Proposal to delete Annex 5 of Regulation Nos. 6 and 7. The deletion of chromaticity requirements in the form of coordinates makes Annex 5 superfluous. The present proposal would delete Annex 5, inserting its content into paragraph 8 and renumbering the remaining annexes.

The group firstly reviewed the documents SDWEE-06-05 and SDWEE-06-07 from HUN. HUN deplored that the current text of the regulation only considers one past-accident position, i.e. vehicle standing on its wheels.

D recalled that the side windows are indeed used in some accidents where the vehicles remains on its wheels, and was keen that the text is amended such that the side windows are kept as possible emergency exits.

The secretary found too demanding the principle of one emergency exit being not usable. HUN clarified that the purpose is not to request the manufacturer of adding emergency exits.

D informed that its national regulation considers extra emergency exit windows part of the regulatory emergency exits. As a consequence D could not support the HUN proposal that windows are never considered as main emergency exits. In addition, should the side windows be deleted from the number of mandatory emergency exits, then the only difference with the current text of the regulation would be that the rescue hammers would disappear from the vehicles. The expert from D then concluded it positive to keep them among the mandatory emergency exits.

The traditional design in the UK was to have one door each side of the vehicle and each end of the vehicle. Because of the alignment of national rules on the upgraded UNECE R107, the UK subsequently diverged from this traditional design. Mr. McKenzie, while having sympathy with the principles of HUN, was puzzled of accepting the HUN proposal for “historical reasons”, because these principles would imply reversing to the previous traditional design.

The group decided to review document SDWEE-02-07-Rev.3 paragraph by paragraph and requested HUN to point out the items relevant to their principles when necessary.

28. The expert from Italy presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2011/12 aimed at aligning the provisions of Regulation No. 120 with those of GTR No. 11 and Regulation No. 96. The expert from Poland introduced GRPE-62-03 questioning the new scope of Regulation No. 120. The expert from EC supported the concerns raised. He volunteered to analyse the possibility at extending the scope of the 1958 Agreement to cover also smaller petrol fuelled spark ignited engines and to present a strategy to solve this legal problem. In this respect, the Chair invited all delegates to clarify their position on this issue.

29. GRPE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2011/12, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration at their sessions in November 2011, as draft 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 120.

Page 2, paragraph 5.3.1., the table, replace Small petrol fuelled spark engines (≤ 19 kW) by Petrol fuelled spark engines

Page 2, paragraph 5.3.2., replace For small (≤ 19 kW) spark ignited by For spark ignited

Page 15, Annex 6, paragraph 4.1., the table, replace Small petrol fuelled spark engines (≤ 19 kW) by Petrol fuelled spark engines

10. The expert from Poland presented GRE-66-17 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2011/32, taking into consideration real visibility distance and glaring according to headlamp Regulations. GRE noted a number of comments and agreed to consider again, at its next session, GRE-66-17 with an official symbol or a revised proposal by the expert from Poland.

11. The expert from Canada introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2011/63 clarifying the conditions for simultaneous illumination of marking lamps and daytime running lamps. GRE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2011/63, not amended, and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and to AC.1 at their November 2011 sessions, as part of draft Supplement 2 to the 05 series of Regulation No. 48 (see also para. 22).

10. The expert from Poland presented GRE-66-17 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2011/32, taking into consideration real visibility distance and glaring according to headlamp Regulations. GRE noted a number of comments and agreed to consider again, at its next session, GRE-66-17 with an official symbol or a revised proposal by the expert from Poland.

11. The expert from Canada introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2011/63 clarifying the conditions for simultaneous illumination of marking lamps and daytime running lamps. GRE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2011/63, not amended, and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and to AC.1 at their November 2011 sessions, as part of draft Supplement 2 to the 05 series of Regulation No. 48 (see also para. 22).

Proposal from Poland to introduce performance-based distance and glare criteria for headlamps, making automatic levelling provisions independent of the luminous flux of the light source.

17. The expert from OICA introduced GRE-67-27, raising industry concerns about ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21, regarding visibility range, glare and a note to the driver. The expert from Poland presented GRE-67-33 supporting ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21 and GRE-67-37 as a revised version of
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21. GRE agreed to resume consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21 at its October 2012 session. GRE requested the secretariat to distribute GRE-67-37 with an official symbol for its next session.

18. GRE considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/18, introduced by the expert from Germany, intending to eliminate certain inconsistencies in the existing text on reversing lamps. GRE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/18, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration at their November 2012 sessions, as draft Supplement 2 to the 05 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48.

Page 2, par. 6.4.5.2., amend to read:

19. GRE resumed consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.1. GRE agreed to prepare and adopt a document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.2, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.1, including a change of all the references to the 90-month transitional period to a 84-month transitional period, and to furthermore amend all references to Supplement 8 to the 04 series of amendments to Supplement 01 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.2 to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2012 sessions and agreed to keep this item on the agenda of its October 2012 session.

Comments from Poland on the Gaseous Fueled Vehicles (GFV) informal group proposal to redefine the class of bi-fuel vehicles under UN R115 in order to permit the simultaneous use of gas and petrol while in gas mode.

