SDWEE-05-04:
Mr. Jongenelen (NL) presented the document and stressed that the current wording of paragraphs 7.6.7.2. and 7.6.5.1 is such that the emergency exit could be used only by operating the device dedicated to the service door.

IRU confirmed that this item touches a big problem for the operators because some passengers use the emergency exit devices for getting out of the vehicle at traffic lights. Paragraph 7.6.5.1.1. is the main source of problems for IRU, with no proposal for improvement yet. The informal group had an exchange of view on the most efficient way to address this problem and re-visited the paragraph 7.6.7.2. in order to accurately include all the possibilities.

Conclusion: Revision of document SDWEE-05-04 adopted, to be included in 02-07-Rev.3.

SDWEE-05-02:
Mr. Rickaby (Plaxton) pointed out that the sequence of movements for operating the emergency exit control could be long, and that some extensive space could be needed for indicating the actions to perform for opening the exits.

Mr. McKenzie (OICA, CLCCR), as author of the proposal, recalled that it is up to the manufacturer to achieve the goal as the requirement is not prescriptive. The informal group agreed to respect the decision of the last meeting to favour pictograms in all case, with supplementary explanatory wording when necessary. It was agreed to introduce the relevant provisions in a new paragraph 7.19 rather than in paragraph 7.6. which addresses exits only.

Mr. McKenzie kindly produced document SDWEE-05-02-Rev.1 which was reviewed in depth by the experts. In particular the experts acknowledged that the requirement for “photoluminescent” signs could preclude other systems. Concerning the pictograms, it was considered reasonable that the regulation defines a pictogram for each type of emergency exit, i.e. door, window, roof hatch, floor hatch. Mr. McKenzie volunteered to prepare a proposal in that sense for the next meeting.

Conclusion:
► Relevant provisions to be added in a new paragraph 7.19.
► Current 7.6.11. to be amended accordingly.
► Mr. McKenzie to produce a proposal defining a pictogram for each of the four types of emergency, in addition to some provisions for minimal dimensions of the emergency exit windows and some indication of the exits which are addressed by the provisions.

SDWEE-05-05:
Some experts had the concern that the proposed value of 2 Nm seemed quite a low value in particular in the case of mechanical operation. Plaxton Ltd. committed to internally investigate the feasibility of the value. It was however pointed out that only the unlocking action was regulated, rather than the operation of the exit itself. This implies that, probably, a second movement would have to be indicated for opening the exit.

Some debate in addition took place on whether the regulation should mandate a direction of movement (clockwise vs. counter clockwise). While there was no consensus about the proper direction to mandate, it was agreed that the direction would have to be indicated by appropriate signage.

The experts in addition agreed that the required angular displacement of 90° would cover the total possible control opening movement, i.e. a movement of 45° each direction for opening would be compliant.

The group in addition agreed to regulate the dimensions of the control, based on some information to be provided by the manufacturers.

Conclusion:
► Principle of a mandatory rotary control adopted.
► Maximum dimensions requirements to be added.

SDWEE-05-03:
The informal group decided not to review this document because it was not relating to the latest version of the informal group working document, i.e. SDWEE-02-07-Rev.2.

SDWEE-02-07-Rev2:
The informal group started a revision of the document paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 7.6.1.5.: proposed amendments deleted, the text will remain as currently in the Regulation.

Paragraph 7.6.1.7.:
The Chair informed that the Editorial Task Force was expecting some help from English native speakers for the text between [ ]. The informal group, after some lengthy debate, supported to amend the paragraph as in the updated working document.

The other changes agreed by the experts can be found as well in the document SDWEE-02-07- Rev.3.

The group agreed not to re-write the provisions from scratch, and to continue the revision of the provisions based on document SDWEE-02-07-Rev.3. It was considered helpful that clear conclusions are stated about each provision.

The group agreed not to re-write the provisions from scratch, and to continue the revision of the provisions based on document SDWEE-02-07-Rev.3. It was considered helpful that clear conclusions are stated about each provision.

SDWEE-06 discussions:

• ► As mentioned in item 5 above, the expert from HUN pointed out the proposals of document SDWEE-06-06 when relevant and the informal group reviewed them.
• ► Detailed analysis can be found in document SDWEE-02-07-Rev.4

The group agreed not to re-write the provisions from scratch, and to continue the revision of the provisions based on document SDWEE-02-07-Rev.3. It was considered helpful that clear conclusions are stated about each provision.

SDWEE-06-03:
As a reminder, input was requested to Industry concerning

• - the questions raised by NL per document SDWEE-06-03 (“May the folding seat for the crew always obstruct the access passage to the service door when there are more exits than the minimum required by paragraph 7.6.1.4”), and
• - the accessibility of the service doors

The answer of the informal group was that, according to the current wording of the regulation, it is allowed. The group also confirmed that this interpretation is conforming to the spirit of the regulation and that there is no need to amend the text.

SDWEE-07-02:
HUN presented the context of the accident which occurred in Egypt, with the understandable consequences in the Hungarian society. The expert explained his personal conclusions of the tragedy. He found this as a good opportunity for the group and GRSG to undertake the steps for improving the situation.

