1. The World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) held its 154th session from 21–24 June 2011 chaired by Mr. B. Kisulenko (Russian Federation). The following countries were represented, following Rule 1(a) of the Rules of Procedure of WP.29 (TRANS/WP.29/690 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/690/Amend.1): Australia; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Canada; People’s Republic of China; Czech Republic; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Hungary; India; Italy, Japan; Latvia; Luxemburg; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Republic of Korea; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Republic of South Africa; Spain; Switzerland; Thailand; Ukraine; United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; United States of America. Representatives of the European Union (EU) participated. The following intergovernmental organization was represented: International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The following nongovernmental organizations were also represented: International Organization for Standardization (ISO); International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA); International Motorcycle Manufacturers Association (IMMA); European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA; Representing also the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) and Japan Auto Parts Industries Association (JAPIA)); Working Party “Brussels 1952” (GTB); Association for Emission Control by Catalyst (AECC); the Foundation for the Automobile and Society (FIA Foundation); the International Motor Vehicle Inspection Committee (CITA). At the invitation of the secretariat, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) also participated.

2. The Director of the Transport Division welcomed the participants and made a reference that in March 2010, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 2011–2020 to be the Decade of Action for Road Safety. In its “Resolution on Improving Road Safety”, the General Assembly called for intensive work to reduce road fatalities by increasing activities at national, regional and global levels. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has been pioneering Road Safety in the UN system covering a wide range of activities. She invited the World Forum to contribute to the success of the Decade of Action, especially under pillar 3 on “Safer vehicles”. Furthermore, she underlined the importance of the development of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) horizontal activities, of sustainable development and transport, and of the For Future Inland Transport Systems (ForFITS) project on inland transport CO2 emissions supported by the United Nations Development Account (UNDA).

3. The Director announced that the new P3 staff member is to start on 1 July 2011 and that he would be responsible for Fuel Quality, GRPE, Environmentally Friendly Vehicles and UNDA project. She informed WP.29 that to solve the backlogs/delays in the availability of amendments and consolidated versions of UN Regulations, all administrative staff of the Division would help out, as well as engaging a temporary G staff. Finally, she informed WP.29 that, beginning of 2012, the secretariat would prepare only the English version of the working documents and legal texts of UN Regulations and UN Global Technical Regulations (UN GTRs). She said that the French and Russian versions would be prepared by the Document Management Section (DMS). In this regard, the Chair of WP.29 pointed out the importance to have the three versions of the legal texts before their entry into force.

25. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRB, given during the 153rd session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, para. 41) and approved the report.

3. GRB noted the update of the references to ISO standards into the Regulation and agreed to defer discussion at its February 2012 session (see para. 4 of this report).

10. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRB-54-09 proposing the inclusion of the additional sound emission provisions (ASEP) also into Regulation No. 59. The proposal received comments from GRB experts, such as the deletion of the proposed tolerance of 4 dB(A), unless technical rationales are provided for justification. GRB agreed to resume discussion at its February 2012 session on the basis of a revised proposal tabled by the expert from CLEPA.

11. Referring to the discussion at its previous GRB session, the expert from Italy introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2011/10, proposing a revised version of Regulation No. 92 taking into account the recent revisions of Regulations Nos. 9, 41 and 63. GRB adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2011/10 (amended by GRB-54-04), as amended by Annex II of this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2012 sessions, as draft 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 92.

12. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2011/11, aimed at improving the test provisions for measuring the rolling resistance of tyres. The proposal received several comments (GRB-54-02, GRB-54-08 and GRB-54-10 amongst others). The Chair of GRB introduced GRB-54-12-Rev.1 proposing to amend ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2011/11. He clarified that the proposal did not affect the existing methods but result in a further option to the deceleration method. GRB adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2011/11 as reproduced by Annex III to this report. However, some GRB experts suggested further technical assessment of the proposed alternative method to the next GRB sessions. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration at their March 2012 sessions, as draft Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117.

13. GRB noted also the work progress of the Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) on matters of common interest with GRB (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/12, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/29, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/30, GRRF-69-23, GRRF-71-29 and GRRF-71-31). Particularly, GRB endorsed ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/30, inserting a new definition of C3 class tyres adopted by GRRF at its September session.

14. GRB agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its February 2012 session, awaiting a concrete proposal from the expert of the Netherlands to harmonize the terminology used in the Regulations concerned.

15. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRB-54-11, showing a research initiative in his country on a road side noise inspection test with a roller-bench. The expert from FIM expressed concerns on the legal implications of this type of inspection test. The expert from IMMA supported the initiative as a contribution to possible pragmatic and successful law enforcement to cope moped noise issues, such as tampering. GRB agreed to resume consideration on this matter at its next session and expected to receive also information from the expert of Finland on a similar initiative in progress in her country.

16. GRB noted that no new information had been given under this agenda item.

17. The Chair of the informal working group on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV), reported on the good progress (GRB-54-18) made by the group at its sixth and seventh meetings held in San Diego, California, USA on 15 May 2011 and in Osaka, Japan on 31 August 2011. He announced that the next meeting of the group was planned to be held in Baltimore, Maryland, USA on 18 October 2011. He clarified that the group was focusing on key elements such as definitions, applicability, type of sound produced, etc. He underlined the need of benchmarking on silent vehicles (i.e. establishing maximum sound level at speeds below 30 to 20 km/h). He added that vehicle speed and tires were fundamental in this process. Referring to the discussion during the last session of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1091, para. 112), the expert from the United States of America informed GRB that his country will co-sponsor, with Japan, a proposal for developing a UN GTR (through GRB/QRTV) to ensure harmonization with the current development of a proposed regulation in his country. He added that according to the notice of intent (NOI) of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an environmental assessment, together with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would be published in July 2012 (www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-12/pdf/2011-17341.pdf). The Chair of the GRB presented his understanding of the USA timeline and questioned the very short time to finalize the performance requirements of the USA regulation and the UN GTR. The expert from the United States of America stated that the development of the draft UN GTR should follow the timeline of NHTSA rulemaking process and that probably the broad range of options that he believes will be initially proposed in the NPRM, would be reduced in the rulemaking process, easing GRB’s task. The Chair of QRTV suggested that his understanding of the USA regulation process, meaningful discussions and alignment of the USA regulation and the UN GTR may be precluded by USA law regarding ex-parte discussions once the NPRM is issued.

18. The WBU expert, informed GRB about the perception needs of visually impaired people to locate a vehicle, its direction and speed. He added that specific noises (i.e.: acceleration, deceleration and idling) of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles were important information in identifying vehicle distance, as is also the case for vulnerable road users such as children and elderly people. In this respect, the Chair of QRTV informed GRB that his group was identifying criteria to have the most informative audible warning device.

19. The expert from the United Kingdom informed GRB about the project report of the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) on the assessment of perceived safety risk from quiet electric and hybrid vehicles to vision-impaired pedestrians (www.dft.gov.uk/publications/trl-report-ppr525). Finally GRB noted an article (GRB-54-07) submitted by the expert from the Netherlands on effects of electric vehicles on road safety.

20. GRB agreed to resume discussion of this agenda item at its February 2012 session, awaiting the proposal for developing a UN GTR by Japan and United States of America and the outcome of the next meeting of informal working group on QRTV.

21. GRB noted the discussion on this subject held at the June 2011 session of WP.29 (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1091, para. 74) and that the venue and date of the next EFV conference would be confirmed at the November session of WP.29.

26. The Chair of GRE reported on the results of the sixty-fifth session of GRE (for details see the report of the session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/65) available at www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gre/grerep.html.

27. Regarding the 1998 Agreement, he reported that although most lamps installed on today’s motor vehicles satisfy all regulations in force around the world, no Contracting Party had proposed development of a gtr in the area of lighting and light-signalling.

28. He informed WP.29 that GRE had agreed on a new series of amendments requiring mandatory installation of automatic headlamp levelling systems on all M and N vehicles. GRE had also agreed on a 90 month transitional provisions allowing for further research and possible amendment of the related requirements. GRE sought WP.29’s advice on the numbering of this series of amendments if subsequent series of amendments with shorter transitional period would be adopted.

29. WP.29 agreed that the provisions for mandatory fitting of automatic levelling of headlamps on category M and N vehicles should be adopted as a supplement and could be transformed into a new series of amendments later on.

30. Finally, the Chair of GRE reported that, in view of the progress made by the informal group on DETA, GRE had requested GTB to renew its work on simplifying marking of lighting and light-signalling devices. GRE had noted that the new marking system would work only if all Contracting Parties to the 1958 Agreement would agree and use the database system developed by DETA informal group.

32. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRE, given during the 154th session (ECE/TRANS)WP.29/2011/1091, paras. 26–30) and approved the report.

23. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRPE, given during the 153rd session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, paras. 34 – 37) and approved the report.

16. The expert from EC presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2011/15 proposing to clarify the test procedures in GTR No. 5 on worldwide harmonized requirements for onboard diagnostic systems (WWH-OBD). GRPE noted a number of comments and agreed to have a final review of the proposal at its next session in January 2012. The Chair reminded the expert from EC to also prepare a proposal to develop such an amendment for submission to the Executive Committee (AC.3) of the 1998 Agreement at its forthcoming session in June 2011.

111. The EU representative proposed an amendment to UN GTR No. 5 clarifying the provisions on heavy-duty on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems. AC.3 gave its consent and requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-154-07 with an official symbol (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/30).

