Regarding the timeline for establishing the GTR, the Chairman, on behalf of the co-sponsors, presented 2 different options towards further development of the GTR. Both options, including their pros and cons, are described below. This outline served as a basis for the discussion at the meeting. The IWG had a lively discussion and came away with a good understanding of the options as well as the pros and cons. The IWG will continue to discuss the roadmap and timeline as a better understanding of specific technical issues in the GTR is obtained.

Option 1: Develop the GTR in 2 phases:
Approach:
• Phase (1) Proceed to draft and finalize a GTR using the OICA proposal, (a) Electric shock protection (b) REESS requirements, on items that have reached consensus.
• Phase (2) After GTR is established, amend the GTR to update and add additional REESS items that requires long research.

PROS: A partial GTR can be established within the mandate deadline from WP.29.
CONS: Questionable value of a partial GTR.

Option 2: Develop a complete and comprehensive GTR:
Approach: Start drafting the GTR using the OICA proposal – begin with the matured requirements e.g. Electric shock protection, continue to discuss REESS requirements while keeping them in square brackets in the GTR. Share research data as available and finalize GTR.

PROS: Comprehensive and complete GTR
CONS: Perhaps longer development time?

Japan supports Option 1, the two-phase approach using the OICA proposal with some additional requirements to complete phase 1 by 2014; and to amend the GTR with new requirements in phase 2.

Germany supports Option 1.

China expressed that it would support Option 2 and the GTR outline would ensure a complete GTR. The timing is not as important for China. Contributions from all IWG members to share data, knowledge and information are very important. China also expressed that the GTR outline, once completed, would help the IWG to make better decision to choose the option for GTR roadmap.

US expressed concerns with Option 1 as a partial GTR in phase (1) would not be enough for adoption by contracting parties. The US prefers Option 2 as it would provide a complete and comprehensive GTR.

Canada supports option 2.

Korea expressed that it has established its regulations since 2009 and will continue to support the GTR effort. It does not have a preference for the option at this time.

EU mentioned that a single robust GTR is the ideal, however at present it is unclear how much more research is needed and how long this is expected to take to be able to come to such a robust regulation. An inventory of available research data is required in order to evaluate if it is reasonable to wait to publish GTR in a single phase or whether it is best to adopt a 2 phase approach.

OICA representative expressed that it is very important to have a harmonized and timely GTR. OICA members support Option 1, since Option 2 may require too much time.

CLEPA expressed its support for Option 1.

The Chairman expressed that for both options, the necessary effort at the beginning would be the same. Therefore, at this time, we can start our work regardless of which option is agreed. The IWG will have more opportunity at the next meeting to discuss and decide on the roadmap going forward.