The Chair recalled the accident which occurred in Sweden and was discussed at GRSG, which generated also a discussion on toughened vs. laminated glass. He questioned whether the vehicle in stake in the Egyptian accident was complying with the requirements currently in force in Europe and at UNECE level (EVSC, age of the vehicle, etc). Concerning the debate about the glazing material, the Chair recalled that the informal group decided not to be design restrictive and rather to let the manufacturer some freedom about the technology.

Concerning the vehicle itself, the chassis was probably bought to a European manufacturer, with some completion performed in Egypt. The HUN expert was keen not to blindly trust active safety systems, rather to continue improving the passive safety. He for example stated that the presence of safety belts would not have totally solved the situation in the case of this accident.

Conclusion: no passive safety feature would have alone avoided this tragedy. Only the EVSC would have avoided this.

It was also recalled that laminated glass is not forbidden in the current text of the regulation.

Review of a rollover bus accident in Egypt on 6 November 2011 involving 50 Hungarian tourists.

11. The expert from Hungary reported on the conclusions of a severe accident in Egypt (GRSG-102-03). GRSG welcomed the information and agreed on the need to find a better compromise of the glazing material used for emergency exits and study the effectiveness of safety belts in case of rollover accidents. The expert from Hungary volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 107.

Hungarian recommendations for the draft regulation on retrofit emissions control devices as presented in informal document REC-10-02.

i) CECE proposed text (doc. REC-10-05)

Williams presented his slides based on the CECE proposals, noting that the primary objective of the CECE proposal is to ensure that safety considerations are adequately addressed in the installation of the REC and subsequent operation of the vehicle. Specific references to NRMM have been dropped as under Reg. 96 NRMM are a class of vehicle. The proposals require that written instructions have to be passed from the REC provider to the installer and/or owner to maintain the original level of safety of the vehicle.

Following discussion of the need for adequate information to be provided within the legal limitations of a UN regulation’s applicability, the general approach was agreed, with the detailed text to be discussed under item 6.

ii) OICA/Euromot proposed text

Stein introduced the outline proposed by OICA and Euromot on NOx control provisions (doc. REC-10-06), based upon those adopted for Euro VI and proposed for NRMM Stage IV but adapted for REC. It had not been possible to compile a full text for this meeting, but this will be done for the June REC meeting.

The proposed general requirements and operator inducement system were summarised. It was noted that the text would need to include provision for both electronically- and mechanically-controlled engines. It was also agreed that in the event of the activation of the operator inducement interruption of starter current, there should be a limited emergency over-ride. It was agreed that, with these additions, the requirements as proposed by Euromot/OICA are necessary and that the proposal is accepted. Development of the full text is now needed.

The question of whether there should be equivalent requirements for PM reduction RECs, but after discussion it was agreed that this was not currently feasible or necessary.

iii) AECC information on NOx efficiency vs. driving cycle

May presented some test results on a limited sample of 3 engines showing the lower NOx conversion efficiency over the WHTC compared to the ETC (document REC-10-09). In discussion it was noted that the current generation of SCRT-type systems would not be able to achieve approval to the proposed efficiencies on the weighted WHTC, but they can achieve 70-80% efficiency over the whole-vehicle test using the London Bus (Millbrook) Cycle which appears also to be representative of bus operation in other European cities. It was also commented that bus retrofitting had to be very specific for the duty cycle to get maximum advantage.

The question was asked as to whether this meant that the proposed NOx efficiency for the REC regulation would need to be reduced. It was agreed that the efficiency figures need to be reviewed but they should not be set too low. It was suggested that a conversion factor could be proposed to convert the original proposal (which was based on ETC efficiency) to WHTC figures.

The chairman has initiated some work on this at TNO and this will be followed up.

iv) Comments from Hungary

Uhlik presented Hungary’s comments (doc. REC-10-07) and proposed that with the split into rev.00 and rev.01 versions of the regulation the term Reduction Level is no longer needed as each version would only allow 1 level. However, in later discussion it was agreed that Reduction Level should be retained so that customers can differentiate between systems once rev.01 is introduced.

In discussion of the Hungarian proposal to revise the matrices in section 8 it was agreed that the tables show the emissions levels that have to be achieved by meeting the next emissions level of Reg. 49 or 96; so the figures are thus fixed by those Regulations. The requirement in the draft REC regulation is to meet both this performance level and the Reduction (efficiency) Level. It was suggested that the information document (Annex 1) and Communication (Annex 2) should be modified to show additional information – at least the emissions level achieved as well as the base level.

In regard to Hungary’s point on the clarification of durability requirements, it was agreed that Section 9.1 should be clarified to: “The applicant shall declare confirm that the REC system will comply with the applicable provisions during normal operation over a useful life of:…”. It was also agreed to add a new Section 9.5 to show that the REC must meet the limit values and efficiency requirements at the end of the 1000 hour durability test.

Following from a further Hungarian proposal, the first sentence of Section 10 (application range) was modified to: “The application range is initially limited to describes the range of engines or engine systems to which the REC family may be applied….”

