109. A proposal for Special Resolution No. 2 (S.R.2) was submitted for consideration and vote (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/65) and adopted on 23 June 2016 by consensus vote of the following Contracting Parties present and voting: Australia, Canada, China, the European Union (representing Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom), India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Norway, the Republic of Korea, San Marino, South Africa, the Russian Federation, Turkey and the United States of America.

110. The representatives of Japan, the United States of America and the European Union, as sponsors to S.R.2, noted that S.R.2 constitutes additional efforts aimed at improving the implementation of the 1998 Agreement. A first set of follow-up actions were discussed, including increased transparency of the work, improving the website and meeting attendance opportunities, meeting management improvements and developing a revised work plan. Input and cooperation from the secretariat were noted and appreciated. It was also noted that this work could partially apply to WP.29 in general. Lastly, all Contracting Parties were asked to review the 1998 Agreement work plan and provide comments at the November 2016 meeting.

111. The representative of Japan stated their concurrence with the statements made by the representatives of the EU and the United States of America, and reiterated their support and dedication to the proposed process.

112. The Chair of AC.3 summarized the discussion highlighting the main points reflected upon by the representatives, highlighting transparency and the programme of work. He proposed to include an agenda item on the programme of work for the AC.3 session in November 2016.

113. The secretariat clarified that S.R.2 does not require implementation according to the provisions of Article 7 (adoption, and notification of application of established global technical regulations) of the Agreement. AC.3 requested the secretariat to inform Contracting Parties about the establishment of S.R.2 through the “1998 AGREEMENT-MISSIONS List” electronic system.

14. The Committee decided to finalise discussions on the White Paper and to prepare the document for vote at the next AC.3 session in June 2016.

101. The representative of IMMA emphasised the high ongoing activity in the informal group EPPR, addressing among others new UN GTRs on Evaporative Emissions and On-Board Diagnostics for Category 3 vehicles. He appreciated the intent to clarify in the trilateral paper the use of modules and options and intent to harmonize towards single requirements. Moreover, he emphasised the strong interest from the industry to closely monitor the implementation of the Agreement by the Contracting Parties. AC.3 noted the need for periodic information provided by Contracting Parties as those published on the UNECE website were not complete.

102. The Chair of AC.3 suggested that informal document WP29-168-08 be transformed into an official document for adoption by AC.3 at its June 2016 session. Taking into account however that some of the raised comments might warrant further discussions, in particular the notion of options and modules, he suggested that the document should be considered as living document that may need to be completed/adapted at a later stage. AC.3 agreed with the proposal of the Chair.

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.

78. The representative of the United States of America introduced informal document WP.29-166-17. He explained that the document intended to improve the implementation of the 1998 Agreement and not to amend it. To that end, he listed several initial ideas for the Forum’s consideration. The representatives of EU and Japan invited all stakeholders and Contracting Parties to provide comments on the document. The representative of EU further added that some of the suggestions in the document could be implemented instantaneously. That would be a first step to improve collective actions for the application of the Agreement. The representative from India underlined the role and the interest of her country in the Agreement and proposed to share their experience in implementing gtrs in national law. The representative of CLEPA/JAPIA/MEMA showed support for initiative to improve the good functioning of the 1998 Agreement. The representative of the United States of America volunteered to receive comments on the document so as to provide a revised version at the November 2015 session of AC.3. WP.29 decided that the document would be further discussed at AC.3 under item 13.

99. AC.3 continued discussion on the Trilateral White Paper introduced by the European Union, Japan and the United States of America. The representative of India expressed her support for the efforts to improve the implementation of the 1998 Agreement. She added that India would be pleased to share any data or experiences, especially in the area of WLTP. She noted that, due to resource limitations, participation in all working groups was difficult, and a detailed survey assessing priority areas, focus and resource allocation of Contracting Parties might be worthwhile. She stated that India would be ready to assist in this effort. The representative of IMMA referred to the ongoing work on GTRs in the IWG on EPPR — further to the three existing motorcycle GTRs — and emphasized the importance of implementing GTRs. IMMA would provide a more detailed statement at the November WP.29 session. The representative of OICA also expressed their support for the paper and added that the 1998 Agreement was of great importance to the industry. He suggested that improving the functioning of the 1998 Agreement could be a dynamic process that could include a critical review of the Agreement on a periodic basis. The representative of Australia noted the option in the Trilateral paper to focus on prioritising items added to the programme of work on the basis of potential safety and/or environmental benefits.  He underlined this importance given the obligations of Contracting Parties under the 1998 Agreement to implement UN GTRs into domestic regulations. The representative of Germany had two suggestions to improve the document: (i) the current programme of work mentioned in the document could be updated to correspond with the latest status, (ii) a reference to the status of the agreement (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1073/Rev.13) could be added. The representative of the United States of America requested that all comments on the document be sent to him in writing. He would then incorporate all the comments into another document. AC.3 was encouraged to review the document and discuss it with national administrations. AC.3 decided to establish the document as a formal document for submission to AC.3 and WP.29. The proposal of OICA to review the 1998 Agreement every five years would be discussed further at the November session of WP.29.