23. The secretariat reported that ITC had welcomed the session of the Chairs of its subsidiary bodies and that this session would be held on a periodic basis. The World Forum noted that the secretariat had informed ITC about the WP.29 Round Table on Climate Change and Transport, the UNDA project, the activities on ITS and those related to the World Forum, including recommendations for market fuel quality. The list of the main decisions taken by ITC, distributed as Informal documents Nos. 15 and 15/Add.1, is available at www.unece.org/trans/main/itc/itc_inf_73.html. The report of the session would be available as ECE/TRANS/221.

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.

23. The secretariat reported that ITC had welcomed the session of the Chairs of its subsidiary bodies and that this session would be held on a periodic basis. The World Forum noted that the secretariat had informed ITC about the WP.29 Round Table on Climate Change and Transport, the UNDA project, the activities on ITS and those related to the World Forum, including recommendations for market fuel quality. The list of the main decisions taken by ITC, distributed as Informal documents Nos. 15 and 15/Add.1, is available at www.unece.org/trans/main/itc/itc_inf_73.html. The report of the session would be available as ECE/TRANS/221.

23. The secretariat reported that ITC had welcomed the session of the Chairs of its subsidiary bodies and that this session would be held on a periodic basis. The World Forum noted that the secretariat had informed ITC about the WP.29 Round Table on Climate Change and Transport, the UNDA project, the activities on ITS and those related to the World Forum, including recommendations for market fuel quality. The list of the main decisions taken by ITC, distributed as Informal documents Nos. 15 and 15/Add.1, is available at www.unece.org/trans/main/itc/itc_inf_73.html. The report of the session would be available as ECE/TRANS/221.

18. The World Forum noted the position of GRE (WP.29-153-01) and GRSP (WP.29-153-09) on guidelines for establishing requirements for high-priority warning signals of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) (WP.29-150-22). The representative of the United Kingdom recalled that the lack of an agreed upon definition of ITS implies different levels of intelligent technology. He added that the main attempt of WP.29-150-22 is to define these different levels (or priorities) as a reference for future amendments to Regulations. WP.29 requested the informal group on ITS to finalize a consolidated proposal to be submitted at its June 2011 session for final adoption.

19. The World Forum noted that an ITS background document for information had been developed in collaboration with the Italian Ministry of Transport and the Society for national motorway Initiatives (SINA) and that a strategic note had been prepared by the WP.29 secretariat.

20. The secretariat reported that a public consultation on the strategy of UNECE for ITS deployment had been launched in February 2011. The consultation addressed to all Governments and interested stakeholders would be closed on 31 May 2011. All information was available on the UNECE Transport Division website (see: www.unece.org/trans/events/2011/ITS_Public_Consultation.html). Contributions should be submitted via e-mail: consultation@unece.org.

21. Once the consultation is closed, the secretariat would finalize the strategic note and would present the UNECE Road Map on ITS as a final outcome of the whole process. With the Road Map, UNECE aimed at defining concrete actions to foster the deployment of ITS globally. Such actions could be: annual Round Tables, capacity building workshops, incorporating ITS into the work of all UNECE Working Parties through its legal instruments, etc.

22. The representative of the Russian Federation was of the opinion that innovation challenges in transport, such as ITS, should be solved on a global scale and in a harmonized way. Accordingly, he expressed support to the initiative and offered active cooperation from his country.

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).

85. The secretariat informed WP.29 about the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011 – 2020, which would be globally launched on 11 May 2011. The Decade was officially proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in March 2010. It provides a framework to increase actions to save lives on the world’s roads. The secretariat explained that under Pillar 3 of the action plan “Safer vehicles”, activities of WP.29 were included, particularly under Activity 1 and Activity 7. This latter activity was considered relevant for the 1997 Agreement.

86. The suggestions by the secretariat were to: (a) identify those areas of Pillar 3 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 © invite the secretariat to participate in the meetings of the Evaluation Working Group that will be set up within this framework. WP.29 decided to revise this approach at the June 2011 session. The representative of the EU informed WP.29 about a similar initiative “Towards a European road safety area” for the same period of time 2011–2020.