Mr. Piccolo reminds the group that Mr. Radzimirski (Poland), in the GRPE January session and in subsequent documents circulated to the group, made two main remarks:

• ● As for R.115 proposed amendments, several retrofit system manufacturers find it difficult to meet the emission limit in R.115 because of a certain incapacity to correctly calibrate the engine on gas or, for example, on CNG because of the ineffectiveness of the catalyst. If the possibility to use petrol up to 20% in energy unit was accepted, it would be possible for such manufacturers to extend the operation with petrol in the gas mode after the cold start for some 200 – 250 seconds in a Type I test, in order to satisfy the requirements. As for petrol direct injection engines, that would not be possible since petrol use is mainly required in the second part of the cycle. Mr. Radzimirski proposes, therefore, to limit this provision only to vehicles with direct injection petrol engines.

• ● As for both proposed amendments to R.115 and R. 83, the proposed method for gas ratio calculation (Annex 6B) does not seem to be suitable for reference CNG fuel G25 that is composed of 86% mole of methane and 14% mole of nitrogen (average percentage). The measured CNG mass consumed during the cycle by fuel weighing (numerator of the gas energy ratio) would correspond to the total mass of methane and nitrogen, while the denominator would estimate only the equivalent mass of methane consumed during the cycle. In the case of G 25 reference gas, the calculated gas energy ratio would, therefore, be higher than the actual one. Therefore, the method for G25 needs correcting via, for example, a correction coefficient.

As for the first remark, Mr Piccolo stated that AEGPL shared the concern of Mr Radzimirski and, in principle, would keep the two regulations aligned. However, if the group agrees such a “decoupling” of the two proposals making R.115 more restrictive in comparison with R 83, AEGPL would not oppose it.

Regarding Mr Radzimirski’s second remark, AEGPL asks the group and, in particular, NGVA Europe to specify some correction factors to the gas energy ratio in the case of testing with G25.

Mr. Del Alamo (NGVA Europe) indicated that Fiat does not see the necessity of the amendment to R 83.

Mr. Tappe (CLEPA/Bosch) suggested to leave to the discretion of the OEM’s the opportunity to use the two fuels, gas and petrol, in the most synergistic way for any type of engine system, be it a PSI or GDI. This is in line with a request for more flexibility made by OEM suppliers. OEMs, to respect the CO2 obligations, are forced to minimize the use of petrol and have no reason to misuse of petrol to fulfil the emission limits in the gas mode. That said, due to some safety concerns about the gas mass measurement by weighing, Mr Tappe asked the group to evaluate a different method based on petrol and gas ECU’s data, validated by a proper initial comparison with the official results coming from the application of FC (carbon balance) formulae.

Mr. Castagnini (AEB) expressed concern that a change of this type would delay submitting the formal document. Hence, he suggests to add the new method proposed by CLEPA as an alternative.

My Rijnders, taking into account the positions of the members, proposed to convert the present R.83 proposal (GRPE-63-05-Rev.1) into a formal document for the next GRPE session with no modifications. As for the R.115 proposal, the formal document based on the informal GRPE-63-06-Rev.1 will reflect the comment received by the Polish expert, in restricting the scope of the provision related to the 80% minimum limit for gas energy ratio only to vehicles with petrol direct injection engines. In addition, Mr. Rijnders asked Mr Tappe to provide an appropriate text containing provisions for an alternative method to weighing the mass of gas. This could possibly be included in an informal document to be submitted to the June 2012 GRPE by GFV.

Furthermore, it is agreed that an adequate correction factor for G25 will be part of an informal document for the next GRPE session.

The group agrees and provide for a consistent revision of GRPE-63-06-Rev.1.

Comments from Poland on the Gaseous Fueled Vehicles (GFV) informal group proposal to redefine the class of bi-fuel vehicles under UN R83 in order to permit the simultaneous use of gas and petrol while in gas mode.

Mr. Piccolo reminds the group that Mr. Radzimirski (Poland), in the GRPE January session and in subsequent documents circulated to the group, made two main remarks:

• ● As for R.115 proposed amendments, several retrofit system manufacturers find it difficult to meet the emission limit in R.115 because of a certain incapacity to correctly calibrate the engine on gas or, for example, on CNG because of the ineffectiveness of the catalyst. If the possibility to use petrol up to 20% in energy unit was accepted, it would be possible for such manufacturers to extend the operation with petrol in the gas mode after the cold start for some 200 – 250 seconds in a Type I test, in order to satisfy the requirements. As for petrol direct injection engines, that would not be possible since petrol use is mainly required in the second part of the cycle. Mr. Radzimirski proposes, therefore, to limit this provision only to vehicles with direct injection petrol engines.

• ● As for both proposed amendments to R.115 and R. 83, the proposed method for gas ratio calculation (Annex 6B) does not seem to be suitable for reference CNG fuel G25 that is composed of 86% mole of methane and 14% mole of nitrogen (average percentage). The measured CNG mass consumed during the cycle by fuel weighing (numerator of the gas energy ratio) would correspond to the total mass of methane and nitrogen, while the denominator would estimate only the equivalent mass of methane consumed during the cycle. In the case of G 25 reference gas, the calculated gas energy ratio would, therefore, be higher than the actual one. Therefore, the method for G25 needs correcting via, for example, a correction coefficient.