It was also agreed to add a sentence that this paragraph is not applicable to systems intended to meet Euro VI limit values.

The provision allowing the extension of the application range of RECs to other engine manufacturers was also discussed, with the conclusion no further changes were needed.

Hungary also proposed an additional section on recognition of alternative Type Approvals. The proposal was not accepted by the group, but it was noted that the draft Regulation does not preclude using the same engine for an NRMM and an HD approval through full testing to the two sets of requirements.

Proposal suggesting improvements to the draft amendments to UN R107 as developed and submitted by the Informal Group for Service Doors, Windows, and Emergency Exits (SDWEE).

5. Referring to the discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/2 at the previous session of GRSG, the expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/23 proposing updated provisions for vehicles of Class I to provide a specific area for prams or pushchairs. The expert from IRU introduced GRSG-103-08 raising a number of concerns. The experts from Poland, the United Kingdom, CLCCR and OICA supported the concerns raised. GRSG noted a number of comments. Following the discussion, the expert from Germany volunteered to prepare, jointly with the experts from EC, France, Sweden and Switzerland, a revised proposal for consideration at the next GRSG session in April 2013 taking into account the comments received. GRSG agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/23 on the agenda as reference documents.

6. The expert from the Netherlands withdrew GRSG-103-05. The expert from IRU recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/12 proposing to install in urban buses of Class I driver seats without suspension systems. GRSG noted no support for the proposal and agreed to remove it from the agenda.

7. The expert from CLCCR introduced GRSG-103-16 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/14 on the lateral stability of rear facing wheelchairs. GRSG noted a number of concerns. As the document did not receive any support, GRSG agreed to remove it from the agenda.

8. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRSG-103-09 amending the provisions of the installation height of interior emergency controls in Class B vehicles. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of the proposal at its next session in April 2013 on the basis of an official document.

9. The expert from Sweden introduced GRSG-103-12 justifying the installation of automatic fire suppression systems in the engine compartment of buses and coaches. GRSG followed with interest a presentation by the expert from Sweden (GRSG-103-22) on a method for testing the performance of fire suppression systems. Following the discussion, GRSG noted general support on this subject. The expert from Sweden volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for consideration at the next session of GRSG.

Information in support of Hungary’s proposals for revisions to UN R107 and the proposed amendments developed by the Informal Group on Side Doors, Windows, and Emergency Exits (SDWEE).

5. Referring to the discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/2 at the previous session of GRSG, the expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/23 proposing updated provisions for vehicles of Class I to provide a specific area for prams or pushchairs. The expert from IRU introduced GRSG-103-08 raising a number of concerns. The experts from Poland, the United Kingdom, CLCCR and OICA supported the concerns raised. GRSG noted a number of comments. Following the discussion, the expert from Germany volunteered to prepare, jointly with the experts from EC, France, Sweden and Switzerland, a revised proposal for consideration at the next GRSG session in April 2013 taking into account the comments received. GRSG agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/23 on the agenda as reference documents.

6. The expert from the Netherlands withdrew GRSG-103-05. The expert from IRU recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/12 proposing to install in urban buses of Class I driver seats without suspension systems. GRSG noted no support for the proposal and agreed to remove it from the agenda.

7. The expert from CLCCR introduced GRSG-103-16 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/14 on the lateral stability of rear facing wheelchairs. GRSG noted a number of concerns. As the document did not receive any support, GRSG agreed to remove it from the agenda.

8. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRSG-103-09 amending the provisions of the installation height of interior emergency controls in Class B vehicles. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of the proposal at its next session in April 2013 on the basis of an official document.

9. The expert from Sweden introduced GRSG-103-12 justifying the installation of automatic fire suppression systems in the engine compartment of buses and coaches. GRSG followed with interest a presentation by the expert from Sweden (GRSG-103-22) on a method for testing the performance of fire suppression systems. Following the discussion, GRSG noted general support on this subject. The expert from Sweden volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for consideration at the next session of GRSG.

10. The Chair of the informal group on Service Doors, Windows and Emergency Exits in buses and coaches (SDWEE) introduced, as an outcome of the group’s work, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/15 proposing to insert into UN Regulation No. 107 new requirements for service doors, windows and emergency exits. The expert from Hungary presented GRSG-103-03 clarifying the proposed amendments. He informed GRSG about additional background information on the problems of emergency exists and on the ejection of passengers in buses (GRSG-103-02). Following the discussion, GRSG endorsed, in principle, the amendments of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/15, as reproduced in GRSG-103-29, and agreed to have a final review of the proposal at its next session. The expert from Poland volunteered to submit to the secretariat, in due time, a revised document taking into account the comments received.

11. The expert from Hungary proposed a number of possible solutions to avoid passenger ejection in case of a bus rollover accident (GRSG-103-04). He explained the problem of safety belt use in buses (GRSG-103-21). He gave a presentation on the need to install breakable emergency side windows on buses to evacuate passengers in case of an emergency (GRSG-103-25). GRSG welcomed the information and noted a number of comments. The expert from Hungary volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 107 for consideration at the next GRSG session.

