46. WP.29 noted the support of its subsidiary bodies on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/48. The representative of EU recalled his intention to send additional comments for the November 2011 session of WP.29. The World Forum confirmed that the proposal could be adopted at its November 2011 session and that further amendments linked to the revision of the 1958 Agreement, presently discussed by the IWVTA, could be incorporated in a second step. WP.29 requested the secretariat to include, wherever possible, the amendments proposed by the EU and OICA (WP.29-154-05) in a consolidated proposal, keeping in mind the present text of the 1958 Agreement.
48. The secretariat presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/48. WP.29 noted that the guidelines were linked to the work of the IWVTA informal group. The representative of EU requested additional time to propose amendments to the transitional provisions. WP.29 agreed that an updated proposal could be adopted at the November 2011 session, while further results from the IWVTA informal group could be incorporated in a second step.
53. GRPE was informed by the secretariat about the updated guidelines on transitional provisions and the additional guidelines on the scope, administrative provisions and alternative requirements in Regulations (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/48). These general guidelines are still under consideration by WP.29 and are intended to provide guidance to the experts developing new and/or amending existing UNECE Regulations especially in drafting the scope, administrative provisions and alternative requirements. GRPE noted that this proposal would supersede, once adopted by WP.29, the current guidelines for transitional provisions (TRANS/WP.29/1044). GRPE agreed to consider eventual comments on the guidelines at its next session in June 2011.
Concerning the Footnote 4, OICA proposed to delete it according to their proposal (GRRF/2011/39).
J pointed out that some Contracting Parties want to mandate AEBS on non-pneumatic rear suspension vehicles, Hence J could accept the proposal from OICA (GRRF/2011/39 in paragraph 5.1.1.) as it provides this flexibility.
OICA confirmed the interpretation of the document GRRF/2011/39 that a Contracting Party wishing to do so can mandate AEBS on rigid suspension vehicles.
The Chair however recalled document WP29/2011/48 stating that the wording proposed by OICA can provoke legal uncertainty. In this view, the European Commission was hesitant in supporting the proposed text in 1.ยง 5.1.1 .
The Chair proposed to seek advice from the UNECE Secretariat about this item at GRRF-71.
Conclusion: the informal group agreed to request guidance to UNECE Secretariat. At GRRF-71.
46. GRE noted that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/48/Rev.1, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/48 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/48/Add.1, could be adopted at the November 2011 session of WP.29 and that further amendments linked to the revision of the 1958 Agreement, presently discussed by the IWVTA group, could be incorporated in a second step. GRE agreed to remove this topic from the agenda.