67. The secretariat suggested that, after the adoption of UN Rule No. 2, two options could be considered for the future development of the Agreement: (a) Update UN Rule Nos. 1 and 2 to the same level of the corresponding EU Directives, or (b) to keep the UN Rules at a lower level that could allow developing an adequate level of Periodical Technical Inspections (PTI) to those countries without a PTI system. It was reminded that, at the March 2011 session, WP.29 representatives were invited to define their strategic position on this matter (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, para 83).

68. The representative of the Russian Federation recalled the importance of harmonized requirements for the construction of vehicles and, as a consequence, also of technical provisions for PTI. Both set of requirements contribute to improved road safety. He expressed his preference for a harmonized approach and insisted on the urgency to adopt UN Rule No. 2.

87. The World Forum noted that no progress was made by the Working Party on Road Safety (WP.1) at its September 2011 session on the link between the 1968 Vienna Convention and the 1997 Agreement. The representative of the Russian Federation underlined the importance of UN Rule No. 2 for road traffic safety and stated the wish of his country to enforce at it the earliest possible (time/date). In the meantime, he invited WP.1 to revise the Consolidated Resolution on Road Safety to take into account the roadworthiness provisions of UN Rule No. 2. Finally, he suggested contacting CITA representatives to ask their collaboration for a possible revision of the UN Rules.

53. Agenda item 4.7.2, Regulation No. 10, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/8, correct paragraph 6.8.1 to read:

“6.8.1. Method of testing
The immunity of ESA representative of its type shall be tested by the method(s) according to ISO 7637-2 (second edition 2004 and Amd1:2008) as described in Annex 10 with the test levels given in table 1.
……”

56. Regarding document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/8, under agenda item 4.7.2 (Regulation No. 10), the World Forum agreed to defer the consideration of the amendments proposed in WP.29-153-15 to its June 2011 session on the basis of an official document.

18. The World Forum noted the position of GRE (WP.29-153-01) and GRSP (WP.29-153-09) on guidelines for establishing requirements for high-priority warning signals of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) (WP.29-150-22). The representative of the United Kingdom recalled that the lack of an agreed upon definition of ITS implies different levels of intelligent technology. He added that the main attempt of WP.29-150-22 is to define these different levels (or priorities) as a reference for future amendments to Regulations. WP.29 requested the informal group on ITS to finalize a consolidated proposal to be submitted at its June 2011 session for final adoption.

19. The World Forum noted that an ITS background document for information had been developed in collaboration with the Italian Ministry of Transport and the Society for national motorway Initiatives (SINA) and that a strategic note had been prepared by the WP.29 secretariat.

20. The secretariat reported that a public consultation on the strategy of UNECE for ITS deployment had been launched in February 2011. The consultation addressed to all Governments and interested stakeholders would be closed on 31 May 2011. All information was available on the UNECE Transport Division website (see: www.unece.org/trans/events/2011/ITS_Public_Consultation.html). Contributions should be submitted via e-mail: consultation@unece.org.

21. Once the consultation is closed, the secretariat would finalize the strategic note and would present the UNECE Road Map on ITS as a final outcome of the whole process. With the Road Map, UNECE aimed at defining concrete actions to foster the deployment of ITS globally. Such actions could be: annual Round Tables, capacity building workshops, incorporating ITS into the work of all UNECE Working Parties through its legal instruments, etc.

22. The representative of the Russian Federation was of the opinion that innovation challenges in transport, such as ITS, should be solved on a global scale and in a harmonized way. Accordingly, he expressed support to the initiative and offered active cooperation from his country.

96. The Chair of the informal group on Phase 2 of gtr No. 7 introduced a proposal (WP.29-153-11) for a protocol to manage drawings, calibration and maintenance procedures associated with test tools referenced by Regulations annexed to the 1958 Agreement or by gtrs in the framework of the 1998 Agreement. He explained that this proposal would set out a methodology for indexing information files for each and any particular test device. For this purpose, he proposed to develop a common Resolution for the two Agreements. The representative of the United States of America suggested developing a gtr and a Regulation better addressing specific needs of the Contracting Parties to both Agreements. The representative of OICA believed that a simple solution would consist of a common Resolution as a “place holder” that would be kept updated in an easier way and whereby the various regulations could simply refer to this “place holder”. AC.3 agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its June 2011 session and requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-153-11 with an official symbol.