38. The GRRF Chair informed WP.29 about the results achieved by GRRF during its sixty-ninth session (for more details, see the report of the session ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/69).

39. He reported that GRRF had agreed, subject to the consent of WP.29, that the informal group on an alternative method to assess the vehicle electronic stability control (AMEVSC) should further consider the possibility to use computer simulation for the assessment of Electronic Stability Control systems of motor vehicles. WP.29 gave its consent.

40. He informed WP.29 that GRRF was still considering two options for the regulatory approach to be followed for advanced emergency braking systems (AEBS): (i) a two-Regulations approach (i.e. a first one on collision mitigation and a second one on collision avoidance) and (ii) a single Regulation including both matters.

24. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRRF, given during the 153rd session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, paras. 38 – 40) and approved the report.

31. The GRSG Chair informed WP.29 about the results made by GRSG during its 100th session (for more details see the report of the session ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/79).

32. He reported that, subject to the consent of the World Forum, GRSG had agreed to extend the mandate of the informal group on Service Doors, Windows and Emergency Exits in buses and coaches (SDWEE) for an additional year, to complete the work on a number of pending issues. WP.29 endorsed this proposal.

33. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRSG, given during the 154th session (ECE/TRANS)WP.29/2011/1091, paras. 31–32) and approved the report.

22. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRSP, given during the 153rd session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, paras. 28 – 33) and approved the report.

77. The World Forum noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/84, and adopted the proposal of the publication (WP.29-154-06) as amended by WP.29-154-09/Rev.2. The secretariat announced that contributions from Contracting Parties regarding their national legislative process could be submitted until 29 July 2011. The secretariat was requested to prepare the new publication based on the adopted documents.

78. The EU representative informed WP.29 that the European Commission had prepared the annual programme of work on the activities of the World Forum, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/unece/sec-2011-0689_en.pdf

75. The secretary of the Working Party on Road Safety (WP.1) reported on the consideration, at the sixty-first session of WP.1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.1/131), of the proposal for amendments to the 1968 Vienna Convention transmitted by WP.29 on the basis of an informal document. WP.29 pointed out that an official proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/47) had been transmitted to WP.1 before its March 2011 session. He mentioned that the proposal would continue to be considered at the next session of WP.1 in September 2011. He also reported that an informal group of WP.1 was considering the driver’s assistance concept.

76. The representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that the draft UN Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS), recently adopted by GRRF, should be considered by WP.1, because it could be inconsistent with the provision of permanent control of the vehicle by the driver and could also affect the driver’s assistance concept. He invited the secretary of WP.1 to transmit the proposal for the driver’s assistance concept for consideration to WP.29 before its adoption by WP.1. The Chair of WP.29 stated that cooperation between the representatives of WP.1 and WP.29 was essential for being well informed about possible inconsistencies and solutions to them.

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.

26. The expert from Japan presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2011/28 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2011/29 proposing to align, in Regulations Nos. 97 and 116, the reference to Regulation No. 10. GRSG agreed to reconsider this subject at its next session in April 2012, awaiting the advice of WP.29 on the static or dynamic references in the text of UN Regulations (see WP.29 report: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1093, para. 48).

44. The World Forum resumed consideration of the guidance requested by GRSG on the introduction of a concept of Revisions of type approvals in the framework of the 1958 Agreement on the basis of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/111 proposing Supplement 5 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 46 (Devices for indirect vision) (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 45). The representative of OICA introduced WP.29-153-27 clarifying the concerns expressed by Japan at the previous session.

45. The Chair of GRE agreed to adopt documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/111 and WP.29-153-27, however, as the definitions of “revision” and “extension” of type approvals may affect manufacturers of vehicle lighting and light signalling, he asked WP.29 to leave this item including WP.29-153-26, on the agenda of the June session to allow for potential comments from GRE experts. The Chair of GRRF wondered if WP.29-153-26 in seeking clarification on the extensions to type approvals was linked to the proposal by GRSG. WP.29 agreed with the Chair’s suggestion to have a final review of the proposals at the June 2011 session relying on OICA to advise on the relationship between both issues.

44. The World Forum agreed to remove this agenda item.

44. The World Forum resumed consideration of the guidance requested by GRSG on the introduction of a concept of Revisions of type approvals in the framework of the 1958 Agreement on the basis of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/111 proposing Supplement 5 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 46 (Devices for indirect vision) (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 45). The representative of OICA introduced WP.29-153-27 clarifying the concerns expressed by Japan at the previous session.

45. The Chair of GRE agreed to adopt documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/111 and WP.29-153-27, however, as the definitions of “revision” and “extension” of type approvals may affect manufacturers of vehicle lighting and light signalling, he asked WP.29 to leave this item including WP.29-153-26, on the agenda of the June session to allow for potential comments from GRE experts. The Chair of GRRF wondered if WP.29-153-26 in seeking clarification on the extensions to type approvals was linked to the proposal by GRSG. WP.29 agreed with the Chair’s suggestion to have a final review of the proposals at the June 2011 session relying on OICA to advise on the relationship between both issues.

44. The World Forum agreed to remove this agenda item.

43. The World Forum noted WP.29-154-01 comprising the list of modifications to the status of the 1958 Agreement since 22 February 2011. The secretariat suggested no longer preparing the amendments to the status document at the June and November sessions but continuously updating the status document on the basis of an informal consolidated version together with an additional document listing the details of the amendments, including links to the updated status document. This document is available at: www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29fdocstts.html. Several representatives highlighted the potential value of this initiative and the clever use of the hyperlinks to simplify access to the numerous regulatory texts. Taking note of these comments, the World Forum congratulated the secretariat for this initiative and underlined that this system would improve the effectiveness of the Agreement and its related activities.

49. Agenda item 4.6.1, Regulation No. 14, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/54, page 2, paragraph 5.3.8.4.(c), correct the reference to footnote 1 and footnote 1 to read 3, and page 3, add new paragraphs 14.17 to 14.19, to read:

“14.17. As from the official date of entry into force of Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments, no Contracting Party applying this Regulation shall refuse to grant UNECE type approval under this Regulation as amended by Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments.

14.18. As from 12 months after the official date of entry into force of Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall grant UN type approvals only to those types of vehicle which comply with the requirements of this Regulation as amended by Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments.

14.19. Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall not refuse to grant extensions of approvals, even if Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments is not fulfilled."

53. Agenda item 4.9.1, Regulation No. 41, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/62, page 11, paragraph 12.2, correct to read:
“12.2. As from 1 January 2014, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation …”

page 12, paragraph 12.4, correct to read:
“12.4. Contracting Parties … of amendments until the date in paragraph 12.2.”

page 12, paragraph 12.7, correct to read:
“12.7. As from 1 January 2017, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation …”

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.

77. The World Forum noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/84, and adopted the proposal of the publication (WP.29-154-06) as amended by WP.29-154-09/Rev.2. The secretariat announced that contributions from Contracting Parties regarding their national legislative process could be submitted until 29 July 2011. The secretariat was requested to prepare the new publication based on the adopted documents.

78. The EU representative informed WP.29 that the European Commission had prepared the annual programme of work on the activities of the World Forum, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/unece/sec-2011-0689_en.pdf

111. The EU representative proposed an amendment to UN GTR No. 5 clarifying the provisions on heavy-duty on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems. AC.3 gave its consent and requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-154-07 with an official symbol (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/30).

63. The World Forum noted the amendments to the status of the Agreement (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1073/Rev.4/Amend.1) and of the priorities and items on which the exchange of views should continue (WP.29-154-08).

64. The World Forum agreed that agenda items 5.2 to 5.5 should be considered by the Executive Committee (AC.3).

77. The World Forum noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/84, and adopted the proposal of the publication (WP.29-154-06) as amended by WP.29-154-09/Rev.2. The secretariat announced that contributions from Contracting Parties regarding their national legislative process could be submitted until 29 July 2011. The secretariat was requested to prepare the new publication based on the adopted documents.

78. The EU representative informed WP.29 that the European Commission had prepared the annual programme of work on the activities of the World Forum, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/unece/sec-2011-0689_en.pdf

77. The World Forum noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/84, and adopted the proposal of the publication (WP.29-154-06) as amended by WP.29-154-09/Rev.2. The secretariat announced that contributions from Contracting Parties regarding their national legislative process could be submitted until 29 July 2011. The secretariat was requested to prepare the new publication based on the adopted documents.

78. The EU representative informed WP.29 that the European Commission had prepared the annual programme of work on the activities of the World Forum, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/unece/sec-2011-0689_en.pdf

112. In addition to the informal documents from the previous sessions, three programmes of work were presented to AC.3. The representative of Japan introduced the Japanese future measures for vehicle safety for a society with no traffic accidents (WP.29-154-10), the representative of the EU presented the European Commission programme of work for 2011 – 2012 (WP.29-154-19) and the representative of the United States of America presented the USA Rulemaking and Research Priorities of the USA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (WP.29-154-20). AC.3 noted that, among others, electric vehicles, including electric storage systems, e-mobility, protection to vulnerable user, and audibility of quiet vehicles were common priorities in the presentations and that they could be considered as priorities for future development of UN GTRs. The Chair of GRB said that the informal group on quiet vehicles would meet on 31 August 2011 in Japan. He requested guidance, pending a formal proposal, on to whether the informal group should proceed on the basis that a potential UN GTR be developed by the informal group. AC.3 endorsed this approach. Regarding batteries and electric vehicles, discussion took place regarding the importance of early coordination of research and regulatory activities and the possibility of devising a road map for a potential UN GTR similar to that developed early on for hydrogen vehicles. AC.3 also discussed the possibility of revising the terms of reference of the existing informal group on batteries and electric vehicles under GRSP instead of creating a new one. The Chair of AC.3 invited the representatives of EU, Japan and the Unites States of America to coordinate formal proposals for inclusion in the programme of work by AC.3 at its November 2011 session. The Chair also invited other Contracting Parties to present their priorities or to consider supporting the common priorities mentioned above. The representative of Australia raised the issue of motorcycles safety and recommended considering the possibility of making the installation of ABS mandatory in motorcycles. He suggested defer this matter to the November 2011 session of AC.3.