12. The expert from OICA announced his intention to review Annex 12 of UN Regulation No. 107 on additional safety prescriptions for trolleybuses in order to adapt it to the technical progress. He invited all GRSG experts to send him (ofontaine@oica.net) their comments in due time to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 107.

Discussion paper on passenger ejections and motor coach safety submitted by Hungary.

5. Referring to the discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/2 at the previous session of GRSG, the expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/23 proposing updated provisions for vehicles of Class I to provide a specific area for prams or pushchairs. The expert from IRU introduced GRSG-103-08 raising a number of concerns. The experts from Poland, the United Kingdom, CLCCR and OICA supported the concerns raised. GRSG noted a number of comments. Following the discussion, the expert from Germany volunteered to prepare, jointly with the experts from EC, France, Sweden and Switzerland, a revised proposal for consideration at the next GRSG session in April 2013 taking into account the comments received. GRSG agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/23 on the agenda as reference documents.

6. The expert from the Netherlands withdrew GRSG-103-05. The expert from IRU recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/12 proposing to install in urban buses of Class I driver seats without suspension systems. GRSG noted no support for the proposal and agreed to remove it from the agenda.

7. The expert from CLCCR introduced GRSG-103-16 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/14 on the lateral stability of rear facing wheelchairs. GRSG noted a number of concerns. As the document did not receive any support, GRSG agreed to remove it from the agenda.

8. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRSG-103-09 amending the provisions of the installation height of interior emergency controls in Class B vehicles. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of the proposal at its next session in April 2013 on the basis of an official document.

9. The expert from Sweden introduced GRSG-103-12 justifying the installation of automatic fire suppression systems in the engine compartment of buses and coaches. GRSG followed with interest a presentation by the expert from Sweden (GRSG-103-22) on a method for testing the performance of fire suppression systems. Following the discussion, GRSG noted general support on this subject. The expert from Sweden volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for consideration at the next session of GRSG.

10. The Chair of the informal group on Service Doors, Windows and Emergency Exits in buses and coaches (SDWEE) introduced, as an outcome of the group’s work, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/15 proposing to insert into UN Regulation No. 107 new requirements for service doors, windows and emergency exits. The expert from Hungary presented GRSG-103-03 clarifying the proposed amendments. He informed GRSG about additional background information on the problems of emergency exists and on the ejection of passengers in buses (GRSG-103-02). Following the discussion, GRSG endorsed, in principle, the amendments of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/15, as reproduced in GRSG-103-29, and agreed to have a final review of the proposal at its next session. The expert from Poland volunteered to submit to the secretariat, in due time, a revised document taking into account the comments received.

11. The expert from Hungary proposed a number of possible solutions to avoid passenger ejection in case of a bus rollover accident (GRSG-103-04). He explained the problem of safety belt use in buses (GRSG-103-21). He gave a presentation on the need to install breakable emergency side windows on buses to evacuate passengers in case of an emergency (GRSG-103-25). GRSG welcomed the information and noted a number of comments. The expert from Hungary volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 107 for consideration at the next GRSG session.

12. The expert from OICA announced his intention to review Annex 12 of UN Regulation No. 107 on additional safety prescriptions for trolleybuses in order to adapt it to the technical progress. He invited all GRSG experts to send him (ofontaine@oica.net) their comments in due time to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 107.

Companion presentation for the discussion paper on motor coach rollover accidents, passenger ejections, and use of laminated window glazing and seat belts (document GRSG-103-04).

5. Referring to the discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/2 at the previous session of GRSG, the expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/23 proposing updated provisions for vehicles of Class I to provide a specific area for prams or pushchairs. The expert from IRU introduced GRSG-103-08 raising a number of concerns. The experts from Poland, the United Kingdom, CLCCR and OICA supported the concerns raised. GRSG noted a number of comments. Following the discussion, the expert from Germany volunteered to prepare, jointly with the experts from EC, France, Sweden and Switzerland, a revised proposal for consideration at the next GRSG session in April 2013 taking into account the comments received. GRSG agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/23 on the agenda as reference documents.

6. The expert from the Netherlands withdrew GRSG-103-05. The expert from IRU recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/12 proposing to install in urban buses of Class I driver seats without suspension systems. GRSG noted no support for the proposal and agreed to remove it from the agenda.

7. The expert from CLCCR introduced GRSG-103-16 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/14 on the lateral stability of rear facing wheelchairs. GRSG noted a number of concerns. As the document did not receive any support, GRSG agreed to remove it from the agenda.

8. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRSG-103-09 amending the provisions of the installation height of interior emergency controls in Class B vehicles. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of the proposal at its next session in April 2013 on the basis of an official document.

9. The expert from Sweden introduced GRSG-103-12 justifying the installation of automatic fire suppression systems in the engine compartment of buses and coaches. GRSG followed with interest a presentation by the expert from Sweden (GRSG-103-22) on a method for testing the performance of fire suppression systems. Following the discussion, GRSG noted general support on this subject. The expert from Sweden volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for consideration at the next session of GRSG.

Comments from Hungary on the working draft of the proposed regulation on retrofit emissions control devices.

