94. The Chair of GRSP introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/146 for Addendum 1 to Mutual Resolution No. 1: Specifications for the Construction, Preparation and Certification of the 50th percentile male Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy, anthropomorphic test Device (BioRID-II UN). He explained that the body of the proposal introduced the general design of the dummy, including the essential dimensions and how they are checked.

95. The Chair of GRPE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/147 containing a proposal for a new amendment to Mutual Resolution No. 2, aiming to align vehicle propulsiotn system definitions with the latest Amendment 6 to UN GTR No. 15 and UN Regulation No. 154.

96. WP.29 considered and endorsed the proposals for amendments to Mutual Resolutions under agenda items 4.17.1. and 4.17.2. and submitted them to AC.3 for final approval.

125. The representative from Green NCAP introduced WP.29-183-19 presenting the activities and future plans of the Green NCAP partnership.

126. The representative from the United States of America shared the experience in his country, where the “Smart Way” program rated vehicles according to their environmental performance and top performers given more prominent visibility on United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) website. The tool proved to be effective for consumers and consumer organizations, such as the Consumer Reports which has endorsed the procedure developed by US EPA for their own independent environmental tests. He insisted that clear and transparent information are key to the success of such rating programs, as well described by Green NCAP.

127. The representative from the UK congratulated Green NCAP for the presentation and welcomed the introduction of a roadmap to widen the coverage, as some vehicles are already rating the maximum five stars. He insisted it would be important to include non-exhaust particles to be monitored and confirmed the continuous support from the UK in Green NCAP.

128. The representative from the Netherlands, Chair of GRPE, welcomed this Green NCAP presentation at WP.29 and the willingness from Green NCAP to use the legislative tools offered by UNECE in their test protocols. He further asked three questions on (1) non-exhaust particulates emissions on the possibility to use the procedure currently under development at GRPE, (2) the possibility by Green NCAP to look at lifetime compliance issues and environmental performance consistency over the years and (3) if the representative from Green NCAP could elaborate on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approaches mentioned.

129. The representative from the EU thanked the representative from Green NCAP for the interesting presentation and agreed that existing emission legislation in the EU had a margin for improvement, and reminded that the EU had started the process to develop Euro 7/VII legislation with a proposal to be released by the European Commission by the end of 2021.

130. The representative from Green NCAP answered that indeed non-exhaust particulates are expected to be included in the near future, and that Green NCAP is likely to use the procedure developed by GRPE once released. On the second question, he indicated that even though NCAP means New Car Assessment Program, Green NCAP is investigating durability issues with a view of including those into the rating, looking at different options such as testing aged vehicles from the fleet, using remote sensing or artificially-aged vehicles.

131. Finally, he emphasized that LCA issues are a hot topic in the present time, and could potentially add big value to the rating system. He mentioned that in the near future, Green NCAP was planning to look at including well-to-wheel fuel life cycle into the rating, instead of the present tank-to-wheel perspective. He also announced LCA consumer tool would be introduced in the course of 2022, but insisted that, to be meaningful, the number of vehicles tested would need to be higher. He also said Green NCAP expected the LCA tool to benefit from all the research and new science now being elaborated on the topic, but he saw that as a longer-term element to be included in the rating.

132. He concluded by thanking WP.29 for the interesting exchange and the opportunity to speak.

54. The representative from OICA introduced GRPE-82-28 presenting differences in definitions between the latest amendment to UN GTR No. 15 and M.R.2. He further outlined different options to solve the issues raised: (a) delete M.R.2 if not maintained; (b) automatically update M.R2 when updating UN Regulations; (c) review and correct inconsistencies on a regular basis; (d) expand to other vehicle categories.

55. The representative from Germany supported the continuous development and maintenance of M.R.2. The Chair recalled M.R.2 was a key issue for the former Chair and he agreed that M.R.2 needed to be kept up-to-date. The representative from EC reminded a decision from the seventy seventh session of GRPE which was left incomplete (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/77, para. 55.)

