Transmitted by Technical Secretary
Doc. No.IWVTA-13-01
Minutes of the 12th Session of the Informal Group of IWVTA
Date & time: March 8 (Friday), 2013, 10:00-15:00
Venue: OICA (Paris)
Participants: Messrs. Gauvin (Chairman), Renders (Co-chairman/EC)
Onoda (Co-chairman/Japan), Hubert (UNECE TD)
France, Germany, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation,
South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom
OICA, CLEPA, ETRTO, JASIC, Total: 37 participants
Agenda 1.Adoption of the agenda (IWVTA-12-02-Rev.2)

The provisional agenda was adopted without any comments.
Agenda 2.Adoption of the report of the 9th IWVTA Informal meeting (IWVTA-12-01)

The report of the 11th IWVTA Informal meeting was adopted without any comments.
Agenda 3.Report from the 4th & 5th Sub-group “1958 Agreement”
(IWVTA-SG58-05-01, IWVTA-SG58-06-01)

The Sub-group Chair reported on the recent activities of Sub-group “1958 Agreement”.
- 50 proposed actions have been reflected in the proposed revision of the 1958 Agreement.
The guidance by IWVTA Informal Group will be sought for the other proposed actions
which were recognized by the Sub-group.
- The major purposes of the revision of the 1958 Agreement are as follows.
(1) Increase the attractiveness of the 1958 Agreement and also increase the number of
Contracting Parties to the Agreement by;
i) allowing to issue type approvals pursuant to earlier versions of UN Regulations
ii) allowing proxy voting (this still needs legal checking)
(2) Improve the quality and the reliability of the 1958 Agreement by;
iii) giving legal status to the guidelines related to the 1958 Agreement.
(3) enable the implementation of IWVTA
For guidance by IWVTA IG 1: whether or not to minimize the amendments
For guidance by IWVTA IG 10: the appropriate legal status of placeholder
（SG58-12-05-Rev.1、SG58-12-06）

Japan insisted that the volume of amendments of the revised Agreement should be kept
to the minimum in order to ensure the smooth approval of the revised Agreement by all
the Contracting Parties.

The Chairman commented on the importance to get approvals by non European
countries. The Chairman continued that the failure to get approval by only one
Contracting Party would prevent the 1958 Agreement from being revised.
Transmitted by Technical Secretary








Doc. No.IWVTA-13-01
Korea supported Japan. Korea pointed out that inclusion of the detailed provisions into
the Agreement make the volume of the amendments very large.
The Netherlands and South Africa supported the current proposal of the revision of the
Agreement.
[The Russian Federation agreed with Japan as to minimizing amendments.]
EC underlined the necessity to start consideration of the proposed revision of the 1958
Agreement by WP.29 without delay in order to give each CP as much time as possible
for consideration.
The Chairman stated that it would be necessary to start consideration of the proposed
revision of the 1958 Agreement by WP.29 by November, this year at the latest. It would
be necessary to know the domestic process (close examinations by both of foreign and
legal offices, approval by Parliament, if necessary, etc.) of non European countries to
approve the proposed revision of the 1958 Agreement. Approval process of six months
would be started only after all CPs confirm from legal and other viewpoints.
UNECE TD, referring to response from OLA, stated that having two different procedures
to amend Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 respectively would not be a problem because
there is a precedent.
Japan asked whether or not a placeholder could have other names than “appendix”?
The Chairman pointed out the possibility to name the placeholder “Special Resolution”
annexed to the Agreement instead of appendix. The Chairman wished WP.29 could find
the way which would be acceptable to every CP.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will seek guidance on the legal status of the
placeholder and the associated issues from WP.29.
For guidance by IWVTA IG 2: Japanese reservation on paragraph 5 & 6 of Preamble
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group agreed on the amended paragraphs of
Preamble proposed by the Sub-group
(The second paragraph desires to reduce technical barriers, the third paragraph
recognizes the importance of safety and environmental protection performance, the
sixth paragraph desires to establish IWVTA, and the seventh paragraph desires to
increase the number of Contracting Parties by improving its functioning and reliability.)