As for the first remark, Mr Piccolo stated that AEGPL shared the concern of Mr Radzimirski and, in principle, would keep the two regulations aligned. However, if the group agrees such a “decoupling” of the two proposals making R.115 more restrictive in comparison with R 83, AEGPL would not oppose it.

Regarding Mr Radzimirski’s second remark, AEGPL asks the group and, in particular, NGVA Europe to specify some correction factors to the gas energy ratio in the case of testing with G25.

Mr. Del Alamo (NGVA Europe) indicated that Fiat does not see the necessity of the amendment to R 83.

Mr. Tappe (CLEPA/Bosch) suggested to leave to the discretion of the OEM’s the opportunity to use the two fuels, gas and petrol, in the most synergistic way for any type of engine system, be it a PSI or GDI. This is in line with a request for more flexibility made by OEM suppliers. OEMs, to respect the CO2 obligations, are forced to minimize the use of petrol and have no reason to misuse of petrol to fulfil the emission limits in the gas mode. That said, due to some safety concerns about the gas mass measurement by weighing, Mr Tappe asked the group to evaluate a different method based on petrol and gas ECU’s data, validated by a proper initial comparison with the official results coming from the application of FC (carbon balance) formulae.

Mr. Castagnini (AEB) expressed concern that a change of this type would delay submitting the formal document. Hence, he suggests to add the new method proposed by CLEPA as an alternative.

My Rijnders, taking into account the positions of the members, proposed to convert the present R.83 proposal (GRPE-63-05-Rev.1) into a formal document for the next GRPE session with no modifications. As for the R.115 proposal, the formal document based on the informal GRPE-63-06-Rev.1 will reflect the comment received by the Polish expert, in restricting the scope of the provision related to the 80% minimum limit for gas energy ratio only to vehicles with petrol direct injection engines. In addition, Mr. Rijnders asked Mr Tappe to provide an appropriate text containing provisions for an alternative method to weighing the mass of gas. This could possibly be included in an informal document to be submitted to the June 2012 GRPE by GFV.

Furthermore, it is agreed that an adequate correction factor for G25 will be part of an informal document for the next GRPE session.

The group agrees and provide for a consistent revision of GRPE-63-06-Rev.1.

Presentation of the Polish Motor Transport Institute in support of the proposal to replace fixed values for headlamp aiming and tolerances with performance-based specifications.

17. The expert from OICA introduced GRE-67-27, raising industry concerns about ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21, regarding visibility range, glare and a note to the driver. The expert from Poland presented GRE-67-33 supporting ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21 and GRE-67-37 as a revised version of
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21. GRE agreed to resume consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21 at its October 2012 session. GRE requested the secretariat to distribute GRE-67-37 with an official symbol for its next session.

18. GRE considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/18, introduced by the expert from Germany, intending to eliminate certain inconsistencies in the existing text on reversing lamps. GRE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/18, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration at their November 2012 sessions, as draft Supplement 2 to the 05 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48.

Page 2, par. 6.4.5.2., amend to read:

19. GRE resumed consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.1. GRE agreed to prepare and adopt a document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.2, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.1, including a change of all the references to the 90-month transitional period to a 84-month transitional period, and to furthermore amend all references to Supplement 8 to the 04 series of amendments to Supplement 01 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.2 to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2012 sessions and agreed to keep this item on the agenda of its October 2012 session.

Revised version of Poland’s proposal (GRE/2012/21) to introduce performance-based distance and glare criteria for headlamps, replacing the fixed 2000 lm luminous flux condition as a criterion of the automatic leveling requirement.

17. The expert from OICA introduced GRE-67-27, raising industry concerns about ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21, regarding visibility range, glare and a note to the driver. The expert from Poland presented GRE-67-33 supporting ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21 and GRE-67-37 as a revised version of
ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21. GRE agreed to resume consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/21 at its October 2012 session. GRE requested the secretariat to distribute GRE-67-37 with an official symbol for its next session.

18. GRE considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/18, introduced by the expert from Germany, intending to eliminate certain inconsistencies in the existing text on reversing lamps. GRE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/18, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration at their November 2012 sessions, as draft Supplement 2 to the 05 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48.

Page 2, par. 6.4.5.2., amend to read:

19. GRE resumed consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.1. GRE agreed to prepare and adopt a document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.2, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.1, including a change of all the references to the 90-month transitional period to a 84-month transitional period, and to furthermore amend all references to Supplement 8 to the 04 series of amendments to Supplement 01 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99/Corr.2 to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2012 sessions and agreed to keep this item on the agenda of its October 2012 session.

Submission from Poland to replace the artificial 2,000 lm borderline and LED automatic levelling requirements with performance-based distance and glare criteria for headlamps.

9. The Expert from Poland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/27 proposing to remove the present 2000 lm borderline and the Light Emitting Diodes (LED) automatic levelling requirement. The proposal received several comments (GRE-68-20, GRE-68-31, GRE-68-32 and GRE-68-34).

10. GRE agreed with the suggestion of the expert from the Netherlands to concentrate requirements only on the “initial aiming” (and leave out the other parts on labelling, photometrics, etc.). It was also suggested that the proposal would focus on possible overlaps to the headlamp mounting height and would consider this “new approach” for the initial aiming requirements as an alternative to the existing (“old approach”) requirements in UN Regulation No. 48. GRE agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal tabled by the expert from Poland including the suggestions mentioned above.

