Proposal to amend the draft agreement to address situations where a Contracting Party disagrees with an adopted amendment and ceases to apply a given UN Regulation. The proposal seeks to clarify that the Contracting Party would still be obligated to accept type approvals based on the previous versions of the regulation (i.e., approvals based on versions of the regulation that the CP had been accepting before the amendment) for one year following its notification to cease application of the regulation.

Russian notification of its opposition to the draft Article 9 provisions that would enable voting by proxy under the 1958 Agreement and proposal to delete Article 9 in its entirety. Russia also supports a change in the voting procedure to require a 4/5ths majority to adopt a given motion.

Proposal to raise the voting threshold required under the 1958 Agreement to approve a given text (e.g., new UN Regulation or amendment of an existing regulation) from the present two-thirds majority (achievable by the EU vote alone) to a four-fifths majority.

Explanation of a “first set” of guidelines prepared by the WP.29 secretariat concerning the submission and adoption of modifications to UN Regulations, especially taking into consideration the pending Revision 3 to the 1958 Agreement which envisions, among other things, the acceptance to multiple “versions” of each regulation. This document covers: amendments resulting from draft Revision 3; publication of new series of amendments; long transitional provisions; versions of UN Regulations; use of cross-references; amendment commencement dates; consolidation of amendments to once per year; and use of “compilations” of modifications.

Excerpt concerning the activities of WP.29 from the UNECE report on its efforts to support the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety.

Proposal to clarify the mutual recognition requirement of the draft revision of the 1958 Agreement. OICA views the clause that subjects the mutual recognition requirement to “any special provisions” contained within a given UN Regulation as potentially detrimental to the basic principles of uniformity and mutual recognition. The phrase was deemed necessary because such special provisions do exist; however, OICA proposes to revise the phrase ostensibly to avoid creating the impression that the use of such “special provisions” is routine (rather than exceptional) under the Agreement.

EC note welcoming the 4/5ths majority proposal by Australia, Japan, Malaysia and the Russian Federation as providing a good basis for EU internal discussions to determine an EU position on the voting threshold issue.