For guidance by IWVTA IG 3: whether or not it is legally possible to refer to RE3 in
the1958 Agreement
UNECE TD, referring to response from OLA, stated that it is legally possible to refer to
RE3 in the 1958 Agreement. However, once RE3 is referred to in the 1958 Agreement, it
has the same legal status as the 1958 Agreement, which makes it difficult to amend it.
Germany suggested taking this opportunity to change RE3 into a UN Regulation.
The Chairman stated that RES is a Resolution and not a part of the Agreement.
Transmitted by Technical Secretary

Doc. No.IWVTA-13-01
EC stated that UN Regulations often refer to RE3 in the footnote, when necessary. EC
proposed the same approach could be taken in UN R0.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group agreed that RE3 should not be directly referred
to in the 1958 Agreement. Instead, IWVTA Informal Group should
consider exploring another approach such as referring to RE3 by the
footnote of UN Regulations, including in UN R0
For guidance by IWVTA IG 4: Korean proposal on self-certification issue
（IWVTA-12-04 rev 3）

Korea proposed that Contracting Parties should be allowed to use only technical


requirements of UN Regulations without COP requirements because there are no COP
requirements in countries adopting self-certification system like Korea.
OICA questioned whether or not the 1958 Agreement would allow partial application of
UN Regulations.
Korea stated that Korea could not apply UN Regulations without detaching COP
requirements because COP standards are sometimes lower than that of certification.
Therefore, Korea applies no UN Regulations at the moment.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will seek guidance from WP.29.
For guidance by IWVTA IG 5: Japanese reservation on the structure of Article 1

This subject is covered by agenda item “For guidance by IWVTA IG 1”.
For guidance by IWVTA IG 6: Korean proposal on self-certifying marking

Korea stated that UN type approval marking and Korea self-certification marking
contradict each other because they have different characteristics.

EC replied that provisions of Article 3 could not be changed for the sake of
self-certification system.

OICA suggested that Korea could take a twofold approach, i.e., use of type approval
system under the 1958 Agreement for export purposes and use of self-certification


system for domestic registration.
Korea replied that it might be only a possibility at this stage.
The Russian Federation stated that the 1958 Agreement was established for countries
adopting type approval system whereas the 1998 Agreement was established for
counties adopting self-certification system. It is difficult to combine the two systems.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will seek guidance from WP.29.
Transmitted by Technical Secretary
Doc. No.IWVTA-13-01
For guidance by IWVTA IG 7: whether or not recall is outside the scope of the 1958




Agreement
EC stated harmonization of recall system has its merit.
Japan pointed out that basic concepts between type approval system and recall system
are different. Type approval is to verify compliance with the UN Regulations whereas
recall is to address serious risk to road safety and/or environment beyond the framework
of the 1958 Agreement.
OICA agreed with Japan. OICA stated that inclusion of recall system in the 1958
Agreement would change the scope of the Agreement, which might bring about various
new issues that have to be settled. IWVTA Informal Group might get into a mess.
The Russian Federation stated that the recall issue should be addressed by each
country.
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will seek guidance from WP.29.
For guidance by IWVTA IG 8: possible change to the 2/3 majority voting rule

No specific discussion was made on this subject..
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will ask for guidance of WP.29.
For guidance by IWVTA IG 9: proposal for the use of DETA
Conclusion: The IWVTA Informal Group will wait for the response of WP.29 to the
report submitted by DETA Informal Group
For guidance by IWVTA IG 11:
proxy voting
Conclusion: UNECE Secretariat would check the legal possibility of proxy voting.
４． Report from the 4th and the 5th Sub-group “UN R0”

The Sub-group Chair reported on the result of the 5th Sub-group meeting as follows.
(IWVTA-SGR0-06-01)


The Sub-group agreed that Explanatory Note (EN) is a note to explain UNR0 and reflects
what SGR0 has agreed, and that important points which need further discussion would
be added in the EN once the Sub-group reaches conclusions.
The Sub-group agreed to consider the following discussion papers at the next Sub-group
meeting.
(1) discussion paper “Rights and obligations of Contracting Parties applying UN R0”
to be prepared based on the input by EC, UK, Korea, Japan and OICA
(2) discussion paper “Handling of If-fitted requirements” to be prepared by Japan and
OICA
Transmitted by Technical Secretary
Doc. No.IWVTA-13-01
(3) discussion paper “Clarification of IWVTA Step 1” to be prepared by Japan