11. GRE noted that the World Forum (WP.29) referred back ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99 and Corr. 1 for further consideration. GRE agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its April 2013 session. The expert from GTB introduced GRE-68-38, GRE-68-39 and GRE-68-40 providing a status report of the GTB’s activities on Glare and Visibility

UN R7 has no requirements concerning changes in luminance of a lamp. Therefore, certain lamps which could not be installed in accordance with UN R48 could nonetheless obtain type approval and be sold in the aftermarket. This proposal would prevent such an occurrence.

29. The expert from China introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/30 and GRE-68-33 proposing to modify requirements of the photometric performance concerning front position lamps incorporated with fog lamps as well as rear position lamps incorporated with rear fog lamps. GRE noted some comments about the need to maintain the current photometric ratios and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its April 2013 session on the basis of a revised proposal.

30. The expert from Poland showed a lamp type approved according to UN Regulation No. 7 and clearly unsuitable to be installed on a vehicle. To prevent the use of such a lamp as aftermarket vehicle parts, he introduced GRE-68-29 and requested the secretariat to distribute GRE-68-29 with an official symbol.

Poland’s response to comments submitted by OICA (document GRE-68-20) regarding document GRE/2012/27 concerning the influence of headlamp initial aiming and leveling tolerances on road illumination distance.

9. The Expert from Poland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2012/27 proposing to remove the present 2000 lm borderline and the Light Emitting Diodes (LED) automatic levelling requirement. The proposal received several comments (GRE-68-20, GRE-68-31, GRE-68-32 and GRE-68-34).

10. GRE agreed with the suggestion of the expert from the Netherlands to concentrate requirements only on the “initial aiming” (and leave out the other parts on labelling, photometrics, etc.). It was also suggested that the proposal would focus on possible overlaps to the headlamp mounting height and would consider this “new approach” for the initial aiming requirements as an alternative to the existing (“old approach”) requirements in UN Regulation No. 48. GRE agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal tabled by the expert from Poland including the suggestions mentioned above.

11. GRE noted that the World Forum (WP.29) referred back ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/99 and Corr. 1 for further consideration. GRE agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its April 2013 session. The expert from GTB introduced GRE-68-38, GRE-68-39 and GRE-68-40 providing a status report of the GTB’s activities on Glare and Visibility

Submitted by Poland to replace document GRE/2012/27 proposing an alternative set of requirements for the initial aiming of dipped-beam headlamps and allowing to remove the artificial 2,000 lm borderline and Light Emitting Diode (LED) automatic levelling.

12. The expert from Poland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2013/15 proposing an alternative to the existing initial aiming provisions. The experts from France and the United Kingdom requested the author to clarify the aspect linked to the measurements and to specify the measurement method as well as the tools to be used. The expert from the Netherlands supported, in general, the proposal but questioned waiving automatic levelling as an incentive to use this alternative method. GRE agreed to resume consideration on this matter at its October 2013 session on the basis of an updated proposal prepared by the expert from Poland in collaboration with experts from France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

UN R7 has no requirements concerning changes in lamp luminance. Therefore, certain lamps which could not be installed in accordance with UN R48 could nonetheless obtain type approval and be sold in the aftermarket. This proposal would prevent such an occurrence. This document supersedes GRE-68-29.

Text prepared by Poland and Austria to clarify the possibility of installing on vehicles light-signalling devices which obtained a type approval according to component UN Regulations.

25. GRE considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2013/16, introduced by the experts from Austria and Poland, clarifying the obligation of compliance with the installations requirements of devices which obtained type approval according to the component regulations. The expert from Italy introduced GRE-69-20, providing an alternative wording. GRE didn’t support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2013/16. GRE agreed to resume consideration on this matter on the basis of a revised proposal, which the expert from Italy volunteered to prepare on the basis of GRE-69-20, for the October 2013 session of GRE.

Proposal to introduce an alternative set of performance-based requirements for the initial aiming of dipped-beam headlamps and allowing removing the artificial 2,000 lm borderline and Light Emitting Diode (LED) automatic leveling. This document supersedes document GRE/2013/15.

12. The expert from Poland presented GRE-70-41, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2013/57 and proposing performance based requirements on initial aiming of dipped-beam headlamps as an alternative to the existing requirements. The proposal received some comments (GRE-70-42). The expert from France requested adding proper tolerances from the Conformity of Production provisions. GRE agreed to revisit this subject (on initial aiming and considering the original 50 m visibility distance requirement) at its next session on the basis of a revised document, which the expert from Poland volunteered to prepare.

Revised presentation in support of document GRE/2013/57 proposing to introduce an alternative set of performance-based requirements for the initial aiming of dipped-beam headlamps and allowing removing the artificial 2,000 lm borderline and Light Emitting Diode (LED) automatic leveling.

12. The expert from Poland presented GRE-70-41, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2013/57 and proposing performance based requirements on initial aiming of dipped-beam headlamps as an alternative to the existing requirements. The proposal received some comments (GRE-70-42). The expert from France requested adding proper tolerances from the Conformity of Production provisions. GRE agreed to revisit this subject (on initial aiming and considering the original 50 m visibility distance requirement) at its next session on the basis of a revised document, which the expert from Poland volunteered to prepare.

