Necessary work to prepare for WP29 & GRs

1. Necessary work to prepare for WP29 & GRs Speaker : Economy : Japan

2. Necessary work to prepare for WP29 & GRs.Contents 1. Activities of Japan at WP29 and GRs 2. Framework of Japan for WP29 and GRs 3. Basic Policy of Japan for WP29 and GRs 4. Necessary work in JASIC Committee 5. Conclusion

3. 1. Activities of Japan at WP29 and GRs • Participating as an observer since 1977 • Acceding to 1958 Agreement in 1998, to 1998 Agreement in 1999 • Proposals for amendments of ECE Regulations increased while applyingECE Regulations steadily Number of ECE Regulations which Japan applied 50 40 30 20 10 Number of the Japanese proposals at GRs etc.

4. 2. Framework of Japan for WP29 and GRs JASIC（Japan Automobile Standards Internationalization Center) (International section of a Nonprofit Organization） http://www.jasic.org/e/index_e.htm ・Geneva Office （Collecting information and contacting with people concerned in Europe） ・Washington D.C. Office （ Collecting information and contacting with people concerned in the U.S. ） Members ・Government ・Research Institutes （Governmental、Private） ・Technical Service Institutes ・Automotive Industry （Vehicle、Component） WP29 Committee for WP29 Determine the policy for WP29 Each committee for each GR Each GR Determine the policy for each GR Attendants from Japan ・Government (HOD) ・Chair of the each JASIC committee ・Secretary from Geneva office ・Experts, If necessary JASIC Secretary at Head Office （JASIC operation, Collecting Information, etc.）

5. Budget summary of JASIC operation • Government contributes about 60% of the operation cost of JASIC. • Industry and Other organizations contribute the rest of it. (Principal expenditure) ・Travel costs to attend WP29 and GRs : About $200,000 / year ・Research costs : About $300,000 / year ・Costs related to the overseas offices : About $900,000 / year 5

6. 3. Basic stance of Japan for WP29 and GRs “First, there is a need to provide higher levels of vehicle safety, environmental protection, energy efficiency and vehicle security. Second, there is a need to reduce the diversity of regulatory requirements regarding vehicle safety and environmental performance in order to facilitate global commerce in these products.” -From the booklet “World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP. 29) How it works How to join it”-(http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29pub.html) • The aim of WP29 activities In order to meet the needs above, WP29 including Japan promotes “International harmonization of motor vehicle regulations” and “mutual recognition of type approval for motor vehicles”. Harmonization of Regulations Mutual Recognition of type approval ・Vehicles with higher levels of vehicle safety, environment protection, etc. can be sold easily by promoting the mutual recognition of type approval using high level regulations. ・Regulations which enable to realize higher levels of vehicle safety, environment protection, etc. can be made available in the world. Concept of mutual recognition of type approval Country B No need for further type approval Country C Application Type approval Country A Country D Accept Country A’s type approval

7. Minimum Requirement Principle It is necessary to have regulations which provide higher levels of vehicle safety, environmental protection, energy efficiency and vehicle security, but regulations which restrict the social activities should be the bare minimum. • In spite of the effort to amend the provisions of an ECE Regulation, it sometimes happens that the amendment proposal is not accepted at GR and the requirements of the ECE Regulation are more restricted than those of domestic regulation. • In this case, when applying the ECE Regulation, the Japanese government has to modify the requirements of the ECE Regulation for domestic vehicles to make it bare minimum considering the Minimum Requirement Principle with justification using the accident data, technical circumstances, etc. to have people in Japan understood. • Justification is usually made of comparison between the effectiveness of enforcing the requirement and the increase of the vehicle cost by it. This justification would be used to examine the responsibility of the government for the loss made by accidents, pollution, etc. • We still need to continue seeking the harmonized requirements by conducting research, etc. , even if this kind of case happens. 7

