50. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal for corrigendum to UN GTR No. 2 (GRPE-64-05), to correct some equations in accordance with the units used, as well as a figure on the gear use during acceleration phases.

51. The experts from India and IMMA requested more time to analyze this document in detail.

52. Taking the new criteria for corrigenda into account, GRPE considered the proposal from Japan as an amendment rather than a corrigendum and requested the expert from Japan to ask for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 from WP.29 and AC.3. GRPE also asked Japan to discuss with India and IMMA the concerns expressed and to submit an updated version of GRPE-64-05, so that the secretariat can distribute it as an official document for consideration at the next GRPE session, in January 2013, subject to the consent of WP.29 and AC.3 on a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2.

53. The expert from the EC introduced documents GRPE-64-02 and GRPE-64-09. He explained the European process of revising type approval procedures for L-category vehicles, introduced a proposal containing the terms of reference for the establishment of an Informal Working Group on International L-category vehicle approval in the area of Environmental Performance and Propulsion Requirements (IEPPR), confirmed the invitation to GRPE participants to attend a stakeholder consultation workshop on the topic, and briefly outlined its content. He announced that the documents GRPE-64-10, GRPE-64-12 and GRPE-64-22 were to be introduced during the stakeholder consultation workshop.

54. The expert from Switzerland asked whether there would also be other working groups in other Working Parties subsidiary to WP.29. The expert from the EC clarified that the main focus is on environmental issues and that this is not foreseen at the moment, also stating that he would be open to such a development, if needed.

55. The expert from the EC introduced GRPE-64-11, containing draft Terms-of-Reference (ToR) for the IEPRR informal working group. The expert from the UK introduced GRPE-64-26, elaborating on the draft ToR of GRPE-64-11 with the aim to align them with the overall objectives of regulatory harmonization, technology neutrality and real-world representativeness in order to clarify the aims of the group. He explained that GRPE-64-26 also contains the addition of procedural issues such as project plans, document submission deadlines, meeting arrangements. He noted that the candidates as of Chair and Secretary should also be specified once they have been identified.

56. The expert from Japan supported the initiatives of the EC and the UK and expressed interest in the activity. The expert from IMMA thanked the EC and the UK for presenting the draft ToR and for considering items that help its effectiveness. He underlined the notion that the informal group should at least maintain, and ideally increase, current levels of harmonisation, he supported the idea of real world representativeness of the tests considered in this activity, and announced that IMMA is willing to discuss engagement in the informal group after a clarification of its scope and its ToR.

57. GRPE expressed the intention to agree, in principle, to ask for a mandate for the setup of an informal working group as soon as some remaining issues, such as the identification of an informal group Chair and Secretary, will be addressed. The GRPE Chair asked Japan, the UK, the EC, IMMA and other interested Parties to work on this, so that a formal request for a WP.29 mandate can be finalized at the next GRPE session, in January 2013. He also suggested that the work should be set up in a two-step approach, first focusing on the development of a roadmap and then concentrating on the development of the draft Regulation(s).