[AC.3 will decide on future of this agenda item at its next session in June.]

101. AC.3 representatives analysed how this agenda item should be developed. AC.3 agreed to keep this item in the agenda of further sessions, but under a new title reading “Exchange of information on new priorities to be included in the programme of work” without the list of informal documents. The representative of the EU stated that, before defining new priorities, AC.3 should enforce the monitoring of implementation in the national law of the Contracting Parties that had adopted UN GTRs.

AC.3 vice chair notes that the agenda item has been present for more than three years with nine document submissions and yet no meaningful progress towards defining future directions concretely. Asks for comments on whether to keep the agenda item.

The US believes issue is important and that contracting parties need to share information on their respective priorities for research programs and future rulemaking directions. Suggests that perhaps the listing of past documents is less central than assuring regular updates at Forum sessions.

EU states that their priorities under the 1998 Agreement are those present under agenda item 16. This agenda item could be useful in terms of monitoring regulatory interests and possibly as a way to permit some early consideration of items before they rise to the level of formal consideration as subjects for the Forum.

Australia believes the Forum should dedicate time to discussing emerging issues and concerns among contracting parties and that AC.3 would be derelict in its duties to ignore this.

Malaysia endorses these views and believes an agenda item should be maintained.

The chair proposes a modification of the agenda item for future meetings to read: “Exchange of information on new priorities to be included in the programme of work”. AC.3 acquiesces in this approach.

83. WP.29 noted the presentation by the secretariat on the progress made on the UNDA project (WP.29-154-13). The secretariat recalled that a questionnaire had been sent to the different stakeholders and invited them to return their replies by 31 July 2011 at the latest.

38. Following the discussion at its previous session, GRPE considered the technical report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2011/13 summarizing discussions and recommendations on Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles (HFCV) with regard to provisions related to the environmental aspects. GRPE noted that its regulatory activities should focus on harmonizing the:

(a) test procedure for measuring the fuel consumption;
(b) test procedure and calculation method for measuring pollutants and CO2 emissions;
(c) definition of a reference fuel for test purposes.

39. GRPE endorsed the recommendation of the HFCV–Subgroup Environment to waive the development of a GTR on environmental related provisions and to develop, case by case, amendments to existing UN Regulations or UN GTRs. GRPE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2011/13 and welcomed the Chair’s proposal to inform WP.29 on the basis of an executive summary only, including a reference to the more detailed technical report (see WP.29-154-14).

40. The Chair of the HFCV–Subgroup Safety (HFCV-SGS) reported on the work progress made by the subgroup. He expected that the GTR on HFCV could be agreed on by the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) in 2011 and established in the Global Registry by mid-2012.

101. The representative of Germany introduced the work progress of the HFCV subgroup on safety (SGS). He informed AC.3 that the next meeting of the informal group SGS was scheduled to be held in Paris in the last week of June 2011. He announced that the submission of the final proposal was expected at the December 2011 session of GRSP.

102. Concerning the subgroup on environmental issues (SGE) he introduced WP.29-154-14 referring to the technical report adopted by GRPE at its June 2011 session and endorsed by GRB at its February 2011 session. He stated that a conclusion of this report recommended waiving the development of a stand-alone gtr for environmental related provisions for HFCV. He concluded that it was preferable to amend case-by-case existing UN Regulations or GTRs to accommodate vehicle categories or to consider HFCV directly during the developing process of new UN Regulations. AC.3 requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-154-14 with an official symbol for consideration as a summary report at its November 2011 session.

18. The representative of ITU informed the World Forum about the possible collaboration between the secretariat of its organization and the WP.29 secretariat on Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). Accordingly, he announced that a draft memorandum of understanding on this collaboration would be finalized in short time.

19. WP.29 was informed about the latest developments of UNECE activities on ITS. The secretariat reported that the public consultation on the strategic package on ITS deployment received several comments from a broad range of stakeholders. WP.29 noted that upon consolidation of all the comments, the strategic package would be complemented by a road map to be presented and endorsed at the February 2012 session of the Inland Transport Committee (ITC). WP.29 requested the secretariat to make publicly available on the UNECE ITS website the comments received.

20. The World Forum adopted the guidelines on establishing requirements for highpriority warning signals (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/90) concerning ITS and requested the secretariat to distribute it as an annex to the report of the current session (as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1091/Add.1).

17. The World Forum noted the programme of work and availability of documentation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/1/Rev.1). WP.29 representatives were requested to revise the programme of work and to communicate to the secretariat any amendment deemed necessary. The secretariat presented the draft calendar of sessions for 2012 (WP.29-154-16) to be confirmed by Conference Services. Following the request by WP.29/AC.2 (see para. 14 above), the secretariat presented the structure of the Vehicle Regulations and Technical Innovations Section and the solutions taken to eliminate the delay in the availability of UN Regulations and UN GTRs (WP.29-154-17). WP.29 noted that, according to the instructions of the Director of the Transport Division (see para. 3 above, the secretariat would prepare the text of the working documents and of the legal decisions (UN Resolutions and UN GTRs) in English only. The French and Russian texts would be prepared by DMS and would be available some months later. The WP.29 Chair expressed concerns regarding the late availability of the legal texts of the UN Regulations and UN GTRs in French and Russian, which should be made available, for legal reasons, at the same time as the English version and as soon as possible after their entry into force.

25. The World Forum noted the calendar of sessions for the year 2012 (WP.29-154-16) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The World Forum noted the programme of work and availability of documentation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/1/Rev.2). WP.29 representatives were requested to revise the programme of work and to communicate to the secretariat any amendment deemed necessary.

17. The World Forum noted the programme of work and availability of documentation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/1/Rev.1). WP.29 representatives were requested to revise the programme of work and to communicate to the secretariat any amendment deemed necessary. The secretariat presented the draft calendar of sessions for 2012 (WP.29-154-16) to be confirmed by Conference Services. Following the request by WP.29/AC.2 (see para. 14 above), the secretariat presented the structure of the Vehicle Regulations and Technical Innovations Section and the solutions taken to eliminate the delay in the availability of UN Regulations and UN GTRs (WP.29-154-17). WP.29 noted that, according to the instructions of the Director of the Transport Division (see para. 3 above, the secretariat would prepare the text of the working documents and of the legal decisions (UN Resolutions and UN GTRs) in English only. The French and Russian texts would be prepared by DMS and would be available some months later. The WP.29 Chair expressed concerns regarding the late availability of the legal texts of the UN Regulations and UN GTRs in French and Russian, which should be made available, for legal reasons, at the same time as the English version and as soon as possible after their entry into force.

82. The secretariat recalled that WP.29 should decide on the suggestions by the secretariat to: (a) identify those areas of third pillar activities under the responsibility of WP.29, (b) mandate the subsidiary bodies of WP.29 to address their tasks in those areas where outcomes are expected and © recommend the secretariat to participate in the meetings of the Evaluation Working Group that will be set up within the framework of the Global Plan. The representative of OICA suggested amendments to WP.29-154-18. The World Forum agreed to continue consideration of this matter at its next session and requested the secretariat to distribute an updated version of WP.29-154-18 with an official symbol.

112. In addition to the informal documents from the previous sessions, three programmes of work were presented to AC.3. The representative of Japan introduced the Japanese future measures for vehicle safety for a society with no traffic accidents (WP.29-154-10), the representative of the EU presented the European Commission programme of work for 2011 – 2012 (WP.29-154-19) and the representative of the United States of America presented the USA Rulemaking and Research Priorities of the USA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (WP.29-154-20). AC.3 noted that, among others, electric vehicles, including electric storage systems, e-mobility, protection to vulnerable user, and audibility of quiet vehicles were common priorities in the presentations and that they could be considered as priorities for future development of UN GTRs. The Chair of GRB said that the informal group on quiet vehicles would meet on 31 August 2011 in Japan. He requested guidance, pending a formal proposal, on to whether the informal group should proceed on the basis that a potential UN GTR be developed by the informal group. AC.3 endorsed this approach. Regarding batteries and electric vehicles, discussion took place regarding the importance of early coordination of research and regulatory activities and the possibility of devising a road map for a potential UN GTR similar to that developed early on for hydrogen vehicles. AC.3 also discussed the possibility of revising the terms of reference of the existing informal group on batteries and electric vehicles under GRSP instead of creating a new one. The Chair of AC.3 invited the representatives of EU, Japan and the Unites States of America to coordinate formal proposals for inclusion in the programme of work by AC.3 at its November 2011 session. The Chair also invited other Contracting Parties to present their priorities or to consider supporting the common priorities mentioned above. The representative of Australia raised the issue of motorcycles safety and recommended considering the possibility of making the installation of ABS mandatory in motorcycles. He suggested defer this matter to the November 2011 session of AC.3.

[AC.3 will decide on future of this agenda item at its next session in June.]