56. GRPE requested the secretariat to submit GRPE-82-28 as a working document including a draft proposal to amend M.R.2 during the next session of GRPE in June 2021.

70. The Chair introduced GRPE-80-04-Rev.1 as the GRPE list of emission topics that GRPE would regularly discuss and may decide to work on if and when resources are available. He reminded this list did not constitute a declaration of intent that the topics included would be tackled by GRPE in the future. He also recalled that keeping such a list open and regularly updated would allow GRPE to be more reactive when new issues arose and ready to cover new topics when pertinent. He reiterated GRPE-80-04-Rev.1 was to remain an GRPE internal document for its own use and information.

71. The representative from OICA requested more information about brake wear emissions topics and how to tackle this topic and by which GR. He also asked whether a more extensive definition of geofencing was available. The representative from EC thought brake emissions would preferably be considered at a vehicle scale and would preferably be considered in GRPE. The Chair emphasized that there would be close cooperation with other GRs working on brake issues, and confirmed GRPE was the appropriate GR to develop the new provisions on brake wear emissions.

72. The representative from India requested more clarity about the destination of the potential items, whether UN Regulation or UN GTR. The Chair clarified that the emission topic list was a starting point and its aim was not to contain any prescription on to which agreement each topic would go.

73. The representative from Spain asked whether the inclusion of life cycle analysis was referring to all vehicle and energy types. The Chair replied that life cycle analysis was still a nascent activity where legislative pathway still had to be defined. New energy types for vehicles needed to have a broad coverage, and he felt GRPE was not in a position to work on this yet.

74. The Chair introduced GRPE-80-05-Rev.2 as the draft list of priority for GRPE that WP.29/AC.2 requested each GR to send so that the coordination of tasks could be better overseen by WP.29/AC.2.

75. The representative from the Netherlands thanked the Chair for putting together this list and insisted that cars were more and more becoming computers on wheels and that vehicles would therefore evolve over their lifetime through software updates for example and that the issue of lifetime compliance was of high importance in his view.

76. The representative from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland insisted tyre wear particulates and heavy duty hybrids were two areas of particular concern for his country and was happy to see those topics reflected in the list.

77. GRPE adopted GRPE-80-05-Rev.2 as amended during the session (GRPE-80-05-Rev.3) and requested the Chair and secretariat to send it to WP.29 secretariat for further consideration by WP.29/AC.2.

70. The Chair introduced GRPE-80-04-Rev.1 as the GRPE list of emission topics that GRPE would regularly discuss and may decide to work on if and when resources are available. He reminded this list did not constitute a declaration of intent that the topics included would be tackled by GRPE in the future. He also recalled that keeping such a list open and regularly updated would allow GRPE to be more reactive when new issues arose and ready to cover new topics when pertinent. He reiterated GRPE-80-04-Rev.1 was to remain an GRPE internal document for its own use and information.

71. The representative from OICA requested more information about brake wear emissions topics and how to tackle this topic and by which GR. He also asked whether a more extensive definition of geofencing was available. The representative from EC thought brake emissions would preferably be considered at a vehicle scale and would preferably be considered in GRPE. The Chair emphasized that there would be close cooperation with other GRs working on brake issues, and confirmed GRPE was the appropriate GR to develop the new provisions on brake wear emissions.

72. The representative from India requested more clarity about the destination of the potential items, whether UN Regulation or UN GTR. The Chair clarified that the emission topic list was a starting point and its aim was not to contain any prescription on to which agreement each topic would go.

73. The representative from Spain asked whether the inclusion of life cycle analysis was referring to all vehicle and energy types. The Chair replied that life cycle analysis was still a nascent activity where legislative pathway still had to be defined. New energy types for vehicles needed to have a broad coverage, and he felt GRPE was not in a position to work on this yet.

74. The Chair introduced GRPE-80-05-Rev.2 as the draft list of priority for GRPE that WP.29/AC.2 requested each GR to send so that the coordination of tasks could be better overseen by WP.29/AC.2.