8. 4. Necessary work in JASIC committee for WP29 and GRs (1)Discussion and study for necessary proposals to apply ECE Regulations (2)Discussion and study concerning applied ECE Regulations (3)Discussion and study concerning other ECE Regulations Remark : “Clear Justification” and ”Communication” are two of the most important things to make a proposal, opinion, etc. accepted at WP29 and GRs. -Clear Justification : Demonstrating with scientific data from research result with accident analyses, cost analyses, etc. -Communication :Information exchanges and negotiations with people in the countries concerned prior to the meetings

9. (1) Examples of Discussion and study for necessary proposal to apply ECE Regulations (Example #1) At GRSG, to apply R125(Forward field of vision), Japan made a proposal to add a requirement which is already required by domestic regulation in Japan. India made a proposal related to the Japanese proposal (mentioned above) and GRSG decided to have Japan and India consult with each other and come up with the new proposal Japanese proposal (Category M1,N1) Indian proposal (Category M1,M2,M3,N1,N2,N3) (Details) http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2002/wp29grsg/TRANS-WP29-GRSG-2002-09e.pdf (Details) http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2005/wp29grsg/TRANS-WP29-GRSG-2005-18e.pdf (For justification) ・To consult with India about how to come up with the new proposal, JASIC Committee will conduct research considering the priority of the requirements concerning field and categories. (For communication) ・To come up with the new proposal, JASIC Committee will consult with India using the research result and a draft proposal.

10. (1) Examples of Discussion and study for necessary proposal to apply ECE Regulations (Example #2) At GRSG, to apply R121(Hand controls, tell-tales and indicators), Japan provided with research result which showed the necessity of improving current provision relating to the location of the control devices from a driver to consider the small people’s relatively limited reach. Said provision is like this 5.1.1. The controls to be used by a driver while driving the vehicle shall be located so that they are operable by this driver under the conditions of paragraph 5.6.2. 5.6.2. The driver is restrained by the installed crash protection system, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and is free to move within constraints of that system. (Extract of research result) (Details) http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2008/wp29grsg/GRSG-94-13e.pdf (For justification) ・To improve the provision, JASIC Committee is trying to draft the amendment proposal to R121 using the research result considering the necessity of the simple test method conducted easily by inspectors. 10

11. (1) Examples of Discussion and study for necessary proposal to apply ECE Regulations (Example #3) At GRE, to apply R53(Installation of Lighting and Light-signaling Devices for Motorcycle), Japan will make a proposal to allow optional amber position lamps which are already allowed by domestic regulation in view of conspicuity in Japan. (For justification) ・To make the proposal accepted at GRE, JASIC Committee will submit the research result which shows the effectiveness of the amber position lamps for enhancing conspicuity of motorcycles. (For communication) ・To make the proposal understood more at the next GRE, JASIC Committee will consult with the people who know the discussion made at GRE about this kind of issue in the history. 11

12. (1) Examples of Discussion and study for necessary proposal to apply ECE Regulations (Example #4) At GRSP, to apply R16(Seat belts), Japan made a proposal to stipulate the provision which allows Japan to exclude category N1 when applying R16. The justification of this proposal is; Japan has already made it an obligation for vehicles of not only category M1(seat belt reminder is required by R16) but also part of category N1 to be installed with a seat belt reminder. If Regulation No. 16 is adopted also for category N1, vehicles of category N1 without a seat belt reminder will have to be accepted. Therefore, category N1 should be excluded. However, GRSP preferred to amend the proposal from Japan to include category N1 allowing Japan to require vehicles of category N1 to meet its existing national requirements for safety-belt reminders even if they are granted R16 type approval. This kind of provision which allows to require vehicles with type approval to meet additional requirement is not suitable for the regulations which are used for mutual recognition of type approval. Therefore, this provision should be amended to be harmonized immediately. Category N1 Category M1 (For justification) ・To draft the proposal to harmonize R16, JASIC committee is conducting the research to clarify the ideal requirement for seat belt reminder in view of effectiveness and proper occupant sensing method, seat choice and sound of alarm. (For communication) ・To have the opportunity to discuss the requirement for seat belt reminder with people concerned from U.K. who made a comment of the necessity of more discussion of which category should be mandated to have seat belt reminder, JASIC will contact with them.