101. AC.3 representatives analysed how this agenda item should be developed. AC.3 agreed to keep this item in the agenda of further sessions, but under a new title reading “Exchange of information on new priorities to be included in the programme of work” without the list of informal documents. The representative of the EU stated that, before defining new priorities, AC.3 should enforce the monitoring of implementation in the national law of the Contracting Parties that had adopted UN GTRs.

AC.3 vice chair notes that the agenda item has been present for more than three years with nine document submissions and yet no meaningful progress towards defining future directions concretely. Asks for comments on whether to keep the agenda item.

The US believes issue is important and that contracting parties need to share information on their respective priorities for research programs and future rulemaking directions. Suggests that perhaps the listing of past documents is less central than assuring regular updates at Forum sessions.

EU states that their priorities under the 1998 Agreement are those present under agenda item 16. This agenda item could be useful in terms of monitoring regulatory interests and possibly as a way to permit some early consideration of items before they rise to the level of formal consideration as subjects for the Forum.

Australia believes the Forum should dedicate time to discussing emerging issues and concerns among contracting parties and that AC.3 would be derelict in its duties to ignore this.

Malaysia endorses these views and believes an agenda item should be maintained.

The chair proposes a modification of the agenda item for future meetings to read: “Exchange of information on new priorities to be included in the programme of work”. AC.3 acquiesces in this approach.

112. In addition to the informal documents from the previous sessions, three programmes of work were presented to AC.3. The representative of Japan introduced the Japanese future measures for vehicle safety for a society with no traffic accidents (WP.29-154-10), the representative of the EU presented the European Commission programme of work for 2011 – 2012 (WP.29-154-19) and the representative of the United States of America presented the USA Rulemaking and Research Priorities of the USA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (WP.29-154-20). AC.3 noted that, among others, electric vehicles, including electric storage systems, e-mobility, protection to vulnerable user, and audibility of quiet vehicles were common priorities in the presentations and that they could be considered as priorities for future development of UN GTRs. The Chair of GRB said that the informal group on quiet vehicles would meet on 31 August 2011 in Japan. He requested guidance, pending a formal proposal, on to whether the informal group should proceed on the basis that a potential UN GTR be developed by the informal group. AC.3 endorsed this approach. Regarding batteries and electric vehicles, discussion took place regarding the importance of early coordination of research and regulatory activities and the possibility of devising a road map for a potential UN GTR similar to that developed early on for hydrogen vehicles. AC.3 also discussed the possibility of revising the terms of reference of the existing informal group on batteries and electric vehicles under GRSP instead of creating a new one. The Chair of AC.3 invited the representatives of EU, Japan and the Unites States of America to coordinate formal proposals for inclusion in the programme of work by AC.3 at its November 2011 session. The Chair also invited other Contracting Parties to present their priorities or to consider supporting the common priorities mentioned above. The representative of Australia raised the issue of motorcycles safety and recommended considering the possibility of making the installation of ABS mandatory in motorcycles. He suggested defer this matter to the November 2011 session of AC.3.

112. In addition to the informal documents from the previous sessions, three programmes of work were presented to AC.3. The representative of Japan introduced the Japanese future measures for vehicle safety for a society with no traffic accidents (WP.29-154-10), the representative of the EU presented the European Commission programme of work for 2011 – 2012 (WP.29-154-19) and the representative of the United States of America presented the USA Rulemaking and Research Priorities of the USA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (WP.29-154-20). AC.3 noted that, among others, electric vehicles, including electric storage systems, e-mobility, protection to vulnerable user, and audibility of quiet vehicles were common priorities in the presentations and that they could be considered as priorities for future development of UN GTRs. The Chair of GRB said that the informal group on quiet vehicles would meet on 31 August 2011 in Japan. He requested guidance, pending a formal proposal, on to whether the informal group should proceed on the basis that a potential UN GTR be developed by the informal group. AC.3 endorsed this approach. Regarding batteries and electric vehicles, discussion took place regarding the importance of early coordination of research and regulatory activities and the possibility of devising a road map for a potential UN GTR similar to that developed early on for hydrogen vehicles. AC.3 also discussed the possibility of revising the terms of reference of the existing informal group on batteries and electric vehicles under GRSP instead of creating a new one. The Chair of AC.3 invited the representatives of EU, Japan and the Unites States of America to coordinate formal proposals for inclusion in the programme of work by AC.3 at its November 2011 session. The Chair also invited other Contracting Parties to present their priorities or to consider supporting the common priorities mentioned above. The representative of Australia raised the issue of motorcycles safety and recommended considering the possibility of making the installation of ABS mandatory in motorcycles. He suggested defer this matter to the November 2011 session of AC.3.

112. In addition to the informal documents from the previous sessions, three programmes of work were presented to AC.3. The representative of Japan introduced the Japanese future measures for vehicle safety for a society with no traffic accidents (WP.29-154-10), the representative of the EU presented the European Commission programme of work for 2011 – 2012 (WP.29-154-19) and the representative of the United States of America presented the USA Rulemaking and Research Priorities of the USA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (WP.29-154-20). AC.3 noted that, among others, electric vehicles, including electric storage systems, e-mobility, protection to vulnerable user, and audibility of quiet vehicles were common priorities in the presentations and that they could be considered as priorities for future development of UN GTRs. The Chair of GRB said that the informal group on quiet vehicles would meet on 31 August 2011 in Japan. He requested guidance, pending a formal proposal, on to whether the informal group should proceed on the basis that a potential UN GTR be developed by the informal group. AC.3 endorsed this approach. Regarding batteries and electric vehicles, discussion took place regarding the importance of early coordination of research and regulatory activities and the possibility of devising a road map for a potential UN GTR similar to that developed early on for hydrogen vehicles. AC.3 also discussed the possibility of revising the terms of reference of the existing informal group on batteries and electric vehicles under GRSP instead of creating a new one. The Chair of AC.3 invited the representatives of EU, Japan and the Unites States of America to coordinate formal proposals for inclusion in the programme of work by AC.3 at its November 2011 session. The Chair also invited other Contracting Parties to present their priorities or to consider supporting the common priorities mentioned above. The representative of Australia raised the issue of motorcycles safety and recommended considering the possibility of making the installation of ABS mandatory in motorcycles. He suggested defer this matter to the November 2011 session of AC.3.

[AC.3 will decide on future of this agenda item at its next session in June.]

101. AC.3 representatives analysed how this agenda item should be developed. AC.3 agreed to keep this item in the agenda of further sessions, but under a new title reading “Exchange of information on new priorities to be included in the programme of work” without the list of informal documents. The representative of the EU stated that, before defining new priorities, AC.3 should enforce the monitoring of implementation in the national law of the Contracting Parties that had adopted UN GTRs.

AC.3 vice chair notes that the agenda item has been present for more than three years with nine document submissions and yet no meaningful progress towards defining future directions concretely. Asks for comments on whether to keep the agenda item.

The US believes issue is important and that contracting parties need to share information on their respective priorities for research programs and future rulemaking directions. Suggests that perhaps the listing of past documents is less central than assuring regular updates at Forum sessions.

EU states that their priorities under the 1998 Agreement are those present under agenda item 16. This agenda item could be useful in terms of monitoring regulatory interests and possibly as a way to permit some early consideration of items before they rise to the level of formal consideration as subjects for the Forum.

Australia believes the Forum should dedicate time to discussing emerging issues and concerns among contracting parties and that AC.3 would be derelict in its duties to ignore this.

Malaysia endorses these views and believes an agenda item should be maintained.

The chair proposes a modification of the agenda item for future meetings to read: “Exchange of information on new priorities to be included in the programme of work”. AC.3 acquiesces in this approach.

42. The World Forum took note of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/343/Rev.19, reflecting the status of the 1958 Agreement as of 22 February 2011. The World Forum noted the information of WP.29-153-18, WP.29-153-20 and WP.29-153-21 on the latest amendments to the status document transmitted by Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Canada. The secretariat suggested no longer preparing the amendments to the status document at the June and November sessions but continuously updating the status document on the basis of an informal consolidated version together with an additional document listing the details of the amendments, including links to the updated status document. This document would be made available on the WP.29 website: www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29fdocstts.html.

43. WP.29 welcomed this suggestion and requested the secretariat to prepare the official revision of the status document of the 1958 Agreement for the March sessions of each year.

43. The World Forum noted WP.29-154-01 comprising the list of modifications to the status of the 1958 Agreement since 22 February 2011. The secretariat suggested no longer preparing the amendments to the status document at the June and November sessions but continuously updating the status document on the basis of an informal consolidated version together with an additional document listing the details of the amendments, including links to the updated status document. This document is available at: www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29fdocstts.html. Several representatives highlighted the potential value of this initiative and the clever use of the hyperlinks to simplify access to the numerous regulatory texts. Taking note of these comments, the World Forum congratulated the secretariat for this initiative and underlined that this system would improve the effectiveness of the Agreement and its related activities.

- Example of grouping of lighting device regulations
Mr. Grigorescu introduced an example of the necessary structure to allow the grouping of existing forward lighting regulations into a new UN regulation (document SLR-07-06). He also showed an analysis of the Contracting Parties applying (or not) the various forward lighting regulations (based on an excerpt of the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/343) and suggested to ask those Contracting Parties who have not signed all the concerned Regulations to consider signing the missing ones. Mr. Draper, observing the analysis of Mr. Grigorescu (now available as document SLR-07-06/Annex 1), pointed out that most of the mandatory Regulations are adopted by all CPs. Dr. Manz commented that the proposed system will only work if all CPs will buy in and the “legacy” Regulations will be frozen. Mr. Gorzkowski suggested to move everything into R-123 and freeze the other front lighting Regulations. The meeting observed that, from a performance point of view, the result is an illuminated road ahead and, to this end, R-123 should be taken into account as it is performance based and “future proof”.