75. The representative from the Netherlands thanked the Chair for putting together this list and insisted that cars were more and more becoming computers on wheels and that vehicles would therefore evolve over their lifetime through software updates for example and that the issue of lifetime compliance was of high importance in his view.

76. The representative from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland insisted tyre wear particulates and heavy duty hybrids were two areas of particular concern for his country and was happy to see those topics reflected in the list.

77. GRPE adopted GRPE-80-05-Rev.2 as amended during the session (GRPE-80-05-Rev.3) and requested the Chair and secretariat to send it to WP.29 secretariat for further consideration by WP.29/AC.2.

69. The Chair introduced GRPE-83-35 as revised list of priorities to be shared with WP.29. The representative from the EC called for prior consultation within GRPE before including new element in the priority list.

70. The representative from Japan stated that carbon neutrality was now a crucial issue in the country and required the issue of life cycle analysis to be considered by GRPE as candidate to be included in the priority list, as was already the case in the GRPE emission items list (GRPE-80-04-Rev.1). the Chair agreed to consider this at the next session of GRPE in November 2021.

99. The Chair of GRPE introduced document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/71, explaining that the purpose of the amendment was to align the definition of “peripheral devices” with the one cited in UN GTR No. 15. The World Forum adopted the proposal for Amendment 1 to Mutual Resolution No.2 which contains Vehicle Propulsion System Definitions.

148. Submitted for consideration and vote, the proposal for Amendment 1 to a Mutual Resolution No. 2 which contains Vehicle Propulsion Systems Definitions (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/71) was adopted on 28 June 2019 by consensus vote of the following contracting parties present and voting:

1. Australia
2. Canada
3. European Union, representing
   • Cyprus
   • Finland
   • France
   • Germany
   • Hungary
   • Italy
   • Lithuania
   • Luxembourg
   • Netherlands
   • Romania
   • Slovakia
   • Slovenia
   • Spain
   • Sweden and
   • United Kingdom
4. India
5. Japan
6. Kazakhstan
7. Nigeria
8. Norway
9. Republic of Korea
10. Russian Federation
11. San Marino
12. South Africa and
13. the United States of America.

149. The representative from China abstained from voting.

57. The representative from OICA introduced GRPE-78-17, GRPE-78-18 and GRPE 78 19 proposing a scheme to maintain M.R.2. The Chair acknowledged the potential benefits of maintaining M.R.2 but required more time to find the best way forward. He invited each Contracting Party to consult internally on how to best perform this activity in the future. The representative from EC supported the future work on such activity.

57. The representative from OICA introduced GRPE-78-17, GRPE-78-18 and GRPE 78 19 proposing a scheme to maintain M.R.2. The Chair acknowledged the potential benefits of maintaining M.R.2 but required more time to find the best way forward. He invited each Contracting Party to consult internally on how to best perform this activity in the future. The representative from EC supported the future work on such activity.

57. The representative from OICA introduced GRPE-78-17, GRPE-78-18 and GRPE 78 19 proposing a scheme to maintain M.R.2. The Chair acknowledged the potential benefits of maintaining M.R.2 but required more time to find the best way forward. He invited each Contracting Party to consult internally on how to best perform this activity in the future. The representative from EC supported the future work on such activity.

56. The expert from EC with the support of the expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2019/5 clarifying the definition of peripheral devices. GRPE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2019/5 and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions as draft Amendment 1 to Mutual Resolution No. 2 (M.R.2).

55. The expert from EC introduced GRPE-77-12 on a clarification of definitions of peripheral devices. The expert from the United Kingdom further explained the proposal and required guidance from GRPE. GRPE requested the secretariat to distribute the document with an official symbol at the next session of GRPE in January 2019 and agreed that the Chair would request guidance from WP.29/AC.3 on modifications to Mutual Resolutions and if other working parties would like to provide an input to this proposal.