16. The representative from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2022/18 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2022/19 proposing to amend provision for special purpose vehicles in the 06 and 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 83 and in resolution R.E.3.

18. The representative from the European Commission required proposals to be bundled so regulatory texts are not updated at every GRPE session, that increases the administrative burden and might be perceived as bad legislative development.

19. To streamline the adoption process, the Chair requested the secretariat to organize all proposals in a summary table, to have a concise view on the proposals for each series of amendments to any given UN Regulation (GRPE-86-32-Rev.1).

20. GRPE agreed to adopt and submit for consideration to the November 2022 session of WP.29 all proposals in dark green in GRPE-86-32-Rev.1. GRPE agreed with the content of all proposals in light green in GRPE-86-32-Rev.1 but to postpone submission to WP.29. GRPE requested more time to scrutinize or finalize proposals in light red in GRPE-86-32-Rev.1.

7. The representative from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2022/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2022/8 proposing to integrate requirements for Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) in the 06 and 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 83 and Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). The representative from Spain proposed clarifications on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2022/8 to be included in any revised version (GRPE-85-48), and requested clarifications on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2022/2, as supported by the representative from Sweden.

8. The representative from Australia asked whether similar provisions should also be included in UN Regulation No. 154. The representative from France supported the proposals and requested to be cautious about exempting from Conformity of Production (CoP) requirements. The representative from the European Union, as supported by the representative from the Netherlands, needed a review on the deletion of the extension rule and requested additional time to consider the proposals.

9. The representative from OICA explained the rationale for the proposals, mainly to ease the way in some markets where a very limited number of vehicles falling under the definition of SPVs are registered, and where identifying vehicle to perform CoP tests would be very challenging. The representative from OICA also agreed for a delayed consideration of the proposals, and he proposed to improve the documents for a consideration in forthcoming sessions of GRPE.