34. GRVA dealt with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/6 when discussing the parallel proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/17 under the agenda item 4(d). Following discussions and consultations, GRVA agreed to resume consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/6 or to consider a revised proposal at its next session.

35. The expert from CEMA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/14 proposing to correct UN Regulation No. 156 by deleting the agricultural vehicle categories from the scope of UN Regulation No. 156.

36. The experts from Italy, Spain and Czech Republic agreed with the proposal.

37. The expert from the European Commission proposed to postpone this discussion.

38. The expert from UK invited GRVA to reflect on the safety and environmental matters of relevance in the present case. He stated that this was a fundamental question. The expert from the Netherlands and France agreed with this statement.

39. The expert from CEMA explained that CEMA would join these activities as soon as possible and that CEMA was requesting a temporary exclusion from the scope. He mentioned that CEMA member were already regulated by the Machinery Regulation in the European Union and that they preferred one regulation only.

40. The expert from the European Commission stated that time was needed to further discuss. He stated that this should be one item for discussion at the IWG on CS/OTA.

41. GRVA did not adopt ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/14 and invited the experts from CEMA to participate in the meetings of the IWG on CS/OTA. GRVA invited the IWG on CS/OTA to add an agenda item on its agenda to discuss this matter.