Text prepared by Poland to introduce an alternative set of performance-based requirements for the initial aiming of dipped-beam headlamps and allowing removing the artificial 2,000 lm borderline and Light Emitting Diode (LED) automatic levelling.

12. The expert from Poland introduced a revised proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2014/11 on initial aiming of dipped-beam headlamps and considering the original 75 +/-25 m visibility distance requirement.

13. GRE was of the view that the study had pointed out that the type of light source and its luminous flux are not the deciding factors in headlamp glare. Instead, the most important factors seem to be the vehicle pitch angle, loading conditions and initial headlamp aim. Therefore, the light source choice (LED) and the light source 2,000 lm criteria in UN Regulation No. 48 were found unnecessarily restrictive and creating barriers to new technologies. Different views were expressed whether automatic levelling should become a requirement for all categories of vehicles and light sources. Operating voltage was also mentioned as an additional factor of glare.

14. GRE invited the experts from Poland, GTB and OICA to submit one coherent proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 48 addressing the visibility distance and glare issuto the next GRE session.

Proposal to introduce type-approval provisions for lamps intended to provide supplemental lateral illumination of the road on the driver-side of the vehicle as a means to reduce the impact of glare from on-coming vehicle headlamps on driver vision and road visibility.

47. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce a new “side illuminating lamp” into Regulations Nos. 119 and 48 (GRE-72-21, GRE-72-21-Add.1). GRE delivered a number of preliminary remarks and invited the expert from Poland to submit a revised proposal as an official document for consideration at the next session.

47. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce a new “side illuminating lamp” into Regulations Nos. 119 and 48 (GRE-72-21, GRE-72-21-Add.1). GRE delivered a number of preliminary remarks and invited the expert from Poland to submit a revised proposal as an official document for consideration at the next session.

14. The expert from GTB recalled the outcome of the GTB study on visibility and glare (GRE-71-32) and presented a first draft of amendments to Regulation No. 48 addressing the visibility distance and glare issues (GRE-72-07). This proposal received comments by the expert from Poland (GRE-72-23-Rev.1). Various experts generally agreed that the current requirement for automatic levelling in Regulation No. 48 (2,000 lm luminous flux of the light source) should be replaced by other deciding factors for headlamp glare, such as the vehicle pitch angle, loading conditions and initial headlamp aiming. However, no consensus was reached on exact replacement criteria. The expert from UK suggested that an informal group be established to speed up the finalization of the amendment proposal. The experts from France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands were of the view that GTB should be tasked to submit a concrete proposal to the next session of GRE. GRE invited GTB, OICA and interested Contracting Parties to organize a meeting with the aim to elaborate a revised proposal. The experts from France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and UK expressed their interest in participating in this meeting.

Proposal to introduce provisions for “side-illuminating lamps” that aim to improve the driver’s visibility over the opposite side of the road (on-coming traffic side) and its buffer zone to mitigate the impact of glare from on-coming vehicles.

19. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce optional ‘side illuminating lamps’ into Regulations Nos. 48 and 119 (agenda item 7 (l)) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/19, GRE-73-12, GRE-73-13, GRE-73-27) with the aim to increase the visibility of pedestrians, animals, etc. for glared drivers. The expert from India suggested corrections to this proposal (GRE-73-19). GRE was of the view that this proposal would not bring additional benefits for road safety and was not in a position to support it.

Proposal to introduce provisions for “side-illuminating lamps” that aim to improve the driver’s visibility over the opposite side of the road (on-coming traffic side) and its buffer zone to mitigate the impact of glare from on-coming vehicles.

19. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce optional ‘side illuminating lamps’ into Regulations Nos. 48 and 119 (agenda item 7 (l)) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/19, GRE-73-12, GRE-73-13, GRE-73-27) with the aim to increase the visibility of pedestrians, animals, etc. for glared drivers. The expert from India suggested corrections to this proposal (GRE-73-19). GRE was of the view that this proposal would not bring additional benefits for road safety and was not in a position to support it.

38. GRE recalled that a proposal by the expert from Poland to introduce ‘side illuminating lamps’ into Regulation No. 119 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/19, GRE-73-13, GRE-73-27) was considered in conjunction with agenda item 6 (b) (see para. 19 above).

Proposal to introduce provisions for “side-illuminating lamps” that aim to improve the driver’s visibility over the opposite side of the road (on-coming traffic side) and its buffer zone to mitigate the impact of glare from on-coming vehicles. This submission supersedes the earlier formal document GRE/2015/6.

19. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce optional ‘side illuminating lamps’ into Regulations Nos. 48 and 119 (agenda item 7 (l)) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/19, GRE-73-12, GRE-73-13, GRE-73-27) with the aim to increase the visibility of pedestrians, animals, etc. for glared drivers. The expert from India suggested corrections to this proposal (GRE-73-19). GRE was of the view that this proposal would not bring additional benefits for road safety and was not in a position to support it.

Proposal to introduce provisions for “side-illuminating lamps” that aim to improve the driver’s visibility over the opposite side of the road (on-coming traffic side) and its buffer zone to mitigate the impact of glare from on-coming vehicles. This submission supersedes the earlier document GRE/2015/19.

19. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce optional ‘side illuminating lamps’ into Regulations Nos. 48 and 119 (agenda item 7 (l)) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/19, GRE-73-12, GRE-73-13, GRE-73-27) with the aim to increase the visibility of pedestrians, animals, etc. for glared drivers. The expert from India suggested corrections to this proposal (GRE-73-19). GRE was of the view that this proposal would not bring additional benefits for road safety and was not in a position to support it.

38. GRE recalled that a proposal by the expert from Poland to introduce ‘side illuminating lamps’ into Regulation No. 119 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/19, GRE-73-13, GRE-73-27) was considered in conjunction with agenda item 6 (b) (see para. 19 above).

Comments on the proposal to introduce new requirements for automatic leveling systems as a means to reduce driver glare (document GRE/2015/5).

17. The experts from OICA and GTB proposed to introduce new criteria on the automatic levelling of headlamps based on the outcome of the GTB glare and visibility studies (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/5). The expert from Poland suggested further modifications to this proposal (GRE-73-28). The experts from Germany and Japan proposed to impose automatic levelling in all cases, in order to reduce glare problems for drivers (GRE-73-18). Following an in-depth exchange of views on these three documents, GRE realized that no consensus could be found as long as there was no single proposal.

18. To make progress on this issue and prepare a comprising proposal, GRE decided to establish an Informal Working Group with a draft title “on Visibility, Glare and Levelling” (IWG VGL), for which the experts from Germany and Poland agreed to act as Chair and Secretary, respectively. GRE requested IWG VGL to submit its terms of reference for consideration at the next session of GRE and mandated the Chair to obtain, in June 2015, the consent of WP.29 for the establishment of this IWG.

Proposal to allow LED light source approval based on photometric criteria in place of the current minimum criteria of 1000 lumens.

34. The expert from France proposed to delete a design restrictive requirement (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/22 and GRE-73-26). This proposal received comments from the experts of Germany and the Netherlands. The expert from Poland suggested a different approach on this issue (GRE-73-21). The Chair invited the experts from France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, CLEPA and IEC to prepare a revised proposal for the next session.

19. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce optional ‘side illuminating lamps’ into Regulations Nos. 48 and 119 (agenda item 7 (l)) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/19, GRE-73-12, GRE-73-13, GRE-73-27) with the aim to increase the visibility of pedestrians, animals, etc. for glared drivers. The expert from India suggested corrections to this proposal (GRE-73-19). GRE was of the view that this proposal would not bring additional benefits for road safety and was not in a position to support it.

38. GRE recalled that a proposal by the expert from Poland to introduce ‘side illuminating lamps’ into Regulation No. 119 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/19, GRE-73-13, GRE-73-27) was considered in conjunction with agenda item 6 (b) (see para. 19 above).

17. The experts from OICA and GTB proposed to introduce new criteria on the automatic levelling of headlamps based on the outcome of the GTB glare and visibility studies (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2015/5). The expert from Poland suggested further modifications to this proposal (GRE-73-28). The experts from Germany and Japan proposed to impose automatic levelling in all cases, in order to reduce glare problems for drivers (GRE-73-18). Following an in-depth exchange of views on these three documents, GRE realized that no consensus could be found as long as there was no single proposal.

18. To make progress on this issue and prepare a comprising proposal, GRE decided to establish an Informal Working Group with a draft title “on Visibility, Glare and Levelling” (IWG VGL), for which the experts from Germany and Poland agreed to act as Chair and Secretary, respectively. GRE requested IWG VGL to submit its terms of reference for consideration at the next session of GRE and mandated the Chair to obtain, in June 2015, the consent of WP.29 for the establishment of this IWG.

The waiting list

According to the discussion on the future of this informal working group, the waiting list items are activated.

Item w1 (Approval based on worst case class B50x)(R55-07-19)
Mrs. Domagala presented document R55-10-19 as a proposal for this item. This was elaborated in the document R55-10-20. The French delegates argued that the last sentence of §1.1.1 might not be necessary. Mrs. Domagala was asked to rewrite the justification. (During a coffee break Mrs. Domagala and Mr. Svensson outlined an alternative justification as in R55-10-20. This was not reviewed by the group and Mrs. Domagala shall elaborate to the next meeting

Item w2 (Approval based on worst case class B50x)(R55-07-19)
This matter was dropped.

Item w3 (Alternative performance values)(R55-10-22)
KBA request a more stringent definition of alternative performance values. The base proposal assumed alternative values for a single component. However Mr. Westphäling showed that it is more to this than that. When broaden the scope to a family or range of products this becomes more complex. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Westphäling was assigned the task to outline a new proposal for the broader scope to the next meeting.

Item w7 (Class H50)( )
KBA requests to add a class H50 which seems missing. Considering the reference to the king-pin drawing in annex 5 Mr. Svensson argued that it might be such that the existing class H50-X is not really motivated. I.e. the class H50 –X shall be replaced by the class H50. Mr. Hansen will check this up to the next meeting.

Item w8 (Wedge angle)( R55-09-20)
Mr. Tagliaferri requested the drawing of the wedge in annex 5 §7.8.1. to changed. The changed drawing is shown in document R55-09-20. This was agreed.

Due to lack of time the remaining item were left to be processed later meetings.