63. The World Forum noted the amendments to the status of the Agreement (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1073/Rev.4/Amend.1) and of the priorities and items on which the exchange of views should continue (WP.29-154-08).

64. The World Forum agreed that agenda items 5.2 to 5.5 should be considered by the Executive Committee (AC.3).

66. The World Forum noted the revised document on the status of the Agreement and that Kazakhstan acceded to the Agreement, effective date 23 May 2011 (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1074/Rev.2/Amend.1 for more detailed information).

4. The provisional annotated agenda for the session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1090) was adopted with the amendments noted below:

(a) Addition and amendments of agenda items:
8.9. Safer vehicles: Third pillar of the Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety
8.10. United Nations Development Account (UNDA) project for CO2 emissions from Inland Transport
8.11. Exchange of information on enforcement of issues regarding defects and not compliance
18.1. Proposal to develop amendments to UN GTR No. 5 (On-Board Diagnostic (OBD))
19. Informal document WP.29-153-34, submitted by CLEPA/MEMA/JAPIA

(b) Addition and correction of document references for items:
2.3. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/90
3.4. For ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/53 read ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/51, and add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/51/Corr.1
4.4. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/48/Add.1 and delete the reference to document WP.29-153-02
4.8.3. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/60/Corr.1
4.16.3. Add the reference to documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/89 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/91

© Items or documents postponed for a further session:
4.16.1. Proposal for a Regulation on Light Emitting Diode
4.16.2. Proposal for a Regulation on Pedestrian Safety
4.16.3. Proposal for a Regulation on Line Departure Warming Systems

(d) Items deleted from the agenda:
4.2 and 4.2.1.

85. The World Forum adopted the report, together with the annexes, on its 154th session.

21. GRB noted the discussion on this subject held at the June 2011 session of WP.29 (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1091, para. 74) and that the venue and date of the next EFV conference would be confirmed at the November session of WP.29.

18. The representative of ITU informed the World Forum about the possible collaboration between the secretariat of its organization and the WP.29 secretariat on Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). Accordingly, he announced that a draft memorandum of understanding on this collaboration would be finalized in short time.

19. WP.29 was informed about the latest developments of UNECE activities on ITS. The secretariat reported that the public consultation on the strategic package on ITS deployment received several comments from a broad range of stakeholders. WP.29 noted that upon consolidation of all the comments, the strategic package would be complemented by a road map to be presented and endorsed at the February 2012 session of the Inland Transport Committee (ITC). WP.29 requested the secretariat to make publicly available on the UNECE ITS website the comments received.

20. The World Forum adopted the guidelines on establishing requirements for highpriority warning signals (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/90) concerning ITS and requested the secretariat to distribute it as an annex to the report of the current session (as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1091/Add.1).

42. GRE noted that WP.29 had adopted, at its June 2011 session, the guidelines on establishing requirements for high-priority warning signals (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/90) as an annex to the report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1091/Add.1). The secretariat reported that the public consultation on the strategic package on ITS deployment had been completed and that upon consolidation of all the comments, the strategic package would be complemented by a road map (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/114) to be considered by WP.29 at its November 2011 session and by the Inland Transport Committee (ITC) at its February 2012 session.

J and NL presented their respective documents (AEBS/LDWS-19-03 and AEBS/LDWS-19-04).

OICA questioned the value of 45km/h mentioned in the second bullet of the NL document justifications. NL clarified that the value of 1,2 seconds referred to in the document addresses the TTC, which varies as long as the vehicle decelerates.

F was of the opinion that the warning time exists to permit the driver to react, hence must be adapted to the driver’s reaction time. In addition, the expert from F wondered why the reaction time is different for the light and the heavy vehicles, while the drivers are all human.

OICA pointed the equal importance of nuisance of too early warnings and the driver’s reaction. The system would become counterproductive should early warnings be too frequent. A too early warning in addition would be design restrictive.

Mr. Clasen referred to the document WP29/1091/Add.1, paragraphs 64-66, which urges the designers to avoid too early warnings.

J acknowledged this document and recalled the row 1 performance requirement (warning time). The delegate from J stressed that the current discussion addresses Row 2 vehicles, and J believed that the J proposal for 0.8s is acceptable in terms of nuisance.

Mr. Clasen recalled that the light vehicles are more agile, hence the driver’s reaction by avoidance via steering can occure later, and recalled the existence of the build-up time on hydraulic braking vehicles.

The Chair recalled that NL requested at the previous meeting some figures about the pressure build-up time for hydraulic braking systems.

CLEPA answered that the Industry experience of build-up time for these vehicles and systems is rather inexistent, the reference value would address ESP, and this would apply to 2 wheels only. The expert from CLEPA informed that a value between 0.8 and 1.5 seconds can be reasonable.

The Chair pointed out that the consequence of such pressure build up time would be that there would be not a full braking during the emergency braking phase.

Mr. Clasen informed that the temperature influences the pressure build-up time due to the transmission oil viscosity and the brake disks friction coefficient.

As a summary, the Chair pointed out that 3 Contracting Parties (J, NL and F) are asking to specify a value for the advanced warning timing, and that D had already indicated their support for the joint OICA/CLEPA proposal at the previous meeting. ROK took no position on this issue.

The Chair suggested, in an attempt to make progress, to separate in the discussions for the stationary target the cells B2 (early warning) and C2 (late warning)) and to do the same afterwards for the moving target.

In response, industry presented their proposal for flexibility for the moving target scenario (document AEBS/LDWS-19-05), indicating that they could accept a 0.8 sec value for the 1st warning provided this could done by optical means.

Moving target scenario

The Chair then suggested to discuss first the moving target scenario.

J could not accept the Industry proposal because they considered braking more important than the warning annoyance. J confirmed their support of the NL proposal.

For the moving target scenario in the Industry position, J could not accept “Optical only”.

NL could not accept optical only for the 1st warning. In the case of the moving target scenario the expert was of the opinion that the nuisance is not that critical.

F pointed out that the distance between the target and the subject vehicle with 1s TTC in the moving target scenario is 4m and proposed the 1st warning at 1.4 s and asked Industry about the driver’s acceptance with that limit (same as in Row 1).

D could support the Industry proposal.

ROK had no opinion but welcomed the flexibility of Industry.

The Chair considered that the discussions indicated some possibility of compromise about the warning timing for the moving target scenario (except from France)

F repeated their support for “optical only” but wanted 1.4 s warning time delay, with 0.8 s for the 2nd warning signal.

Mr. Clasen pointed out that long warning time would jeopardise the manufacturer’s wish to increase the speed reduction because the total time would then not be acceptable. OICA added that such warning time would question the speed reduction, in addition to the security margin and the vehicle dynamics. Also, Industry pointed out the fact that the regulation provides only the minimum values and provides freedom to the manufacturer to do better. One manufacturer gave the example of one of his production line, where 10% of the production are N2, the others are N1. The warning time at 0.8s would permit to use the N1 category AEBS system on the N2 vehicles, while forbidding this would make the AEBS too expensive.

F pointed out the EuroNCAP draft protocol of 1.2 s for driver’s reaction and could agree with this value of 1.2s.

It was stressed that EuroNCAP only addresses the M1 vehicles and that the protocol is still under discussion.

The Chair cautioned that the lack of flexibility by one Contracting Party would entail the risk that the informal group has to turn to its parent body, i.e. GRRF, for seeking guidance or even resolution on this technical matter.

F confirmed its position, and repeated to agree with 1.2 s for the 1st warning.

The Chair concluded by regretting that the informal group could not find a compromise for the warning time for the moving target scenario and announced his intention to request guidance from GRRF.

The Chair suggested to discuss the “optical only” 1st warning based on the assumption that a compromise could be later found for the value of warning time.

F confirmed the willing of 1.2s for the 1st signal.

OICA stressed that there is currently no experience of the system on these vehicles, and the need to get millions of kms with different drivers before making a decision on a possible compromise, in view of the risk to completely jeopardise the market confidence in this system.

The Chair therefore suggested asking guidance to GRRF on this issue as well.

Stationary target scenario

The group then started discussions on the stationary target scenario. The Chair recalled his proposal for a compromise for B2 and C2 cells, i.e. separating the values for the 1st warning from those for the 2nd warning.

OICA recalled their offer for flexibility for moving target scenario, and could not be more flexible for the stationary target scenario. The expert recalled the distance of 40 m in front of the target in case of a 0.8s warning time, in particular in view that the system is currently purely theoretical. The proposal is to amend the text such that the warning time is given BEFORE the start of the emergency braking phase. OICA was cautious in accepting an “optical only” warning in this case in view of the fact that the Contracting Parties did not accept the “optical only” for the moving target scenario.

NL found that the parameter for the stationary target scenario is the sensor recognition of a stationary target. NL recalled that a TTC of 1.8 sec provides at least 30m between the subject vehicle and the target. NL could accept optical only.

D supported the Chair’s proposal.

J could support 0.8s for the timing, and could not accept “optical only”.

F could accept the Chair’s proposal.

ROK could also support the Chair’s proposal.

OICA could not accept the J position, and was willing to have a further Industry internal consultation about the Chair’s proposal.

