127. The representative of the EU introduced WP-29-171-29. He informed that during the preparatory work priorities had been dealt with separately in two parts, one to address the priorities of the current work under the GRs and the other to address priorities for new/future activities under the 1998 Agreement.

128. He explained that Japan and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from the United States of America had provided input for the first part. The result of this input allowed to define for each GR the priorities for different activities under those GR as reflected in the informal document. He underlined that input had not been received from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and asked the United States of America to provide it in order for the document to be completed by June.

129. As concerns the second part, the representative of the EU welcomed OICA’s input provided in WP.29-171-14. He stated that a document is planned to be prepared jointly by the EU, Japan and United States of America for the June 2017 session, with a view to preparing the vote on the programme of work at the November session.

130. The representative of OICA introduced WP.29-171-14 outlining the organizations perspective on current regulatory priorities within the scope of the 1998 Agreement in various regions of the world.

131. He highlighted that OICA considered that the development of a global technical regulation on Event Data Recorders (EDR) would offer the opportunity to globally harmonize vehicle electronic architecture requirements for the gathering of data, as well as harmonise the data to be recorded by such device when fitted e.g. on the basis of the US rule NHTSA 49CFR Part 563, and to avoid as far as possible diverging requirements. Such global harmonization would permit the most cost efficient implementation of EDR for the society and would provide harmonized data and evidences for future rule making processes.

132. He underlined that the work done on Automatic Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) within the scope of the 1958 Agreement framework (UN Regulation No.131) addressing truck and bus collisions avoidance against moving and stationary objects could be used as a basis for other vehicle categories as well as other kinds of obstacles such as pedestrians and cyclists.

133. Finally he concluded by mentioning that work was already underway in the framework of the GRRF Informal Group on ACSF to develop a UN Regulation on Lane Keeping Assistance (LKAS), and the development of a global technical regulation could be facilitated by this work. As for AEBS, Lane Keeping Assist System (LKAS) seems to be of high priority in the context of the European Union, and therefore it was essential that the work to develop a global technical regulation should not compromise the progress of work already undertaken under the 1958 Agreement.

134. The representative of the United States of America stated that, having in mind the general direction of technological developments in the industry, a general interest of the United States of America is development of a future program of work that focuses on advanced technologies.

135. The representative of China commented to OICA on the submitted document, requesting further clarification on the proposals laid out regarding EDR. He underlined a potential gtr on EDR shall only focus on technical requirements for EDR itself, and shall not focus on administrative requirements concerning the collection of data, which would not fall under the scope of the 1998 Agreement.

136. The representative of OICA responded by confirming that the intention is only to harmonize the specific technical requirements for the recording of pre-crash data (which data, which frequency of recording, etc.) He fully agreed that the administrative aspects on the ownership of the data cannot be dealt with in the 1998 Agreement, but falls under national sovereignty. . He added that there is a high risk of having different regulations in different countries, with the result that vehicles would have to be adapted for every individual market. Coming to an agreement between states on the type of data to be registered in a vehicle would allow manufacturers to construct the same vehicle electronic architecture for the global market, while allowing for the possibility of adjusting it to additional national requirements.

137. The representative of the United States of America explained only two countries were prescribing voluntary “if fitted” EDR requirements, Republic of Korea and United States of America. He suggested that the member States willing to work on EDR could consult these already established regulations in those two countries as guidance for the sake of harmonization.

138. Secretariat introduced informal document WP.29-171-30. In the 1958 Agreement Revision 3 the term UN Regulation is contained in capital letters while the term global technical regulation or gtr in the 1998 Agreement is in lower caps. In order to explore the possibilities of aligning the format of these similar terms in the two Agreements the secretariat consulted the UN Office of Legal Affairs. The Legal Office at United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) advised the secretariat that Contracting Parties could agree on the use of the term “UN GTR” in capital letters. He was further advised to propose to AC.3 to take this decision based on a document for an AC.3 Decision on the use of the capital letter term “UN GTR”.

139. The representative of the United States of America supported the proposal of the secretariat and the proposed preparation of the draft decision.

140. Referring to WP.29-171-30, AC.3 requested the secretariat to draft the document containing the decision on the use of the term “UN GTR” in capital letter and submit it to the fiftieth session of AC.3 in June 2017.