Comments received from OICA, CLEPA/MEMA/JAPIA, and Transport Canada with “trilateral group” (EU/USA/Japan) responses.
71. WP.29 agreed that agenda items 5.1 to 5.5 should be considered by AC.3.
110. The representative of the United States of America recalled the discussion on the trilateral white paper submitted by the representatives of Japan, the United States of America and the EU. He informed AC.3 that the original trilateral paper (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2015/108) had not changed since the June session of AC.3. He added that the comments received on the document were summarized in informal document WP.29-167-24 and that the authors of the trilateral white paper had addressed the comments received. AC.3 started considerations on the responses from the trilateral group to the comments presented in the informal document.
111. The representative of OICA welcomed the responses of the trilateral group to their comments. He suggested that items where mutual agreement existed could be reflected in the final document. He further noted that in practice the 98 Agreement and its UN GTRs do not offer the guarantee that products, complying with the UN GTR, are duly accepted in the markets of Contracting Parties, when the latter have not fully incorporated the UN GTR into their national law, as mandatory or alternative requirement.
118. AC.3 decided to keep WP.29-167-12, WP.29-167-24 and WP.29-167-30 on the agenda and to form a drafting group with representatives of OICA, CLEPA/MEMA/JAPIA, the Chair of AC.3 and other interested parties, to review the trilateral white paper.