(4) discussion paper “Q&A document to explain flexible IWVTA scheme” to be
prepared by Germany
(5) “Updated version of the EN” to be prepared by the Russian Federation
Japan proposed the concrete image of IWVTA “Step 1” (a set of UN type approvals
required for IWVTA + checkup of a complete vehicle to confirm its equipment with
certified systems and parts + COP). It was noted that IWVTA scheme in each step
should be upgraded to the next step without completely changing the scheme. Japan
would resubmit the document “Clarification regarding transitional process for IWVTA” to
the 6th Sub-group meeting for further consideration.
５．Preparation of draft proposals for the revised 1958 Agreement to be submitted to
WP.29 at its 159th session

IWVTA Informal Group agreed on the consolidated drafting proposals for the revised
1958 Agreement (IWVTA-SG58-03-02-Rev.3) submitted by Sub-group “1958
Agreement” with the following modifications.
-
Remove the square brackets in the second and the third paragraphs of Preamble.
Delete the second sentence of Article 1.1 (f) concerning RE3.
６． Other

It was agreed to hold IWVTA meetings as follows;
-
June 19 (Wednesday) at OICA, in Paris: the 6th Sub-group “UN R0” meeting
June 20 (Thursday) at OICA, in Paris: the 6th Sub-group “1958 Agreement”
meeting (The Sub-group “UN R0” meeting may continue if the Sub-group “1958
Agreement” meeting adjourns early.)
- June 21 (Friday) at OICA, in Paris: the 13th IWVTA Informal Group meeting
Note) Unlike the previous practice, Sub-group “UN R0” meeting comes first.

All the meeting documents should be submitted to Technical Secretary by June 5
(Wednesday), 2013.
Transmitted by Technical Secretary
Doc. No.IWVTA-13-01
Attendant List
NAME
Country or organization
1
Mr. Bernard Gauvin
Chairman
2
Mr. Phillipe Jean
European Commission
3
Mr. J. Renders
European Commission / Co-chairman
4
Mr. Takao Onoda
JAPAN / Co-chairman
5
Mr. Romain Hubert
UNECE TD
6
Mr. Harry Jongenelen
The Netherlands
7
Mr. Tony Stenning
UK
8
Mr. Frank Wrobel
Germany
9
Mr. Steve Morgan
South Africa
10
Mr. Ignacio Lafuente Buil
Spain/ IDIADA, GRRF IWVTA Ambassador
11
Mr. Ignacio Blanco
Spain/ INTA
12
Mr. Miguel A. Robledo
Spain/ INTA, GRPE IWVTA Ambassador
13
Mr. Jose Prieto
Spain/ Ministry of Industry
14
Mr. Boris Kisulenko
The Russian Federation
15
Mr. Andrey Bocharov
The Russian Federation
16
Mr. S. Ficheux
France
17
Mr. Hyoung Gu Kim
Korea/ KATRI
18
Mr. Kyun Sung Park
Korea/ MLTMA
19
Mr. Seong Kyun Cho
Korea/ MLTMA
20
Mr. Tsuneki Matsuo
Japan
21
Mr. Kazuya Nakao
Japan
22
Mr. Kenichi Hayashi
Japan/ NTSEL
23
Mr. Peter Schramm
OICA
24
Mr. Haldun Turan
OICA
25
Mr. Dominique Mennesson
OICA
26
Mr. Tadaomi Akiba
OICA
27
Mr. Michio Miyamoto
OICA
28
Mr. Ben Van Assche
OICA
29
Mr. Rainhold Labza
OICA
30
Mr. Kaneo Kubo
OICA
31
Mr. Toshiharu Matsuoka
OICA
32
Mr. Torsten Janzyk
OICA
33
Mr. Louis-Sylvain Ayral
CLEPA
34
Mr. Jean-Claude Noirhomme
ETRTO
35
Mr. Masahiko Sakai
Japan/ JASIC
36
Mr. Ushio Ueno
Japan/ JASIC
37
Mr. Ryuzo Oshita
Japan/ JASIC, Technical Secretary