113. The representative of Germany reported that the Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles (HFCV) subgroup on safety (SGS) made good progress in the development of the draft gtr with regard to the safety provisions for the hydrogen equipment in vehicles including the hydrogen storage system. He expected GRSP to consider a first draft gtr at its December 2010 session depending on the outcome of the task force meeting of SGS in Berlin, from 16 to 18 November 2010. The initial timeline for the submission of the draft gtr to AC.3 was end of 2011. He offered to keep AC.3 informed, at its March 2011 session, on the outcome of the GRSP discussion. He concluded that the HFCV subgroup on environment was preparing a technical report listing the status of existing regulations on HFCV with respect to environmental issues. He added that the subgroup did not plan to develop a specific gtr on this issue, but would work on amendments to the existing regulations related to environmental issues. AC.3 welcomed that information and agreed with this approach.
131. The Chair of GRPE presented an executive summary of the Technical Report prepared by the informal working group on HFCV Subgroup Environment (HFCV-SGE) that included the outcome of discussions and recommendations available in the different regions in support of the harmonization process (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/147). The full technical report was made available as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2011/13. He outlined the group’s recommendation to waive the development of a stand-alone UN GTR for environmental related provisions for HFCV and its preference to amend case by case existing UN Regulations or GTRs to accommodate such vehicles or to consider them during the developing process of new Regulations. He concluded that the work of the SGE subgroup had been finalized. AC.3 endorsed the conclusions as reflected in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/147. Concerning the safety related issues, he reported on the good progress made by the informal group HFCV-SGS. The draft UN GTR with safety related requirements was transmitted to GRSP for consideration at the December 2011 session. Depending on the resolution of some outstanding issues, the three co-sponsors anticipated that the draft GTR would be submitted to WP.29/AC.3 for adoption in 2012.
14. The expert from the United States of America introduced draft UN GTR on safety of hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/33) prepared by the special group safety (SGS). The proposal received some comments such as a better defining of the scope. GRSP noted that more time was needed by the SGS group to gather comments and finalize the proposal. Accordingly, GRSP agreed to seek consent for a six months extension of the mandate of the informal working group at the March 2012 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3, expecting the submission of a revised proposal for final review at the May 2012 session of GRSP. Experts were invited to provide comments on the proposal (GRSP-50-19-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/33) to the expert of the United States of America, before the deadline for submission of official documents to the May 2012 session of GRSP.
15. Finally, the Chair of GRSP recalled the recommendation made during the December 2010 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/48, para. 37) to all the Chairs of the informal working groups to ensure traceability of expert mandates for their participation in the meetings.
120. The representative of Germany informed AC.3 that the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles (HFCV) subgroup on safety (SGS) would submit to GRSP a revised UN GTR proposal for consideration and adoption at its May 2012 session. He sought AC.3’s endorsement for a six month extension of the mandate of SGS activity. AC.3 endorsed this request.
87. The representative of Germany introduced the work progress of the HFCV subgroup on safety (SGS). He informed AC.3 that GRSP, at its May 2012 session, had still considered two remaining issues:
- (i) a requirement for initial burst ratio for fiber-glass composite tanks with a pending value of 330 percent or 350 percent and
- (ii) the electric safety barrier/enclosure option.
In order to resolve these outstanding issues, he requested an extension of the SGS mandate until June 2013. The representative of the United States of America indicated that there was a reasonable assumption that GRSP, at its December 2012 session, would finalize the proposal and recommend it to the March 2013 session of AC.3.
18. The expert from the United States of America introduced GRSP-51-21, reflecting the last changes proposed by the special informal working group safety (SGS) to the main text of the draft UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/12 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/33). The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-51-05 proposing to delete of the square brackets from the provisions on the physical protection from high voltage. The proposals received some comments from the expert from Japan that mainly focused on the tolerances of the hydrogen container pressure (GRSP-51-21-Rev.1). The experts from Japan and EC urged the adoption of the draft UN GTR. The expert from EC indicated that a comparative analysis of the European legislation on hydrogen powered vehicles (i.e.: Regulations (EC) No. 79/2009 and (EU) No. 406/2010) against the draft UN GTR was available.
19. However, GRSP agreed to defer the adoption of the draft UN GTR to its December 2012 session to give more time for discussion to SGS experts concerning the last changes introduced and the physical protection from high voltage. Experts were invited to provide comments on the proposal (GRSP-51-21-Rev.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/12) to the expert of the United States of America, before the deadline for submission of official documents to the December 2012 session of GRSP (see para. 49). In the mean time it was agreed to seek the consent of WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2012 sessions to extend the mandate of the SGS group until December 2012.
17. The expert from Japan, Chair of the informal working subgroup safety (SGS) and the expert from the United States introduced the most draft UN GTR on hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/23, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/12 and the final status report (GRSP-52-08) of SGS. The expert from the United States of America stated that the application of the current proposal of the UN GTR addressing passenger vehicles and three main systems: (i) fuel system integrity, (ii) electrical safety and (iii) hydrogen storage systems. The expert from the United States clarified that Phase 2 of the UN GTR would address the performance requirements of containers of any kind (i.e. liquefied hydrogen, cryo-compressed hydrogen (CcH2)) and harmonized types of crash tests (rear, front and lateral). He clarified that Contracting Parties, adopting this first phase of the UN GTR may apply crash tests standards in use in their national legislations to verify post-crash integrity of the three vehicle systems mentioned above.
18. GRSP adopted the final progress report of SGS (GRSP-52-08), as reproduced in Annex III to this report. GRSP agreed to remove the square brackets from paras. 5.3.1.2.4.3. and 5.3.2.2.3. and to recommend ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/23 not amended and the final progress report to AC.3 for consideration and vote at its June 2013 session.
19. Finally, GRSP expressed its appreciation to Mr. V. Blinov from United Nations Office Geneva linguistic translation services for the accuracy in translating the Russian version of the draft UN GTR.
88. Agenda item 16.6, Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles. The representative of Germany reported on the good progress made by the subgroup on safety (SGS), held in Seoul in June 2010. He announced the intention of the SGS subgroup to submit a formal proposal on new safety requirements for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles to GRSP for consideration at its December 2010 session on the basis of a new draft gtr, to be subsequently submitted to AC.3 for consideration and voting at the November 2011 session. He concluded that the HFCV subgroup on environment (SGE) is preparing a technical report recommending that the introduction of the new provisions on environmental issues should be submitted as amendments to existing gtrs and Regulations. AC.3 agreed with this approach.