OICA explained the outline of the first draft of UN R0 using the document IWVTA-09-11. OICA stated the necessity to make a matrix chart showing the CP and the regulations applied by that CP because of the complexity of the IWVTA requirements referring to Annex 4: List of requirements for the purpose of IWVTA.

Japan stated the drafting Sub-group should start consideration of UN R0 based on this first draft made by OICA. Japan also stated feedbacks from Asian or other countries could be expected.

UK showed the concern over too many approval marks.

OICA replied that UN R0 excludes multi-stage approvals and that approval marks are not necessary for vehicle systems.

Germany suggested that the information on the complied UN regulations should be added to Certificate of Conformity. Germany also suggested to consider the potential linkage of technical description between CoC and DETA.

EC pointed out that the word “Limited Validity” should be changed to either “Restricted Recognition” or “Limited Recognition” because “Limited Validity” can be interpreted as “Validity limited in time”.

UK asked how the evolving list of requirements for IWVTA would be updated ? Updating the list including not only UN Regulations but also national or regional requirements would be a burden.

EC stated the necessity to eliminate NTA but supposed it to be partial IWVTA plus NTA for the time being.

OICA gave a reason for including national requirements in Table 4 of Annex 4. OICA expected it to have an effect to restrain national requirements.

UK stated that any idea of restraining national requirements from updating would be opposed.

CLEPA stated from their experience that it would be difficult to collect information on national requirements.

Japan supported UK and stated that the contents of UN R0 should be discussed after its purpose should be made clear.

Japan raised the issue of VIN having no UN regulations as one of discussion points to be considered.