The waiting list

According to the discussion on the future of this informal working group, the waiting list items are activated.

Item w1 (Approval based on worst case class B50x)(R55-07-19)
Mrs. Domagala presented document R55-10-19 as a proposal for this item. This was elaborated in the document R55-10-20. The French delegates argued that the last sentence of §1.1.1 might not be necessary. Mrs. Domagala was asked to rewrite the justification. (During a coffee break Mrs. Domagala and Mr. Svensson outlined an alternative justification as in R55-10-20. This was not reviewed by the group and Mrs. Domagala shall elaborate to the next meeting

Item w2 (Approval based on worst case class B50x)(R55-07-19)
This matter was dropped.

Item w3 (Alternative performance values)(R55-10-22)
KBA request a more stringent definition of alternative performance values. The base proposal assumed alternative values for a single component. However Mr. Westphäling showed that it is more to this than that. When broaden the scope to a family or range of products this becomes more complex. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Westphäling was assigned the task to outline a new proposal for the broader scope to the next meeting.

Item w7 (Class H50)( )
KBA requests to add a class H50 which seems missing. Considering the reference to the king-pin drawing in annex 5 Mr. Svensson argued that it might be such that the existing class H50-X is not really motivated. I.e. the class H50 –X shall be replaced by the class H50. Mr. Hansen will check this up to the next meeting.

Item w8 (Wedge angle)( R55-09-20)
Mr. Tagliaferri requested the drawing of the wedge in annex 5 §7.8.1. to changed. The changed drawing is shown in document R55-09-20. This was agreed.

Due to lack of time the remaining item were left to be processed later meetings.

Proposal to introduce a new optional “Class B1” headlamp. The proposal would establish photometric requirements for Class B1 based on average real performance of present Class B (halogen/LED) but would not include additional design restrictions such as the luminous flux of light source.

42. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce a new optional “Class B1” headlamp into Regulation No. 112 (GRE-74-11, GRE-74-23). The experts from Germany, Finland and the Netherlands supported the idea of the Polish proposal and posed clarifying questions. The Chair encouraged all experts to send their comments, if any, to the expert from Poland, with a view to discussing an updated proposal at the next session.

Presentation concerning the proposal (document GRE-74-11) to introduce a new optional “Class B1” headlamp. The proposal would establish photometric requirements for Class B1 based on average real performance of present Class B (halogen/LED) but would not include additional design restrictions such as the luminous flux of light source.

42. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce a new optional “Class B1” headlamp into Regulation No. 112 (GRE-74-11, GRE-74-23). The experts from Germany, Finland and the Netherlands supported the idea of the Polish proposal and posed clarifying questions. The Chair encouraged all experts to send their comments, if any, to the expert from Poland, with a view to discussing an updated proposal at the next session.

Proposed text for determining worst case conditions for physical testing of couplings.

At the May 2015 Type Approval Authorities Meeting (TAAM), Poland raised concerns (attached with this submission) over small M₁ vehicles being equipped with aftermarket coupling devices where the vehicle in question is not designed for towing a trailer. In effect, these vehicles are not permitted to tow trailers, but are nonetheless enabled to be equipped for such a purpose by the aftermarket devices. Therefore, Poland proposes to amend UN R55 to ensure that coupling devices are only approved for use on vehicles approved for towing trailers.

21. The expert from Poland informed GRSG about the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2016/4, proposing to insert into UN Regulation No. 55 an amendment imposing a new general constraint for granting component type-approval for mechanical coupling devices dedicated to category M1 vehicles only if they were designed to tow trailers. He announced the submission of the document to GRRF for consideration at its next session in September. GRSG endorsed that position and agreed to remove the agenda item.

Item w14 (Coupling installed to vehicles without towable mass) (GRSG/2016/4)
This item was originating from Poland that had brought it up at the TAAM. It concerns retrofitting a coupling (class A) to a vehicle not having a towable mass assigned by the vehicle manufacturer. Would it be possible to have this installation approved? The general opinion was that it is not possible to have such a vehicle approved according to regulation 55. There is no a possibility make a change to regulation 55 to have such an approval. The argument around this issue went like this. Assigning a towable mass to a vehicle includes a rigorous testing and analysis by the vehicle manufacturer. There are uphill tests, stability test, slalom test, cooling system capacity tests, endurance test for the fixing points, braking system tests, … A vehicle not having a towable mass assigned by the vehicle manufacturer has not been subject to these tests. Accordingly it cannot have a coupling with D-, Dc-, S- or V- value installed. If such installations shall anyway be brought up for an approval it shall be shown that the relevant tests as required by the vehicle manufacturer to assign a towable mass have been carried out. It is the general opinion of the working group that it is a bad practice to install a class A coupling for the sole purpose to enable the usage of special appliances as e.g. bicycle carriers. If such arrangements are still on the agenda it is the opinion of this working group that measures shall be taken that excludes the installation can be used to tow a trailer. Detailed regulation for appliances aimed at other applications than towing a trailer shall be the subject for the GRSG to consider.

Proposal to introduce a new optional “Class B1” headlamp. The proposal would establish photometric requirements for Class B1 based on average real performance of present Class B (halogen/LED) but would not include additional design restrictions such as the luminous flux of light source.