It was agreed that the discussion should initially concentrate on the Annexes. Stein asked that the durability requirements in para. 9 be discussed first as he could not be present for day 2.

Review of marked-up version of the draft REC
Small changes to the draft were noted below.

In later discussion of the annexes it was recognised that throughout the document it will be necessary to add references to ‘NRMM and category T’ rather than just NRMM. This is because although both are covered by Reg.96, NRMM and category T are separately defined within that regulation.

Consideration of the draft REC Regulations

REC-12-03 (rev.00 of the Regulation)

Paragraph 9:
Following a discussion on the availability of machines to run 1000 hrs durability in a reasonable time, Stein agreed to provide US guidance wording used for on- and off-highway applications.

In answer to a question regarding the requirements for data logging (to be provided to the Type Approval authority), it was agreed that a short break in data logging due to, for instance, data logger failure would not be seen as a problem that invalidated the test.

Annex 1:
In paragraph 2.1 it was agreed that to avoid confusion with type of REC, “manufacturer’s type identification” should be changed to “manufacturer’s model identification”. This will need cross-checking for other similar references in the document.

Regarding the identifying part number of the REC (para. 2.1.1), it was agreed the definition of the part number is up to the manufacturer. It needs to enable traceability from approval documentation to actual fitted systems.

Para. 3.4.2: Not all regeneration methods will fit neatly into ‘continuous’ or ‘active’. A more comprehensive description is expected from the manufacturer.

With the content of the section of this Annex on PM reduction RECs agreed, the editorial group will work on similar text for NOx and NOx+PM RECs.

Annex 2:
Small modifications were made to the text, including the substitution of “model” for “type” as in

Annex 1:
Section 16.7 is redundant as the information is included in Annex 2A.

The definition of application range in para. 3.3 of the body of the regulation does not match the use of the phrase in Annexes 1 and 4. It was agreed to amend the definition to:
“Application range” means the range of vehicles engines to which a retrofit emission control device (REC) approved according to in accordance with this regulation can be applied;”

The second paragraph of section 10 also needs to be modified. This was modified to:
“The application range is defined by limited to the engine family to which the test engine as defined in paragraph 12 belongs.”

Annex 3:
The manufacturer cannot define the model year and engine type to which the REC is fitted. The plate (which is a cut and paste from another regulation) therefore needs to be amended.

There was a discussion on the need to include ‘level’ in the markings. It was noted that the revisions version of the document is already included in the first 2 digits of the type approval number. It was suggested that the levels be renamed 00 and 01 so as to align with the revisions of the regulation. This would avoid that 00 = level 1 and 01 = level 2.

Paragraph 5 of the Regulation requires information on the manufacturer etc. to be provided on the label, therefore the second picture and following text are both redundant.

Annex 4:
The content (not headings) of the table needs to be deleted – this was an example only. It was questioned whether both Annex 4 and the second table in Annex 2A are needed.

Annex 5:
Mr Galey commented that not all systems fit simply into the definition of periodically or continuously regenerating. There are, for instance, continuously regenerating systems that have a back-up assisted regeneration capability. Williams noted that, as with OEM requirements, this annex refers to regeneration during the test cycle. This is therefore covered by the proposal.

The figure of 15% CoV for PM and back pressure variation over 25 cycles will need to be checked.

Mr Uhlik raised a concern that there is a difference between what the group is doing and the Terms of Reference, particularly in relation to the inclusion of requirements on NO2, as NO2 is not taken into account in the environmental classification of vehicles or in emissions standards for original equipment. Other EU member States considered that the inclusion of NO2 was understood from the element of the ToR that specifies that the regulation should be an enabler for LEZs and because the evidence is that retrofits for particulate have often resulted in increases in NO2. Mr Galey, however, considered that the REC requirements should not be more onerous than OE requirements, where there is no NO2 limit VI. He argued that at most there should be a ‘rate and report’. Member States present noted that NO2 had been part of the discussions in Council for Euro VI, that the EC intends to bring forward proposals for specific NO2 limits, and that the lack of an NO2 limitation would detract from the aim of providing a single system that would allow access to different LEZs. At the end of the discussion the chairman concluded that NO2 requirements would be retained and that the specific NO2 levels will be discussed later.

The issues of application range raised in the Hungarian document and on the two stringency levels had been dealt with in yesterday’s part of the meeting.

Mr Uhlik said that there should be a requirement for some system to indicate whether the DPF is working properly (e.g. back-pressure device). Schulte noted that para. 3.6 defines “Emission control monitoring system” but the definition is not then used. It was agreed that the editorial group would incorporate a paragraph based on the Hungarian proposal.

Presentation in support of the “Service Doors, Windows, and Emergency Exits” informal group proposal to amend UN R107 (document GRSG-103-03).

10. The Chair of the informal group on Service Doors, Windows and Emergency Exits in buses and coaches (SDWEE) introduced, as an outcome of the group’s work, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/15 proposing to insert into UN Regulation No. 107 new requirements for service doors, windows and emergency exits. The expert from Hungary presented GRSG-103-03 clarifying the proposed amendments. He informed GRSG about additional background information on the problems of emergency exists and on the ejection of passengers in buses (GRSG-103-02). Following the discussion, GRSG endorsed, in principle, the amendments of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/15, as reproduced in GRSG-103-29, and agreed to have a final review of the proposal at its next session. The expert from Poland volunteered to submit to the secretariat, in due time, a revised document taking into account the comments received.