13. Original proposal from Japan to exclude category N1 when applying ECE Regulation No.16 Until the United Nations Secretary-General is notified otherwise, Japan declares that in relation to the installation of safety-belts and restraint systems, Japan will only be bound by the obligations of the Agreement to which this Regulation is annexed with respect to vehicles of categories M, Ｎ2, Ｎ3, O, L2, L4, L5, L6, L7 and T. 13

14. Amended proposal by considering the discussion at GRSP Japan shall not be prevented, by the obligations of the Agreement to which this regulation is annexed, from requiring vehicles of category N1 which are granted type-approvals under this regulation to meet its existing national requirements for safety-belt reminders. 14

15. (2) Examples of Discussion and study concerning applied ECE Regulations (Example #1) At GRE, when a proposal which mandates DRL (Daytime Running Lamps) installation was made in R48, Japan made an additional proposal which allows contracting parties to forbid the installation of DRL. This is because Japan already forbade DRL (which are required 400 to 1200cd of luminous intensity by R87) and other additional lamps with over 300cd of luminous intensity at that time. Japan submitted the research result of DRL from the view of conspicuity of motorcycles which found DRL may have bad influence on it. (Extract of the R48 concerning the forbiddance of DRL) 6.19. DAYTIME RUNNING LAMP (Regulation No. 87) 9/ 9/ The installation of this device may be forbidden on the basis of national regulations. (For justification) ・To understand the pros and cons of DRL, JASIC Committee is conducting the research concerning DRL using overseas research results and analyzing co-relation between these results and the accident data in Japan. (For communication) ・To gain the understanding from GRE, JASIC Committee will report its research progress to GRE.

16. (2) Examples of Discussion and study concerning applied ECE Regulations (Example #2) At GRE, Japan made a newproposal to forbid the installation of reciprocally incorporate lamps comprising stop lamps and direction indicator lamps. Justification of the proposal is; (Details) http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2008/wp29gre/ECE-TRANS-WP29-GRE-59-09e.pdf (For justification) ・To understand the influence of this kind of lamps on the cognition of people in traffic, JASIC Committee conducted research. (For communication) ・To communicate the problem of this kind of lamps with GRE members, Japan has persistently expressed its opinion every time at GRE 16

17. (2) Examples of Discussion and study concerning applied ECE Regulations (Example #3) At GRSG, Japan made a newproposal to specify the requirements for VAS (Vehicle Alarm System) in R116 intended for installation as original equipment (separate technical units) and proved to be used as original equipment by the manufacturer submitting related documents. However, the contents of the proposal are so specified that GRSG decided to postpone the discussion to the next session and to have the members (UK, Germany , France, EU) which expressed some concerns about the proposal study the proposal and exchange their views with Japan until then. Details http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2008/wp29grsg/ECE-TRANS-WP29-GRSG-2008-04r1e.pdf (For communication) ・To coordinate the opinions from Members of GRSG, JASIC Committee will send email explaining its intention about the revised proposal and exchange views with them by email.

18. (3) Discussion and study concerning other ECE Regulations • There are some ECE Regulations which Japan has no plan to apply for the time being but should apply in the future. • However, JASIC Committee will positively discuss and study this kind of ECE Regulations to contribute to improve them by submitting related information, etc. for future application.

19. 5. Conclusion • We hope economies which intend to enhance their participation to WP29 and GRs will utilize this information when discussing the future activities in each economy. • When you need more information on it or some help to submit proposals to GRs, we will be glad to help any time. To send email to the address below is the easy way to go; JASIC email address : jasic@jasic.org • Cooperation of work to achieve the aim of WP29 in this group is really appreciated.