101. The representatives of the United States of America (WP.29-148-27) and OICA (WP.29-147-17) called their respective lists of priorities as presented at previous sessions. AC.3 noted that the development of gtrs on non-regulated matters had been more rapid and easier than the harmonization of current regulations. Nevertheless, AC.3 noted that gtrs based on existing regulations could be adopted, provided that comparative testing was performed, as in gtr No. 2 on motorcycle braking.

102. The representative of the EU reported that the consultation process with member States was in progress. Nevertheless, he announced that ITS development, EFV and electric vehicles could be selected as subjects for the development of new gtrs. The representative of India pointed out that the latest developed technologies had small penetration into the market, and he indicated that India was in the process of selecting new topics for future gtrs. The representative of Japan announced a list of priorities for the November 2010 session of AC.3. The Chair indicated that ISO had expressed its intention to report, at the same session, on the new areas being developed by ISO. The representative of CLEPA supported global harmonization but questioned whether the 1998 Agreement really delivered in this regard, in particular if gtrs were transposed with modifications into national law.

103. The representatives of OICA, CLEPA and IMMA were requested to report, to the next session of AC.3, on the new technologies being developed by manufacturers as well as a list of priorities. These representatives agreed to transmit this request to their members.

104. AC.3 agreed to define the new priorities for the development of gtrs at its November 2010 session.