53. Agenda item 4.7.2, Regulation No. 10, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/8, correct paragraph 6.8.1 to read:

“6.8.1. Method of testing
The immunity of ESA representative of its type shall be tested by the method(s) according to ISO 7637-2 (second edition 2004 and Amd1:2008) as described in Annex 10 with the test levels given in table 1.
……”

56. Regarding document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/8, under agenda item 4.7.2 (Regulation No. 10), the World Forum agreed to defer the consideration of the amendments proposed in WP.29-153-15 to its June 2011 session on the basis of an official document.

84. WP.29 considered the proposals for amending the UN publication “WP.29; how it works, how to joint it”, known as the “Blue Book”. Contributions from China, Japan and the United States of America were announced. The representative of Germany suggested reorganizing Chart 1 (Organization of WP.29). WP.29 invited its representatives to submit their contributions and comments by 6 June 2011 and requested the secretariat to prepare a revised version of the publication for consideration at its June 2011 session.

93. Submitted for consideration and vote, the proposed Amendment 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/43) to gtr No. 6 was established in the Global Registry on 9 March 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, Turkey and United States of America.

94. The technical report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/44) and the adopted proposal for the development of the gtr (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/27) would be appended to the established amendment to the gtr.

4. The provisional annotated agenda for the session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1088) was adopted with the amendments noted below:

(a) Addition and amendments of agenda items:

4.2.1. Guidance requested by GRSG regarding the introduction of the concept of revisions of approvals and by GRRF regarding the interpretation of the extension of approvals in the framework of the 1958 Agreement;

4.13. Consideration of draft corrigenda to existing Regulations submitted by the secretariat;

4.13.1. Proposal for Corrigendum 2 to Revision 2 of No. Regulation 87 (Daytime running lamps) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/53).

8.9. Safer vehicles as the third pillar of the Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020.

(b) Addition and correction of document references for items:

3.1. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/50/Corr.1

3.4. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/78/Corr.1.

4.7.6. For ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2010/68 read ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2009/68

4.7.10. Add at the end and on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2010/42, as amended by Annex IV to the report

4.10.9. Add at the end based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2010/56, not amended

4.10.11. For Proposal for Corrigendum 4 to Revision 6 read Proposal for Corrigendum 3 to Revision 6

4.13.1. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/53

7.3. and 23. Delete the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/49

8.6. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/42/Corr.1

© Items or documents postponed for a further session:

4.12.1. and 4.12.2.

(d) Items deleted from the agenda:

4.2.3.

5. The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I to this report.

Note: For Annex I, please download the full report from the “Documentation” section of this page.

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.

99. The Chair of the informal group on Phase 2 of gtr No. 7, introduced WP.29-153-28 and WP.29-153-29, containing respectively a proposal for amending the terms of reference and the second progress report of the informal group. He explained that the group was focusing on a dynamic test to mitigate both short and long-term whiplash injuries rather than on low and high test speed pulse as was previously agreed upon in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/25. He concluded that a gtr proposal was scheduled for adoption by AC.3 in June 2013, pending the finalization of injury criteria. AC.3 adopted WP.29-153-28 and requested the secretariat to prepare a revised version developing the amendment and to transmit it to GRSP. AC.3 also requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-153-29 with an official symbol.

99. The Chair of the informal group on Phase 2 of gtr No. 7, introduced WP.29-153-28 and WP.29-153-29, containing respectively a proposal for amending the terms of reference and the second progress report of the informal group. He explained that the group was focusing on a dynamic test to mitigate both short and long-term whiplash injuries rather than on low and high test speed pulse as was previously agreed upon in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/25. He concluded that a gtr proposal was scheduled for adoption by AC.3 in June 2013, pending the finalization of injury criteria. AC.3 adopted WP.29-153-28 and requested the secretariat to prepare a revised version developing the amendment and to transmit it to GRSP. AC.3 also requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-153-29 with an official symbol.

