Annex 4 (“List of requirements for the purpose of IWVTA: List of regulatory acts”) contains the list of UN Regulations that would comprise the whole vehicle type approvals.

OICA request to omit the proposed declaration of conformity provisions from the first phase implementation of the IWVTA, essentially arguing that the additional declaration is not justified in the context of type approval.

Proposal to insert language into the definition of a vehicle type clarifying the application (or non-application) of regulations included in the IWVTA across variants of a single type-approved vehicle in order to avoid scenarios where a single vehicle type could have more than one type approval or an approval under a non-applicable regulation (say, electrified vehicle requirements for a non-electrified variant of a vehicle type) could be demanded for a vehicle variant.

Proposal for provisions concerning a “Declaration of Conformance” for vehicles approved under the International Whole Vehicle Type Approval regulation.

Motor vehicle manufacturer perspectives and recommendations towards defining uniform classifications, terms, and references to facilitate discussions on requirements for autonomous vehicle technologies.

OICA raises a number of concerns over the direction of the AECS discussions including implications for all “connectivity” technologies. OICA stresses need for AECS to establish true harmonization through performance (rather than design) requirements and for mutual recognition under the 1958 Agreement as well as to maintain the focus on vehicles (as opposed to unwarranted digressions into broader infrastructure, telecommunications systems, bandwidth, etc.).

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