112. In addition to the informal documents from the previous sessions, three programmes of work were presented to AC.3. The representative of Japan introduced the Japanese future measures for vehicle safety for a society with no traffic accidents (WP.29-154-10), the representative of the EU presented the European Commission programme of work for 2011 – 2012 (WP.29-154-19) and the representative of the United States of America presented the USA Rulemaking and Research Priorities of the USA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (WP.29-154-20). AC.3 noted that, among others, electric vehicles, including electric storage systems, e-mobility, protection to vulnerable user, and audibility of quiet vehicles were common priorities in the presentations and that they could be considered as priorities for future development of UN GTRs. The Chair of GRB said that the informal group on quiet vehicles would meet on 31 August 2011 in Japan. He requested guidance, pending a formal proposal, on to whether the informal group should proceed on the basis that a potential UN GTR be developed by the informal group. AC.3 endorsed this approach. Regarding batteries and electric vehicles, discussion took place regarding the importance of early coordination of research and regulatory activities and the possibility of devising a road map for a potential UN GTR similar to that developed early on for hydrogen vehicles. AC.3 also discussed the possibility of revising the terms of reference of the existing informal group on batteries and electric vehicles under GRSP instead of creating a new one. The Chair of AC.3 invited the representatives of EU, Japan and the Unites States of America to coordinate formal proposals for inclusion in the programme of work by AC.3 at its November 2011 session. The Chair also invited other Contracting Parties to present their priorities or to consider supporting the common priorities mentioned above. The representative of Australia raised the issue of motorcycles safety and recommended considering the possibility of making the installation of ABS mandatory in motorcycles. He suggested defer this matter to the November 2011 session of AC.3.

128. AC.3 agreed to consider this item at its March 2011 session.

101. The representatives of the United States of America (WP.29-148-27) and OICA (WP.29-147-17) called their respective lists of priorities as presented at previous sessions. AC.3 noted that the development of gtrs on non-regulated matters had been more rapid and easier than the harmonization of current regulations. Nevertheless, AC.3 noted that gtrs based on existing regulations could be adopted, provided that comparative testing was performed, as in gtr No. 2 on motorcycle braking.

102. The representative of the EU reported that the consultation process with member States was in progress. Nevertheless, he announced that ITS development, EFV and electric vehicles could be selected as subjects for the development of new gtrs. The representative of India pointed out that the latest developed technologies had small penetration into the market, and he indicated that India was in the process of selecting new topics for future gtrs. The representative of Japan announced a list of priorities for the November 2010 session of AC.3. The Chair indicated that ISO had expressed its intention to report, at the same session, on the new areas being developed by ISO. The representative of CLEPA supported global harmonization but questioned whether the 1998 Agreement really delivered in this regard, in particular if gtrs were transposed with modifications into national law.

103. The representatives of OICA, CLEPA and IMMA were requested to report, to the next session of AC.3, on the new technologies being developed by manufacturers as well as a list of priorities. These representatives agreed to transmit this request to their members.

104. AC.3 agreed to define the new priorities for the development of gtrs at its November 2010 session.

[AC.3 will decide on future of this agenda item at its next session in June.]

101. AC.3 representatives analysed how this agenda item should be developed. AC.3 agreed to keep this item in the agenda of further sessions, but under a new title reading “Exchange of information on new priorities to be included in the programme of work” without the list of informal documents. The representative of the EU stated that, before defining new priorities, AC.3 should enforce the monitoring of implementation in the national law of the Contracting Parties that had adopted UN GTRs.

AC.3 vice chair notes that the agenda item has been present for more than three years with nine document submissions and yet no meaningful progress towards defining future directions concretely. Asks for comments on whether to keep the agenda item.

The US believes issue is important and that contracting parties need to share information on their respective priorities for research programs and future rulemaking directions. Suggests that perhaps the listing of past documents is less central than assuring regular updates at Forum sessions.

EU states that their priorities under the 1998 Agreement are those present under agenda item 16. This agenda item could be useful in terms of monitoring regulatory interests and possibly as a way to permit some early consideration of items before they rise to the level of formal consideration as subjects for the Forum.

Australia believes the Forum should dedicate time to discussing emerging issues and concerns among contracting parties and that AC.3 would be derelict in its duties to ignore this.

Malaysia endorses these views and believes an agenda item should be maintained.

The chair proposes a modification of the agenda item for future meetings to read: “Exchange of information on new priorities to be included in the programme of work”. AC.3 acquiesces in this approach.