84. WP.29 considered the proposals for amending the UN publication “WP.29; how it works, how to joint it”, known as the “Blue Book”. Contributions from China, Japan and the United States of America were announced. The representative of Germany suggested reorganizing Chart 1 (Organization of WP.29). WP.29 invited its representatives to submit their contributions and comments by 6 June 2011 and requested the secretariat to prepare a revised version of the publication for consideration at its June 2011 session.

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.

103. The representative of Germany introduced the work progress and the new work plan of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles (HFCV) subgroup on safety (SGS) (WP.29-153-35). He informed AC.3 that a special task force meeting took place in November 2010 in Berlin where the participants discussed and tried to resolve outstanding issues. He added that as an outcome of that meeting, the group agreed to take further time to validate requirements of the draft gtr. He sought AC.3’s endorsement to extend the mandate of SGS activity until the end of 2011 to allow the submission of the final proposal to the December 2011 session of GRSP. He expected that the draft gtr would be recommended to AC.3 for consideration and voting at its June 2012 session, instead of November 2011. AC.3 endorsed the half-year extension of the SGS work plan.

104. Concerning the subgroup on environmental issues (SGE), he reported that an informal document had been considered by GRPE at its January 2011 session and endorsed by GRB at its February 2011 session. He expected GRPE to adopt the formal proposal at its June 2011 session. He announced a more detailed report on this subject at the next 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.

84. WP.29 considered the proposals for amending the UN publication “WP.29; how it works, how to joint it”, known as the “Blue Book”. Contributions from China, Japan and the United States of America were announced. The representative of Germany suggested reorganizing Chart 1 (Organization of WP.29). WP.29 invited its representatives to submit their contributions and comments by 6 June 2011 and requested the secretariat to prepare a revised version of the publication for consideration at its June 2011 session.

84. WP.29 considered the proposals for amending the UN publication “WP.29; how it works, how to joint it”, known as the “Blue Book”. Contributions from China, Japan and the United States of America were announced. The representative of Germany suggested reorganizing Chart 1 (Organization of WP.29). WP.29 invited its representatives to submit their contributions and comments by 6 June 2011 and requested the secretariat to prepare a revised version of the publication for consideration at its June 2011 session.

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”.

4. The provisional annotated agenda for the session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1088) was adopted with the amendments noted below:

(a) Addition and amendments of agenda items:

4.2.1. Guidance requested by GRSG regarding the introduction of the concept of revisions of approvals and by GRRF regarding the interpretation of the extension of approvals in the framework of the 1958 Agreement;

4.13. Consideration of draft corrigenda to existing Regulations submitted by the secretariat;

4.13.1. Proposal for Corrigendum 2 to Revision 2 of No. Regulation 87 (Daytime running lamps) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/53).

8.9. Safer vehicles as the third pillar of the Global Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020.

(b) Addition and correction of document references for items:

3.1. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/50/Corr.1

3.4. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/78/Corr.1.

4.7.6. For ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2010/68 read ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2009/68

4.7.10. Add at the end and on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2010/42, as amended by Annex IV to the report

4.10.9. Add at the end based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2010/56, not amended

4.10.11. For Proposal for Corrigendum 4 to Revision 6 read Proposal for Corrigendum 3 to Revision 6

4.13.1. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/53

7.3. and 23. Delete the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/49

8.6. Add the reference to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/42/Corr.1

© Items or documents postponed for a further session:

4.12.1. and 4.12.2.

(d) Items deleted from the agenda:

4.2.3.

5. The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I to this report.

Note: For Annex I, please download the full report from the “Documentation” section of this page.

87. The World Forum adopted the report, together with the annexes, on its 153rd session.

4. GRPE noted the main points of the report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089 on the last session of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).

4. GRPE noted the main points of the report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089 on the last session of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).

4. GRPE noted the main points of the report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089 on the last session of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).