11. The expert from Hungary proposed a number of possible solutions to avoid passenger ejection in case of a bus rollover accident (GRSG-103-04). He explained the problem of safety belt use in buses (GRSG-103-21). He gave a presentation on the need to install breakable emergency side windows on buses to evacuate passengers in case of an emergency (GRSG-103-25). GRSG welcomed the information and noted a number of comments. The expert from Hungary volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 107 for consideration at the next GRSG session.

12. The expert from OICA announced his intention to review Annex 12 of UN Regulation No. 107 on additional safety prescriptions for trolleybuses in order to adapt it to the technical progress. He invited all GRSG experts to send him (ofontaine@oica.net) their comments in due time to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 107.

Baarbé noted the Hungarian comment but his concern is that an impression could be created that a full Euro-stage vehicle is created. Uhlik said it would only refer to the tables with the limit values as listed in annex 9. Hallauer suggested adapting the wording accordingly and Schulte suggested to take the wording from the equivalency tables. May noted that a differentiation has to be made per pollutant (NOx, PM, CO & HC). For example, where a PM reduction REC is fitted, emissions of CO, HC and NOx must still meet the original level, but not the higher one that is to be achieved for PM.

Proposals to clarify the text of the amendments updating provisions for service doors, windows and emergency exits.

13. The expert from Hungary proposed simplifying the current provisions of paragraph 7.6.8.2. in Annex 3 of the UN Regulation (GRSG-104-10). GRSG noted a number of concerns. The expert from Hungary volunteered to prepare a revised proposal for consideration at the next session of GRSG.

Recommendations from the SDWEE informal group to revise its proposed amendments to UN R107 in response to GRSG comments on the original draft (i.e., GRSG/2012/15).

18. The expert from Hungary presented GRSG-104-11 proposing additional amendments to the provisions on the access to escape hatches. GRSG welcomed the proposal but preferred to consider these amendments in a further stage of improvements to the Regulation. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this proposal at its next session and invited the secretariat to distribute GRSG-104-11 with an official symbol. The expert from Belgium announced his intention to submit a proposal exempting certain bus classes from the requirements on the installation of an emergency exit at the rear of the vehicle, for consideration at the next GRSG session.

Proposal to insert provisions in Annex 3 to facilitate access to a roof escape hatch in the event that the vehicle is lying on its side. This proposal supplements document WP.29/2013/100 as submitted by GRSG to the World Forum.

15. The expert from Hungary presented GRSG-105-05 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2013/17 and proposing amendments to the provisions on the access to escape hatches. GRSG noted a number of concerns and study reservations. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of the proposal at its next session and to take a final decision. For that purpose, the Chair invited all experts to be prepared to present their positions. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSG-105-05 with an official symbol.

Updated proposal to insert provisions in Annex 3 to facilitate access to a roof escape hatch in the event that the vehicle is lying on its side, superseding document GRSG/2013/17.

15. The expert from Hungary presented GRSG-105-05 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2013/17 and proposing amendments to the provisions on the access to escape hatches. GRSG noted a number of concerns and study reservations. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of the proposal at its next session and to take a final decision. For that purpose, the Chair invited all experts to be prepared to present their positions. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSG-105-05 with an official symbol.

Series of clarifications to the text of the amendments updating provisions for service doors, windows and emergency exits, superseding document GRSG-104-10.

The main goal of the proposal is to delete the prohibition on the use of laminated glass or plastic material in window panes and to delete the provision that emergency windows shall be capable of being operated from outside

Revised proposal, pursuant to comments received after its posting, to clarify the text of the amendments updating provisions for service doors, windows and emergency exits.

The main goal of the proposal is to delete the prohibition on the use of laminated glass or plastic material in window panes and to delete the provision that emergency windows shall be capable of being operated from outside.

11. The expert from Hungary proposed simplifying the current provisions of paragraph 7.6.8.2. in Annex 3 of UN Regulation No. 107 (GRSG-105-04-Rev.1). GRSG noted general support and agreed to resume for consideration of the proposal at its next session. Thus, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSG-105-04-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

Proposal to clarify the text of the amendments updating provisions for service doors, windows and emergency exits. The main purpose of the proposal is to delete the prohibition on the use of laminated glass or plastic material in window panes and to delete the provision that emergency windows shall be capable of being operated from outside.

8. The expert from Hungary introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2014/4 proposing to simplify the current provisions of paragraph 7.6.8.2. in Annex 3 of the Regulation. GRSG adopted the proposal, as reproduced below, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their November 2014 sessions, as a part (see paras. 5 and 6 above) of draft Supplement 2 to the 05 series of amendments and of draft Supplement 1 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 107.

Annex 3, paragraphs 7.6.8.2. and 7.6.8.2.1., amend to read:

Updated proposal to insert provisions in Annex 3 to facilitate access to a roof escape hatch in the event that the vehicle is lying on its side, superseding document GRSG-105-05 which superseded the original proposal in document GRSG/2013/17.

