175. AC.3 started discussion on the informal document WP.29-175-27, submitted by the representative of OICA. However, due to the numerous comments and the lack of time, AC.3 requested interested parties to submit their comments directly to the representative of OICA and to resume consideration on the basis of a new document incorporating the comments at its November 2018 session.

164. The representative of OICA introduced WP.29-171-15, Proposal to amend Special Resolution 2 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/65). He stated that OICA, representing the global auto industry, re-confirmed its strong support for Special Resolution 2 being an important step towards an improved functioning of the 1998 Agreement.

165. He noted that WP29-171-15 took into account comments made at the March 2016 AC.3 session, He added that further work could clarify the concepts of alternatives, modules, and options. He emphasized the position of OICA that such clarification would constitute a further improvement and that it would help in the development of new or amended global technical regulations.

166. Due to the lack of time, AC.3 did not conclude on this item but agreed allocate more time for it and to resume its consideration at its June 2017 session. Contracting Parties were invited to prepare their contributions.

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.