17. The World Forum noted the programme of work and availability of documentation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/1). WP.29 representatives were requested to revise the programme of work and to communicate to the secretariat any amendment deemed necessary. The World Forum noted that the ITC had endorsed the additional session of GRRF, scheduled to be held in Geneva on 12 and 13 May 2011.

Proposal to introduce minimum performance standards for replacement brake discs and drums for vehicles of categories M, N and O.

52. Agenda item 4.7.1, Regulation No. 7, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/7, page 2, the proposed amendment to paragraph 6.1.8. shall be deleted.

53. Agenda item 4.7.2, Regulation No. 10, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/8, correct paragraph 6.8.1 to read:

“6.8.1. Method of testing
The immunity of ESA representative of its type shall be tested by the method(s) according to ISO 7637-2 (second edition 2004 and Amd1:2008) as described in Annex 10 with the test levels given in table 1.
……”

56. Regarding document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/8, under agenda item 4.7.2 (Regulation No. 10), the World Forum agreed to defer the consideration of the amendments proposed in WP.29-153-15 to its June 2011 session on the basis of an official document.

Adopted and integrated into UN R98: Revision 3.

Proposal to introduce specific provisions for vehicles with the driver seated in the central driving position.

Proposal to transpose the requirements of global technical regulation No. 6 into Regulation No. 43.

19. GRSG considered GRSG-100-04 from CLEPA proposing to amend Regulation No. 43 on the burn rate for rigid plastic panes. GRSG agreed that this proposal should be considered in detail by the informal group on plastic glazing. The secretariat was requested to make GRSG-100-04 available with an official symbol for the next session of GRSG.

20. GRSG considered GRSG-100-05 from CLEPA proposing editorial corrections to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 43. GRSG adopted GRSG-100-05 as reproduced in Annex V to this report, and requested the secretariat to insert these corrections when issuing the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 43.

21. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-100-17 on the progress of the informal group on plastic glazing. GRSG agreed to discuss the issue of the sampling methods used for the headform test at its next session. GRSG noted that the next meeting would be held on 14 and 15 June 2011 in Hamburg (Germany) and agreed to keep as reference document GRSG-99-25 on the draft schedule of work of the informal group.

54. Recalling the discussion at its previous GRPE session on an updated version of the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), the secretariat informed GRPE that a revised proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/42 has been prepared, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2009/123 and Corr.1 to 4. GRPE noted that a definition for non-road mobile machinery has been inserted, as proposed by the Working Party on General Safety provisions (GRSG).

93. Submitted for consideration and vote, the proposed Amendment 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/43) to gtr No. 6 was established in the Global Registry on 9 March 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, Turkey and United States of America.

94. The technical report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/44) and the adopted proposal for the development of the gtr (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/27) would be appended to the established amendment to the gtr.

93. Submitted for consideration and vote, the proposed Amendment 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/43) to gtr No. 6 was established in the Global Registry on 9 March 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, Turkey and United States of America.

94. The technical report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/44) and the adopted proposal for the development of the gtr (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/27) would be appended to the established amendment to the gtr.

51. The secretariat informed GRPE about the draft conclusions of the Round Table held at its June 2010 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/141) and WP.29’s decision to replace Chapter IV of the document by a summary of the presentations given during the Round Table. He stated that the updated proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/46 had recently been submitted to WP.29 for consideration at the March 2011 session. He recalled that all documents and background information on the WP.29 Round Table were available at: www.unece.org/trans/events/ClimateChange_Transport.html.

34. GRE noted that WP.29 at its March 2011 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, paras. 80-81) agreed to transmit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/47 to the Working Party on Road Safety (WP.1) for consideration at their March 2011 session. GRE noted that WP.1 would resume consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/47 in details at its September 2011 session.

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.

41. GRE noted that the Working Party on Road Traffic safety (WP.1) would consider ECE/TRANS/WP.1/2011/4 based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/47 at its next session on 19-21 March 2012 in Geneva. GRE noted that most of the changes introduced to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/47 in ECE/TRANS/WP.1/2011/4, as shown in GRE-66-16 were editorial.