13. Recalling the discussion at the previous session of GRSG on the provisions on the access to escape hatches, the expert from Hungary introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2014/7 proposing updated amendments. GRSG noted a number of concerns and reservations on the proposal. Following the discussion, GRSG did not support the proposal and agreed to remove it from the agenda, subject to a new document to be submitted by the expert from Hungary.

In document GRSG/2014/22, the EC proposes to align Annex 11 of UN R107 with Regulation (EU) 1230/2012 (type approval of vehicles with regard to their masses and dimensions). However, the volume and location of masses – including baggage masses – impacts many basic parameters of buses like total mass in running order, axle loads, CG position, etc. and related UN Regulations. This document raises issues for consideration during the review of the EC proposal.

7. GRSG considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2014/22, tabled by the expert from EC, to align Annex 11 of the UN Regulation with Regulation (EU) 1230/2012. The expert from Hungary introduced GRSG-107-04 (for information only) arguing that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2014/22 did not correctly addressing the issue of volume and location of the masses. The expert from OICA introduced GRSG-107-19, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2014/22. Finally, GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2014/22 as amended below. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2015 sessions, as draft Supplement 3 to the 05 series of amendments and as Supplement 3 to the 06 series of amendments to the UN Regulation.

Annex 11,
Paragraph 3.2.3.2.1., amend to read:

In document GRSG/2014/4, Hungary proposed to delete the provision that emergency windows shall be capable of being operated from outside the vehicle. This document provides a written justification for the proposal to enable its formal approval by GRSG.

8. GRSG noted GRSG-107-05, tabled by the expert from Hungary, addressing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/70. In his opinion, this last compromise did not correctly address the security as it facilitated the access of undesirable people during the parking time of buses. GRSG noted no support and reiterated its decision of the previous session. GRSG agreed to keep GRSG-107-05 for reference only in the agenda of its May 2015 session.

13. GRSG agreed to remove GRSG-107-05 from the agenda.

This proposal aims to enable the use of thick glass panes for multiple glazed units which, in turn, requires omitting the head-form test in case of these units.

14. The expert from Hungary introduced GRSG-107-21, aimed at allowing the use of thick glass panes for multiple glazed units. GRSG agreed to resume discussion on this issue at its May 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSG-107-21 with an official symbol.

Proposal to include material characteristics of the tire tread in the technical requirements since the definition of “snow tyre for use in severe snow conditions” refers both to tread compound and tread pattern.

34. The expert from France presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/3, amended by GRRF-78-10 and GRRF-79-28, introducing provisions for the type approval of retreaded snow tyres for use in severe snow conditions. The expert from Hungary introduced GRRF 79 27, providing some comments. GRRF adopted the proposal as amended (GRRF-79-28 and GRRF-79-34) by Annex III and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2015 sessions as draft Supplement 7 to Regulation No. 109.

This proposal aims to enable the use of thick glass panes for multiple glazed units which, in turn, requires exempting such configurations from the head-form test.

19. The expert from Hungary proposed an amendment to the UN Regulation allowing the use of thick glass panes for multiple glazed units (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/4). GRSG noted some comments. The document did not receive the full support of GRSG. It was agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/4 on the agenda and to have a final review of the proposal at the next session of GRSG.

20. The expert from Hungary presented GRSG-109-10 justifying the amendments to UN Regulation No. 43, proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/4 and aimed at clarifying the use of thick glass panes for multiple glazed units. He especially wondered why the headform test was applicable for multiple glazing, but not necessarily for single pans. The expert from Germany explained that the mechanical properties of single pans of safety glazing were different than those of multiple-glazed pans and, therefore, the single pans did not necessarily need to be tested for critical values in case of head impacts. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/4 from its agenda.

5. Recalling the discussion at the previous GRSG session, the expert from Sweden introduced a revised proposal for the introduction of automatic fire suppression systems in the engine and/or heater compartment of buses and coaches (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2014/6/Rev.1). The expert from OICA raised concerns and presented GRSG-108-45 proposing further improvements to the revised text. The expert from Hungary introduced GRSG-108-10 on statistical information about fires in different categories and classes of buses and coaches.

6. Following a controversial discussion on the scope of the new test requirement for automatic fire suppression systems, GRSG agreed to go forward with the following compromise stages: (i) to agree during the current session on the mandatory installation of such systems on vehicles of Class III (as a Supplement to the 06 series of amendments) taking into account the transitional provisions (i.e. June 2018 for new types of vehicles and June 2019 for all existing types) as reflected in GRSG-108-51 and (ii) to reach a consensus at the forthcoming session of GRSG on the mandatory installation of automatic fire suppression systems on vehicles of Classes I and II. Thus, GRSG already committed to the following dates for the transitional provisions of stage (ii) mentioned above: at the latest 2020 for new types and 2022 for all types.

7. Finally, GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2014/6/Rev.1, as amended as reproduced in GRSG-108-51, and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their November 2015 sessions, as draft Supplement 4 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 107.