Temporary conclusion: no conclusive decision on warning times. See also item 5.2. below.

17. The World Forum noted the programme of work and availability of documentation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/1/Rev.1). WP.29 representatives were requested to revise the programme of work and to communicate to the secretariat any amendment deemed necessary. The secretariat presented the draft calendar of sessions for 2012 (WP.29-154-16) to be confirmed by Conference Services. Following the request by WP.29/AC.2 (see para. 14 above), the secretariat presented the structure of the Vehicle Regulations and Technical Innovations Section and the solutions taken to eliminate the delay in the availability of UN Regulations and UN GTRs (WP.29-154-17). WP.29 noted that, according to the instructions of the Director of the Transport Division (see para. 3 above, the secretariat would prepare the text of the working documents and of the legal decisions (UN Resolutions and UN GTRs) in English only. The French and Russian texts would be prepared by DMS and would be available some months later. The WP.29 Chair expressed concerns regarding the late availability of the legal texts of the UN Regulations and UN GTRs in French and Russian, which should be made available, for legal reasons, at the same time as the English version and as soon as possible after their entry into force.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.§ 5.1.1 .

The Chair proposed to seek advice from the UNECE Secretariat about this item at GRRF-71.

• J supported this proposal.
• D found the OICA proposal quite clear and could support it.
• NL was of the opinion that the guidance provided in the Introduction would be sufficient. In this view, the proposal from OICA to mention rear-axle suspension vehicles could be deleted as well.
• UK had a reservation about whether the mention in the Introduction would be sufficient guidance to the Contracting Parties.

Conclusion: the informal group agreed to request guidance to UNECE Secretariat. At GRRF-71.

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.

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.

Amendments integrated into the regulation with Revision 5.

49. Agenda item 4.6.1, Regulation No. 14, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/54, page 2, paragraph 5.3.8.4.(c), correct the reference to footnote 1 and footnote 1 to read 3, and page 3, add new paragraphs 14.17 to 14.19, to read:

“14.17. As from the official date of entry into force of Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments, no Contracting Party applying this Regulation shall refuse to grant UNECE type approval under this Regulation as amended by Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments.

14.18. As from 12 months after the official date of entry into force of Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall grant UN type approvals only to those types of vehicle which comply with the requirements of this Regulation as amended by Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments.

14.19. Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall not refuse to grant extensions of approvals, even if Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments is not fulfilled."

Integrated into the regulation via Amendment 3 to Revision 7.

Integrated into the regulation as Amendment 2 to Revision 2.

See agenda item 4.8.

The World Forum recommended the submission of the proposal to AC.1 for voting.

Adopted proposal integrated into UN R41: Revision 2 on 14 August 2012.

53. Agenda item 4.9.1, Regulation No. 41, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/62, page 11, paragraph 12.2, correct to read:
“12.2. As from 1 January 2014, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation …”

page 12, paragraph 12.4, correct to read:
“12.4. Contracting Parties … of amendments until the date in paragraph 12.2.”

page 12, paragraph 12.7, correct to read:
“12.7. As from 1 January 2017, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation …”

The World Forum recommended submission of the proposal to AC.1 for voting.

54. Regarding document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/64, under agenda item 4.9.3 (Regulation No. 51), the World Forum noted the document submitted by GRB. It was agreed to postpone the voting of the document to a further session, awaiting the proposal for limit values to be submitted by GRB.

8. GRB noted the decision of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) at its June 2011 session, to postpone the voting of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/64 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2011/2 and GRB-53-27) to a further session, awaiting a proposal for limit values to be submitted by GRB (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1091, para. 54).

9. The expert from the Netherlands, Chair of the informal working group on Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP), introduced GRB-54-17 to recognize the work done by the group. He concluded that further efforts should be made to solidify a policy proposal on limit values, as with the intended purpose.

[In view of updates expected to EU noise regulations, the vote on this proposal is deferred to the June session of WP.29.]

14. GRB noted that no new information had been given under this agenda item.

Consideration postponed.

67. Under agenda item 4.12.1 (Regulation No. 51), WP.29 agreed to defer consideration of this item to its November 2013 session.

[The World Forum agreed to keep this proposal on the agenda for consideration at its November 2013 session.]

As planned, consideration of this proposal remains pending for a future WP.29 session.

8. GRB noted that the additional sound emission provisions contained in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/64 had been incorporated into the revised proposal for the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 51 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2014/5) and decided to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/64 from the agenda.

Proposal integrated into UN R59 via Revision 1.

Adopted and integrated into UN R12 as Corrigendum 1 to Amendment 4 to Revision 3.

See agenda item 4.10.

Adopted and integrated into UN R14 as Corrigendum 2 to Revision 4.

The Forum recommended this proposal to AC.1 for voting.

Adopted and integrated into UN R16 as Corrigendum 3 to Revision 6.

The Forum recommended this proposal to AC.1 without amendment.

Adopted and integrated into UN R94 as Corrigendum 1 to Amendement 1.

Adopted and integrated into UN R115 as Corrigendum 1 to Amendement 4.

See agenda item 4.8.

Adopted and integrated into UN R75 as Corrigendum 1 to Revision 2.

60. Regarding document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/77, under agenda item 4.14.2 (UN Regulation No. 19), the World Forum agreed to defer consideration of the document to its November 2011 session, subject to a final review by GRE at its October 2011 session.

54. Under agenda item 4.6.2, UN Regulation No. 19 document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/150, paragraph 14.2. for Supplement 3, read Supplement 2.

16. The GRRF Chair thanked CLEPA for the live demonstration on AEBS held during this GRRF session. The background of this presentation may be found in GRRF-70-07. A video on this demonstration as well as a press release may be found on the following website: http://live.unece.org/transwelcome/areas-of-work/vehicle-regulations/events/unece-live-demonstration-of-advanced-emergency-braking-systems-aebs.html. The chair also thanked OICA for the static demonstration showing special purpose and offroad vehicles where it could difficult to fit AEBS.

17. GRRF noted that Italy and the Russian Federation had submitted their national lane markings (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/91 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/89) to be used in the draft New Regulation on Lane Departure Warning systems.

[EU has begun the process of integrating the provisions of this new regulation into EU law; however, certain steps must be taken internally to establish the legal basis for its implementation. Therefore, the EU requests postponement of this vote at least until June and most probably until the November WP.29 session.]

As noted in paragraph 53 under agenda item 4.12 above, the World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item to its next session. The EU has not yet completed its internal review of the proposed regulation, but strongly suspects it will be positioned for a positive vote in November.

Proposal unanimously adopted.

90. Submitted for consideration and vote, the proposed Amendment 2 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/79) to gtr No. 2 was established in the Global Registry on 22 June 2011 by consensus vote of the following Contracting Parties present and voting:

Australia, Canada, People’s Republic of China, European Union (voting for Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom), India, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa and United States of America.

91. The technical report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2009/133) and the adopted proposal for the development of the gtr (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/19) would be appended to the established amendment to the gtr.

92. Submitted to consideration and vote, the proposed Corrigendum 2 to Global Technical Regulation No. 2 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/80) was established in the Global Registry on 22 June 2011 by consensus vote of the following Contracting Parties present and voting:

Australia, Canada, People’s Republic of China, European Union (voting for Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom), India, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa and United States of America.

93. Submitted to consideration and vote, the proposed Corrigendum 2 to Global Technical Regulation No. 8 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/81) was established in the Global Registry on 22 June 2011 by consensus vote of the following Contracting Parties present and voting:

Australia, Canada, People’s Republic of China, European Union (voting for Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom), India, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa and United States of America.

94. Submitted to consideration and vote, the proposed Corrigendum 1 to Global Technical Regulation No. 11 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/82) was established in the Global Registry on 22 June 2011 by consensus vote of the following Contracting Parties present and voting:

Australia, Canada, People’s Republic of China, European Union (voting for Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom), India, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa and United States of America.

59. The World Forum considered the draft corrigenda under agenda item 4.14.1 and recommended its submission to AC.1 for voting.

77. The World Forum noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/84, and adopted the proposal of the publication (WP.29-154-06) as amended by WP.29-154-09/Rev.2. The secretariat announced that contributions from Contracting Parties regarding their national legislative process could be submitted until 29 July 2011. The secretariat was requested to prepare the new publication based on the adopted documents.

78. The EU representative informed WP.29 that the European Commission had prepared the annual programme of work on the activities of the World Forum, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/unece/sec-2011-0689_en.pdf

79. The World Forum agreed that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/85 would represent considerable advantages for the harmonization and simplification of the legislative activity. Nevertheless, no agreement was reached on the solution to incorporate the protocol in the framework of the 1958 and 1998 Agreements. The representative of the United States of America did not support the proposal to incorporate the specifications of the tools in a common resolution, to which UN Regulations and UN GTRs could refer. She preferred, instead, to develop a new UN GTR. The World Forum considered that there were two possible options for incorporating the protocol into the existing framework: either incorporate it into the Consolidated Resolution of the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3) or into both R.E.3 and in a new UN GTR. The World Forum agreed to continue consideration of this matter at its November 2011 session.

97. The Chair of the informal group on the development of UN Global Technical Regulation No. 7 (Head restraints) recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/85. The World Forum agreed with the approach for indexing the information for test devices, (as indicated in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/85), as Addenda to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). The World Forum invited the Chair to develop further the proposal in cooperation with the secretariat.

98. The representative of the United Sates of America confirmed the need of his country on having the information related to test devices as a UN GTR in the framework of the 1998 Agreement.