90. The World Forum noted that the Secretary of the Working Party on Road Safety (WP.1) had informed the secretariat of WP.29 that no new information was available regarding the proposal by WP.29 to eliminate inconsistencies on lighting and lightsignalling devices since the proposal was transmitted following the March 2011 session of WP.29. Moreover, no new information was available on the progress of the work of the virtual group of experts of WP.1 concerning the obligation that “every driver shall at all times be able to control his vehicle” (Articles 8.(5) and 13.(1) of the 1968 Vienna Convention) and on the development of the driver’s assistance concept.

91. It was also noted that a Round Table concerning the “consistency between the 1968 Convention on Road Traffic and other legal instruments” was scheduled for 19 March 2012 with the participation of the WP.29 secretariat. The Round Table programme is available here. The WP.29 secretariat was requested to provide WP.1 representatives with information regarding the functioning of WP.29 and how the decisions are taken for the adoption of UN Regulations and UN Global Technical Regulations as well as on the main provisions of draft UN Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). The representative of EU stated that from an analysis of the draft UN Regulation, no inconsistency was found with, amongst others, the provisions of the 1968 Vienna Convention.

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.

Request to list in the Compendium of candidate global technical regulations (compendium of candidates) the United States of America Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation programmes for Light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

[Japan hopes the adoption of this new regulation will add momentum to the work on phase 2 of the pedestrian safety GTR and UN Regulation.

Adopted by AC.1.]

84. WP.29 considered the proposals for amending the UN publication “WP.29; how it works, how to joint it”, known as the “Blue Book”. Contributions from China, Japan and the United States of America were announced. The representative of Germany suggested reorganizing Chart 1 (Organization of WP.29). WP.29 invited its representatives to submit their contributions and comments by 6 June 2011 and requested the secretariat to prepare a revised version of the publication for consideration at its June 2011 session.

66. The World Forum considered the draft corrigenda under agenda item 4.13.1, and recommended its submission to AC.1 for voting.

126 No new information was provided for this agenda item.

114. The representative of EU informed AC.3 that the work of the GRPE informal working group on heavy duty hybrids (HDH) was delayed but still within the overall time line. He added that a final proposal was expected to be submitted to GRPE for consideration at its June 2013 session.

83. The representative of the EU reported on the development of UN GTR No. 4. He mentioned that several technical questions were still under consideration. He informed AC.3 that phase 1 of the validation test would conclude by the end of 2012 and that phase 2 of the validation test would conclude by the end of 2013. Finally, he indicated that the text of the UN GTR would be ready by end of 2013.

98. The representative of EU informed AC.3 that, despite some delay in the work of the GRPE informal working group on heavy duty hybrids, the activities on the further development of UN GTR No. 4 were expected to remain within the overall time line. The text of the UN GTR should be ready by end of 2013 and, as anticipated, adopted by 2014.

34. GRPE endorsed the proposal of the HDH Chair to widen the mandate of the group to include amendments aligning UN GTR No. 4 with UN GTR No. 11. GRPE requested the sponsor (EU) to submit an informal document illustrating the choice to widen the mandate to the March 2014 session of WP.29 and AC.3, amending document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/29.

[Vote postponed until the March session. The GTR allows option between semi-validated HILS and fully validated power pack methods. US EPA believes there must be a robust understanding of the correlation between the two methods and the testing to build this understanding is incomplete. Therefore, while the US is committed to the GTR amendment, the US requests a delay. Canada and Japan support this request and need for the additional data.]

109. The representative of the United States of America kindly requested AC.3 to postpone consideration of draft Amendment 3 to UN GTR No. 4 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/ 2014/84, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/85 and the authorization to develop a corresponding amendment (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/29)) because his country was still performing tests on the potential differences between the two alternatives in the proposed Annexes 9 and 10 and on their implications. He added that the test results would probably be shared with the other Contracting Parties at the January 2015 session of GRPE. The Chair noted that another Contracting Party also requested a delay in the vote until their clearance process had been completed. The Contracting Parties welcomed the statements and agreed to postpone consideration of the amendment and the vote by AC.3 to the March 2015 session.