issue type approvals pursuant to earlier versions of UN Regulations
ii) allowing proxy voting (this still needs legal checking)

(2) Improve the quality and the reliability of the 1958 Agreement by:
iii) giving legal status to the guidelines related to the 1958 Agreement.

(3) enable the implementation of IWVTA

Requests for guidance from the IWVTA informal group

For guidance by IWVTA IG 1: whether or not to minimize the amendments
For guidance by IWVTA IG 10: the appropriate legal status of placeholder
（SG58-12-05-Rev.1、SG58-12-06）
• Japan insisted that the volume of amendments of the revised Agreement should be kept to the minimum in order to ensure the smooth approval of the revised Agreement by all the Contracting Parties.
• The Chairman commented on the importance to get approvals by non European countries. The Chairman continued that the failure to get approval by only one Contracting Party would prevent the 1958 Agreement from being revised.
• Korea supported Japan. Korea pointed out that inclusion of the detailed provisions into the Agreement make the volume of the amendments very large.
• The Netherlands and South Africa supported the current proposal of the revision of the Agreement.
• The Russian Federation stated that his position is to make the Agreement better as it is now and it is more important than to minimize the amendments. But of course preferring to avoid too many amendments is self-explanatory. All explanatory notes should be in the separate notes.
• EC underlined the necessity to start consideration of the proposed revision of the 1958 Agreement by WP.29 without delay in order to give each CP as much time as possible for consideration.
• The Chairman stated that it would be necessary to start consideration of the proposed revision of the 1958 Agreement by WP.29 by November, this year at the latest. It would be necessary to know the domestic process (close examinations by both of foreign and legal offices, approval by Parliament, if necessary, etc.) of non European countries to approve the proposed revision of the 1958 Agreement. Approval process of six months would be started only after all CPs confirm from legal and other viewpoints.
• UNECE TD, referring to response from OLA, stated that having two different procedures to amend Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 respectively would not be a problem because there is a precedent.
• Japan asked whether or not a placeholder could have other names than “appendix”?
• The Chairman pointed out the possibility to name the placeholder “Special Resolution” annexed to the Agreement instead of appendix. The Chairman wished WP.29 could find the way which would be acceptable to every CP.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will seek guidance on the legal status of the placeholder and the associated issues from WP.29.

For guidance by IWVTA IG 2: Japanese reservation on paragraph 5 & 6 of Preamble
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group agreed on the amended paragraphs of Preamble proposed by the Sub-group.
(The second paragraph desires to reduce technical barriers, the third paragraph recognizes the importance of safety and environmental protection performance, the sixth paragraph desires to establish IWVTA, and the seventh paragraph desires to increase the number of Contracting Parties by improving its functioning and reliability.)

For guidance by IWVTA IG 3: whether or not it is legally possible to refer to RE3 in the1958 Agreement
• UNECE TD, referring to response from OLA, stated that it is legally possible to refer to RE3 in the 1958 Agreement. However, once RE3 is referred to in the 1958 Agreement, it has the same legal status as the 1958 Agreement, which makes it difficult to amend it.
• Germany suggested taking this opportunity to change RE3 into a UN Regulation.
• The Chairman stated that RES is a Resolution and not a part of the Agreement.
• EC stated that UN Regulations often refer to RE3 in the footnote, when necessary. EC proposed the same approach could be taken in UN R0.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group agreed that RE3 should not be directly referred to in the 1958 Agreement. Instead, IWVTA Informal Group should consider exploring another approach such as referring to RE3 by the footnote of UN Regulations, including in UN R0.

For guidance by IWVTA IG 4: Korean proposal on self-certification issue
（IWVTA-12-04 rev 3）
• Korea proposed that Contracting Parties should be allowed to use only technical requirements of UN Regulations without COP requirements because there are no COP requirements in countries adopting self-certification system like Korea.
• OICA questioned whether or not the 1958 Agreement would allow partial application of UN Regulations.
• Korea stated that Korea could not apply UN Regulations without detaching COP requirements because COP standards are sometimes lower than that of certification. Therefore, Korea applies no UN Regulations at the moment.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will seek guidance from WP.29.

For guidance by IWVTA IG 5: Japanese reservation on the structure of Article 1
This subject is covered by agenda item “For guidance by IWVTA IG 1”.

For guidance by IWVTA IG 6: Korean proposal on self-certifying marking
• Korea stated that UN type approval marking and Korea self-certification marking contradict each other because they have different characteristics.
• EC replied that provisions of Article 3 could not be changed for the sake of self-certification system.
• OICA suggested that Korea could take a twofold approach, i.e., use of type approval system under the 1958 Agreement for export purposes and use of self-certification system for domestic registration.
• Korea replied that it might be only a possibility at this stage.
• The Russian Federation stated that the 1958 Agreement was established for countries adopting type approval system whereas the 1998 Agreement was established for counties adopting self-certification system. It is difficult to combine the two systems.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will seek guidance from WP.29.

For guidance by IWVTA IG 7: whether or not recall is outside the scope of the 1958 Agreement
• EC stated harmonization of recall system has its merit.
• Japan pointed out that basic concepts between type approval system and recall system are different. Type approval is to verify compliance with the UN Regulations whereas recall is to address serious risk to road safety and/or environment beyond the framework of the 1958 Agreement.
• OICA agreed with Japan. OICA stated that inclusion of recall system in the 1958 Agreement would change the scope of the Agreement, which might bring about various new issues that have to be settled. IWVTA Informal Group might get into a mess.
• The Russian Federation stated that the recall issue should be addressed by each country.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will seek guidance from WP.29.

For guidance by IWVTA IG 8: possible change to the 2/3 majority voting rule
No specific discussion was made on this subject.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will ask for guidance of WP.29.

For guidance by IWVTA IG 9: proposal for the use of DETA
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will wait for the response of WP.29 to the report submitted by DETA Informal Group.

For guidance by IWVTA IG 11:　proxy voting
Conclusion: UNECE Secretariat would check the legal possibility of proxy voting.