93. The representative of the United Kingdom presented informal document WP.29-156-18 proposing to amend the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3) and to introduce discrete addenda as a repository for each specified test device. Following extensive discussion, the World Forum agreed that the development of a Special Resolution (S.R.2) could provide greater certainty for Contracting Parties to the 1998 Agreement on the definition of test devices or equipment used to determine compliance with particular requirements of UN GTRS. The representatives of the United States of America and the United Kingdom agreed to work together with the secretariat to bring forward a revised proposal for consideration at the 157th session of WP.29.

99. The representatives of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America, on behalf of the Chair of the informal group, reported on the work progress of the group. They explained that the group was working, on the basis of the revised authorization to develop the amendments (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/25/Rev.1), on pending issues concerning: (i) technical specifications and calibration of the biofidelic rear impact dummy II and (ii) injury criteria. AC.3 adopted the second progress report of the informal group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/86).

128. The Chair of the informal group on Phase II of UN GTR No. 7, introduced the third status report of the informal group (WP.29-155-40). He reported that the group had met seven times and that the last meeting was held in Washington, D.C. on 10 June 2011. He informed that the group had been addressing the head restraint height issue in two parts: (i) the procedure for measuring and determining effective height of the head restraint rather than physical height, and (ii) recommendations for the height requirement. He said good progress has been made on evaluating the rear impact dummy (BIORID II) device, although he explained that an issue relating reproducibility has been highlighted and that this was currently being investigated further. Notwithstanding unforeseeable delays, he underlined that the group had still been working to provide recommendations to GRSP at its 2012 sessions. He concluded that the next meetings of the informal group were scheduled in Geneva on 5-6 December 2011, prior to the GRSP session and in London during the week beginning 19 March 2012, in conjunction with the informal groups on harmonization of side impact dummies and Pole Side Impact. AC.3 requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-155-40 with an official symbol.

5. The expert from the United Kingdom, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group:

• (a) The group is expecting to submit an informal document for discussion at the May 2012 session of GRSP, concerning the regulatory text of GTR No.7 Phase 2, including the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy II (BioRID II), namely calibration, seating position, etc.
• (b) The definition of injury criteria progressed well. Nevertheless, concerns remain regarding the reproducibility of the rotational movement of the dummy’s head compared to the cadaver.
• (c) A method to measure the physical height of the head restraint is expected to be submitted as an informal document to the May 2012 session of GRSP.

6. The expert from Japan complemented this information by introducing the third status report of the informal working group (GRSP-50-31). The expert from the United Kingdom invited GRSP experts to provide comments to be incorporated in an updated version of the status report to be submitted to the March sessions of WP.29 and AC.3. He also informed GRSP that the next meeting of the informal working group was planned for in London at the beginning of March 2012.

7. GRSP noted that WP.29, at its November 2011 session while discussing the 1958 Agreement, agreed with the approach of indexing the information for test devices as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3.). Accordingly, the expert from the United Kingdom introduced, for information, a first proposal (GRSP-50-26 and GRSP-50-27) on the basis of some BioRID II technical data.

The expert from Germany expressed concerns on the possible transposition of a future UN GTR on the same subject into the 1958 Agreement. GRSP recommended experts to send further comments in due time to the expert from the United Kingdom to allow him to prepare an updated proposal to the March 2012 session of WP.29 for consideration.

116. The Chair of the informal working group on Phase 2 of UN GTR No. 7 introduced the third status report of his group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/34). He reported that the group was focusing its efforts on the two most relevant issues: (i) a new height requirement for head restraints and (ii) a utilization procedure for the rear impact dummy (BIORID II). Concerning the height requirement, he informed AC.3 that the group would likely introduce a proposal at the May 2012 session of GRSP to discuss, amongst others, the limits associated to the test procedure. Concerning the BIORID II dummy, he expressed two major concerns related to: (i) the reproducibility of the dummy performance results and (ii) availability of the injury criteria. He announced that this would likely lead requesting an extension of the group’s mandate at the June 2012 session of AC.3.

117. He announced that the next meeting of the informal working group was scheduled on 22 and 23 of March 2012 (London) in conjunction with the informal working groups on harmonization of side impact dummies and pole side impact. AC.3 adopted the third progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/34).

5. The expert from the United Kingdom, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP about the ongoing activities of the group:

(a) The informal working group had made good progress on development of a proposal to redefine the height of the head restraints in terms of its “effective” rather than absolute height and to deliver a new procedure for its measurement. It was noted that the actual value to be ascribed as a height requirement was sensitive and that it may be more efficient to discuss this during GRSP proper sessions rather than during the meetings of the informal working group.

(b) The informal group had noted that there are differences in some dimensions of the various three-dimensional H point machines (3-D “H”) in the market and that some manufacturers use tighter tolerances for their machines than those defined in the Society of American Engineers (SAE) standard. The informal working group is considering whether new tolerances for the 3-D H machine should be specified and, if so, whether this should be specific to UN GTR No. 7 (and UN Regulation No. 17) or for all UN Regulations and UN GTRs where the machine is used. The expert from SAE was invited as members of the informal working group and it was hoped that proposals for a transparent and open definition of the machine could be agreed.

(c) Regarding the dynamic test to assess the risk of whiplash injury, it was confirmed that the group is working for an agreement to define only the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID II) within the UN GTR (replacing the current reference to the Hybrid III dummy). The development of injury criteria was of critical importance to the delivery of this outcome but unfortunately research in this area has not proceeded as scheduled.

6. The Chair of the informal working group reminded GRSP that the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee (EEVC) recommended BioRID II as a unique choice for a kinematic assessment and that GRSP had received a proposal from the experts of Japan and the EC to adopt this approach into UN Regulation No. 17. He added that an initial assessment of the data from the recent EC study suggested that the reproducibility question for BioRID was not an issue when used for kinematics. He indicated that the drafting of UN GTR currently provides for BioRID to be introduced as an option to Hybrid III and this possibility, using the kinematic approach, remained. Finally, he announced that the next meeting of the informal working group was scheduled on 18-19 of June 2012 in Munich, Germany.

7. The expert from Germany, Chair of the BioRID Technical Evaluation Group (TEG), introduced the status report (GRSP-51-22) of the group. He underlined that the dummy response was sensitive to the change of parts and that certification tests and better control of material properties might be needed.

8. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSP-51-23 detailing the main conclusion of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2 concerning the height of head restraint issue. Moreover, through GRSP-51-24 he underlined the actual need for increasing head restraint height. The expert from OICA stated that the discussion should focus first on the definition of the measurement method and then on the height thresholds. Referring to the first phase of the UN GTR, the expert from OICA reminded GRSP that EEVC conclusion at that time was for introducing a limited increase of the height and of a backset of 40 mm to maximize cost benefits. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2012 session on possible proposals on draft UN GTR No. 7 phase 2 submitted by the informal working group. It was also recommended that similar proposals would also be simultaneously made in the same time to UN Regulation No. 17 to keep the texts of the two Regulations aligned.

9. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29, at its March 2012 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1095 para. 93) to develop a Special Resolution No. 2 (S.R.2) for a protocol to manage drawings, calibration and maintenance associated with test tools. As a follow up of this discussion the Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2 introduced GRSP-51-37 as a concrete proposal based on the inclusion of BioRID II dummy as a start. The proposal received in principle the endorsement of GRSP and experts were invited to send further comments in due time to the Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7, to allow him to prepare an updated proposal for the June 2012 session of WP.29 for consideration.

85. The representative of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group, reported on the work progress of the group. He explained that the group had held its tenth meeting in Munich on 18-19 June 2012 in conjunction with the Pole Side impact informal working group. He informed that the group had been addressing: (i) the measurement of head restraint height and on an appropriate height value, (ii) agreement on the use of the BioRID II dummy, ideally as the single tool (replacing Hybrid III) or the introduction of BioRID II as an option to Hybrid III but selected by Contracting Parties. He added that it had been difficult to finalize the work for the replacement of Hybrid III with BioRID II in the timeframe and, on the current projection for the delivery of injury criteria the informal working group would require a 12 month extension of its mandate. AC.3 gave its consent to extend the mandate of the informal working group until December 2013.

While ongoing fundamental research into the injury criteria for the BioRID dummy has delayed its finalization, the GTR 7 phase 2 informal group has agreed on a new concept of “effective height” for head restraints in response to the Netherlands concerns over protection for taller occupants. The group will now send this to GRSP for consideration in December 2012. It is also worth noting that OICA firmly opposes the use of options in the GTR where governments could require either the BioRID II or Hybrid III for testing.

99. The representative of the United Kingdom, chairing the informal working group, reported on the work progress. He informed AC.3 that the group agreed that substantive progress on this matter would depend on the definition of injury criteria and that such criteria should match the appropriate test tool. He added that since the last meeting held on June 2012 in Munich, the group convened six times through the Webex system for developing the test tool. He indicated that the next meeting of the group would be held on 10-11 December 2012 prior to the GRSP session to work on the injury criteria. He announced a progress report for the March 2013 session of AC.3. Finally, he expressed the intention of the group to submit a draft UN GTR to GRSP at its December 2013 session, and to transmit it to AC.3 for consideration and possible adoption at its June 2014 session.