Proposal to clarify the specification of the abrasion test machine.

20. The expert from Hungary presented GRSG-108-15 proposing to clarify the requirements on the abrasion test machine. The experts from France and CLEPA preferred to wait until the forthcoming publication of the corresponding ISO standard. GRSG invited the secretariat to distribute GRSG-108-15 with an official symbol, for further consideration at the next GRSG session.

Proposal to clarify the specification of the abrasion test machine.

21. Referring to the discussion at the previous session of GRSG, the expert from Hungary introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/22 clarifying the requirements on the abrasion test machine. The experts from Germany informed GRSG about the status of work in ISO and announced that the corresponding ISO standard was in the process of being finalized and would hopefully be published by the end of the year. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/22 at its next session in April 2016.

14. The expert from Hungary introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/22 clarifying the technical requirements on the abrasion test machine. The expert from Germany informed GRSG about the status of work in ISO on abrasion test machines. He expected that the corresponding ISO standard would hopefully be published by the end of 2016. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/22 at its next session in October 2016, awaiting the publication of the ISO standard.

15. The expert from Hungary presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/22 on clarifying the technical requirements of the abrasion test machine. The expert from Poland suggested replacing figure 4 in Annex 3 with a diagram including dimensions (GRSG-111-05). The expert from Germany informed GRSG that the corresponding ISO standard would be published soon. He offered to update the document to fully align the provisions of the Regulation with those of the ISO standard. GRSG welcomed that offer and agreed to defer the adoption of the amendments to UN Regulation No. 43 to its next session in April 2017 awaiting the submission of a revised official document by Germany.

Discussion of the state of accident statistics and other data to support the development of coach and bus safety requirements.

13. GRSG welcomed a presentation by the expert from Hungary on the importance of statistical studies and the collection and evaluation of information on bus accidents (GRSG-109-03 and GRSG-109-26).

Proposal to correct errors and remove inconsistencies in the current regulatory text, including a correction to the formula used in Annex 12, Appendix 4 “Test report on the compatibility of the inertia brake control device, the transmission and the brakes on the trailer”.

14. The expert from Hungary introduced GRRF-80-11 drafted together with the expert from the Netherlands and containing several corrections. GRRF requested the secretariat to distribute this document with an official symbol at the February 2016 session of GRRF.

Clarification that the proposal to exclude multi-layer glazed windows from the head impact requirements of UN R43 does not directly relate to the work or recommendations of the Informal Group on Plastic Glazing.

20. The expert from Hungary presented GRSG-109-10 justifying the amendments to UN Regulation No. 43, proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/4 and aimed at clarifying the use of thick glass panes for multiple glazed units. He especially wondered why the headform test was applicable for multiple glazing, but not necessarily for single pans. The expert from Germany explained that the mechanical properties of single pans of safety glazing were different than those of multiple-glazed pans and, therefore, the single pans did not necessarily need to be tested for critical values in case of head impacts. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/4 from its agenda.

13. GRSG welcomed a presentation by the expert from Hungary on the importance of statistical studies and the collection and evaluation of information on bus accidents (GRSG-109-03 and GRSG-109-26).

Proposal for corrections to the text and equations.

11. The expert from Hungary presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2016/19, tabled by the experts from Hungary and the Netherlands, based on GRRF-80-11. GRRF adopted the document with the following correction:
For “Paragraph 2.2.18., amend …”, read “Annex 12, paragraph 2.2.18., amend …”

12. GRRF requested the secretariat to submit the adopted proposal above to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2016 sessions, as Supplement 14 to the 11 series of amendments to Regulation No. 13.

Hungary agrees with the proposed change to the airbag label, but recommends the addition of transitional provisions.

48. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP (GRSP-59-01) about his support to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30, to harmonize the information of the airbag warning label on the correct installation of Child Restraint Systems (CRS). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2016 session to allow experts to provide fully their detailed comments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30.

42. In absence of new information, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this subject to its May 2017 session.

Pursuant to GRPE discussions, the proposal adds the following paragraph to the amendment:
“At the manufacturer’s request, type approval granted under this Regulation may be extended from vehicles mentioned above to special purpose vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 regardless of their reference mass. The manufacturer shall demonstrate to the Type Approval Authority which granted the type approval that the vehicle in question is a special purpose vehicle.”

7. The expert from the Russian Federation presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2017/2 on amendments to the scope of Regulation No. 83. He explained that the proposal was aimed at allowing extensions of type approvals granted under Regulation No. 83 to special purpose vehicles.

8. The experts from CLEPA and OICA expressed some concerns on the limitation of 2,610 kg reference mass introduced by the definition of special purpose vehicle in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2017/2. The expert from Hungary suggested the use of existing definitions in the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). Following the discussion, the experts from Hungary and the Russian Federation presented GRPE-74-22 to amend ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2017/2 by deleting the definitions of special purpose vehicle and armoured vehicle and referring to R.E.3 instead.

9. GRPE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2017/2 amended by GRPE-74-22 as reproduced in Annex IV and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration and vote at their June 2017 sessions as draft Supplement 10 to the 06 series of amendments and draft Supplement 6 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 83.