94. The representative of the United Kingdom, chairing the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, gave an oral report on the work progress. He informed AC.3 that the group had made good progress on developing a proposal to redefine the height of the head restraints in terms of its “effective” rather than “absolute” height and was ready to deliver a new procedure for its measurement at the May 2013 session of GRSP. Regarding the dynamic test to assess the risk of whiplash injury, he confirmed that the group was working on an agreement to select only the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID II) within the UN GTR rather than to propose it as an alternative to the current reference to the Hybrid III dummy. He added that the development of injury criteria was of critical importance for the use of BioRID, but unfortunately, research in this area had not progressed as expected. Accordingly, he doubted that the informal working group would be in a position to recommend the draft UN GTR to AC.3 for consideration and possible adoption at its June 2014 session as announced at the previous session. He announced that a full report would be provided at the session in June 2013.

11. GRSP noted the decision of AC.3 at its March 2011 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, para. 109) to transmit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/87 (terms of references and first progress report of the informal group) to GRSP for information and comments. The expert from Australia informed GRSP about the outcome of the last meeting of the group held in Brussels (3-4 March 2011). He clarified that the group was still collecting data to address a candidate test procedure and that a second progress report would be probably available after the June 2011 meeting of the informal group (see para. 6). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2011 session on the basis of new information provided by the informal group.

106. The representative of Australia, chairing the informal group on PSI, informed AC.3 about the outcome of the third meeting of the group held in Washington D.C. on 9 June 2011. He stated that the group had considered a large amount of background material and research and worked on the safety need case. He added that Australia and Canada were currently conducting a joint crash program testing matched pairs of vehicles in oblique and perpendicular tests. He reported that Australia was also conducting a major research project through the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) including consideration of the effectiveness of airbags. He invited the representatives of WP.29 to provide access to their in-depth crash investigation data. He announced that the Republic of Korea was considering hosting the next meeting of the informal group, to be held in October 2011. AC.3 adopted the terms of reference of the informal group including its first progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/87).

125. The representative of Australia, chairing the informal working group on PSI, presented the second progress report of the group (WP.29-156-29).

126. He clarified that this report sought a change in the terms of reference of the informal working group to allow for a second phase of work on the world side impact dummy (WorldSID) 5th percentile female. He reported that this change was endorsed by GRSP at its December 2011 session. He stated that the informal working group had not met since he reported on its activities at the November 2011 session of AC.3. However, he announced that the fifth meeting of the informal working group would be held on 22-23 March in London (see para. 113), focusing on a revised draft UN GTR in detail, with the aim of submitting an initial draft to the May 2012 session of GRSP. He added that several presentations would be made during the meeting, including further crash tests undertaken
by a number of countries. He specified that the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) would give a presentation of its research, including on injury types, effectiveness of different airbag combinations and the benefits of a regulation. He clarified that, while pole side impacts were not as common as other crashes, they were frequently lethal. He said that MUARC’s work also revealed that injuries in pole side impacts involved very high societal costs frequently involving serious head injuries. He reported that a final first phase UN GTR would be presented to WP.29 and AC.3 for consideration and vote at their June 2013 sessions. He concluded that the sixth meeting of the informal working group was scheduled in the week before the June 2012 session of WP.29 in Munich.

127. The representative of The United States of America supported the revised terms of references for a two stage approach for developing the UN GTR to address the widest range of vehicle occupants.

128. AC.3 endorsed, in principle, the revised terms of references of the informal working group (see para. 32) and requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-156-29 with an official symbol.

90. The representative of Australia, chairing the informal group on PSI, informed AC.3 that since his last update at the March 2012 session of AC.3, the informal working group had held its fifth and sixth meetings in London in late March and in Munich in the previous week. He informed AC.3 that a draft UN GTR had been presented to the May 2012 session of GRSP. He underlined the excellent recent progress on the draft UN GTR and the constructive approach adopted by all members of the informal working group. In particular he acknowledged Canada’s contribution to a large scale crash test programme undertaken with Australia. He stated that the work undertaken by the Monash University Accident Research Centre indicated that the UN GTR would produce major safety gains, due in part to the high proportion of head injuries in both pole side impacts and car-to-car crashes, and the high cost of serious head injuries. Insurance data indicated that the cost of head injuries could exceed notional cost of life as well imposing major societal burdens. He added that the UN GTR would have major benefits in many countries. He informed AC.3 that the major remaining issues were:

• (i) appropriate injury thresholds,
• (ii) material issues impacting WorldSID and
• (iii) appropriate citation of the ISO seating procedure.

He informed AC.3 that the next meeting of the informal group would likely be held in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with the next WorldSID meeting, in September or October 2012. He finally indicated that these meetings should set a definitive timetable for submission of final draft proposals on the WorldSID and Pole Side Impact UN GTRs to GRSP and AC.3.

91. The representative of OICA emphasized the importance of availability of WorldSID for the adoption of the UN GTR on Pole Side Impact, with which the Australian representative strongly concurred.

92. AC.3 adopted the second progress report of the informal working group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/59).

102. The representative of the United States of America, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group on PSI, informed AC.3 about the work progress of the eighth meeting of the informal working group (Paris, 20-21 November 2012) held in conjunction with a meeting of the group on the harmonization of side impact dummies. She added that, as an outcome of this meeting, the third progress report of the informal working group and a draft UN GTR were submitted (GRSP-52-07) to the December 2012 session of GRSP. Moreover, she clarified that the informal working group met virtually through WebEx on 7 February 2013 to consider comments and some additions to the text. Finally, she stated that the draft UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/7) would be considered at the May 2013 session of GRSP. She added that the draft UN GTR could be recommended to AC.3 for consideration and vote at its November 2013 session. She concluded that comments and questions, if any, should be addressed to the Chair of the informal working group on PSI.

110. The representative of the United States of America informed AC.3 about the outcome of the last meeting of the informal group on harmonization of side impact dummies, held in Washington D.C. on 8 June 2011. Concerning the harmonization activity of the 50th percentile dummy, she stated that the group was finalizing the harmonization work of the thorax deflection criteria and of the three dimensional measurement of the thorax. She added that this last activity was also in progress for the 5th percentile female dummy. She underlined that the current activities of the informal group were conducted closely to those of the PSI informal group. AC.3 adopted the second progress report of the informal group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/88).

16. The GRRF Chair thanked CLEPA for the live demonstration on AEBS held during this GRRF session. The background of this presentation may be found in GRRF-70-07. A video on this demonstration as well as a press release may be found on the following website: http://live.unece.org/transwelcome/areas-of-work/vehicle-regulations/events/unece-live-demonstration-of-advanced-emergency-braking-systems-aebs.html. The chair also thanked OICA for the static demonstration showing special purpose and offroad vehicles where it could difficult to fit AEBS.

17. GRRF noted that Italy and the Russian Federation had submitted their national lane markings (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/91 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/89) to be used in the draft New Regulation on Lane Departure Warning systems.

[EU has begun the process of integrating the provisions of this new regulation into EU law; however, certain steps must be taken internally to establish the legal basis for its implementation. Therefore, the EU requests postponement of this vote at least until June and most probably until the November WP.29 session.]

As noted in paragraph 53 under agenda item 4.12 above, the World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item to its next session. The EU has not yet completed its internal review of the proposed regulation, but strongly suspects it will be positioned for a positive vote in November.

Proposal unanimously adopted.

18. The representative of ITU informed the World Forum about the possible collaboration between the secretariat of its organization and the WP.29 secretariat on Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). Accordingly, he announced that a draft memorandum of understanding on this collaboration would be finalized in short time.

19. WP.29 was informed about the latest developments of UNECE activities on ITS. The secretariat reported that the public consultation on the strategic package on ITS deployment received several comments from a broad range of stakeholders. WP.29 noted that upon consolidation of all the comments, the strategic package would be complemented by a road map to be presented and endorsed at the February 2012 session of the Inland Transport Committee (ITC). WP.29 requested the secretariat to make publicly available on the UNECE ITS website the comments received.

20. The World Forum adopted the guidelines on establishing requirements for highpriority warning signals (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/90) concerning ITS and requested the secretariat to distribute it as an annex to the report of the current session (as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1091/Add.1).

42. GRE noted that WP.29 had adopted, at its June 2011 session, the guidelines on establishing requirements for high-priority warning signals (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/90) as an annex to the report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1091/Add.1). The secretariat reported that the public consultation on the strategic package on ITS deployment had been completed and that upon consolidation of all the comments, the strategic package would be complemented by a road map (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/114) to be considered by WP.29 at its November 2011 session and by the Inland Transport Committee (ITC) at its February 2012 session.

16. The GRRF Chair thanked CLEPA for the live demonstration on AEBS held during this GRRF session. The background of this presentation may be found in GRRF-70-07. A video on this demonstration as well as a press release may be found on the following website: http://live.unece.org/transwelcome/areas-of-work/vehicle-regulations/events/unece-live-demonstration-of-advanced-emergency-braking-systems-aebs.html. The chair also thanked OICA for the static demonstration showing special purpose and offroad vehicles where it could difficult to fit AEBS.

17. GRRF noted that Italy and the Russian Federation had submitted their national lane markings (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/91 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/89) to be used in the draft New Regulation on Lane Departure Warning systems.

[EU has begun the process of integrating the provisions of this new regulation into EU law; however, certain steps must be taken internally to establish the legal basis for its implementation. Therefore, the EU requests postponement of this vote at least until June and most probably until the November WP.29 session.]

As noted in paragraph 53 under agenda item 4.12 above, the World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item to its next session. The EU has not yet completed its internal review of the proposed regulation, but strongly suspects it will be positioned for a positive vote in November.

Proposal unanimously adopted.