46. The expert from Poland proposed to introduce a new optional “Class B1” headlamp (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2016/18). The proposal received remarks from the experts of Germany, Netherlands, UK, CLEPA, GTB and OICA. Some experts pointed out that they would need more time to study the proposal and that it could be considered by IWG SLR when developing performance-based requirements in the future (para. 9 (d) above). GRE invited all experts to send their comments to the expert from Poland and decided to keep this issue on the agenda of the next session.

29. The expert from Poland introduced a slightly revised proposal for a new optional ‘Class B1’ headlamp (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2016/18 and GRE-76-26). The expert of CLEPA expressed a number of concerns over the proposal and pointed out that more time would be needed to analyse it in detail. The expert of IEC pointed out that the proposed measurement procedures should be clarified and that the proposal could benefit from editorial improvements. The expert of SAE supported the performance-based approach of the Polish proposal and offered to work with the expert from Poland on alternative requirements and evaluation methods for headlamps. GRE agreed that this issue should be dealt with by IWG SLR (stage 2 of the simplification process to introduce technologically-neutral and performance-based requirements), possibly through the establishment of a task force.

Copy of the proposal by Poland to amend UN R55 to ensure that coupling devices are only approved for use on vehicles approved for towing trailers.

Proposal to restrict component type-approval for mechanical coupling devices dedicated to category M1 vehicles to use only on such M1 vehicles as are designed to tow trailers.

21. The expert from Poland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2016/32 proposing to introduce requirements in Regulation No. 55 imposing that a coupling device can only be installed on an M1 vehicle which was designed for its installation. The intention of the proposal received a general support. The expert from Denmark proposed that it should also apply to vehicles of category N1. The experts from the Netherlands and Spain noted that the text of the Regulation already contained provisions in that sense (a list with such provisions is available in the IWG working paper R55-07-06). GRRF supported the idea proposed and agreed to revisit this item at its January 2017 session on the basis of a revised proposal that the experts from Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain volunteered to prepare.

20. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2016/32, aimed at imposing a new general constraint for granting component type-approval for mechanical coupling devices dedicated to category M1 vehicles only if the vehicle type is designed to tow trailers. An ad hoc group of experts proposed an alternative wording, in GRRF-83-25-Rev.1.

21. GRRF adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex III and requested the secretariat to submit it as part of the Supplement 7 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 55 (Mechanical coupling) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2017 sessions.

Proposal concerning document GRSG/2015/22 to clarify the specification of the abrasion test machine.

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.

Proposal to clarify the definitions of LPG container accessories to facilitate coordination between the separate, independent approvals required for the LPG container and for its accessories. The proposal does not introduce any changes in technical requirements or changes in the test methodology. The proposed changes are intended to prevent the possibility of improper selection of accessories for the tank, which could arise due to lack of clear provisions of type-approval certificates issued for accessories fitted to the container.

26. The expert from Poland presented GRSG-111-17 clarifying the provisions for the type approval of accessories fitted to the container. The proposal received general support and a number of comments. Following a study reservation by the experts from Germany and CLEPA, GRSG decided to resume consideration of the proposal at its next session in April 2017 on the basis of a revised document by Poland. In this respect, the Chair invited all experts to send their written comments to the expert from Poland.

Presentation concerning the proposal to introduce a new optional “Class B1” headlamp.

29. The expert from Poland introduced a slightly revised proposal for a new optional ‘Class B1’ headlamp (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2016/18 and GRE-76-26). The expert of CLEPA expressed a number of concerns over the proposal and pointed out that more time would be needed to analyse it in detail. The expert of IEC pointed out that the proposed measurement procedures should be clarified and that the proposal could benefit from editorial improvements. The expert of SAE supported the performance-based approach of the Polish proposal and offered to work with the expert from Poland on alternative requirements and evaluation methods for headlamps. GRE agreed that this issue should be dealt with by IWG SLR (stage 2 of the simplification process to introduce technologically-neutral and performance-based requirements), possibly through the establishment of a task force.

Proposal to clarify the definitions of LPG container accessories to facilitate coordination between the separate, independent approvals required for the LPG container and for its accessories. The proposal aims to ensure proper coordination between container approvals (which involve testing with accessories attached) and accessory approvals (which may be subsequent to the original container approval and therefore, relevant to its validity).

22. The expert from Poland gave a presentation (GRSG-112-37) justifying his proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/10 to clarify the provisions for type approved accessories fitted to LPG containers. The proposal received some support. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-112-20 proposing, as an alternative, the additional marking of the accessories with the number of type approval extension. Following a controversial discussion, the expert from Poland proposed to set up either a task force or a new informal working group on gaseous fuelled vehicles to work on the best solution. His proposal to establish an IWG did not receive full support. Finally, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in October 2017 on the basis of a new proposal jointly prepared by Poland and AEGPL. Thus, GRSG invited all interested experts to send them, in due time, their written comments.

Presentation supporting GRSG/2017/10 to clarify the definitions of LPG container accessories to facilitate coordination between the separate, independent approvals required for the LPG container and for its accessories.

22. The expert from Poland gave a presentation (GRSG-112-37) justifying his proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/10 to clarify the provisions for type approved accessories fitted to LPG containers. The proposal received some support. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-112-20 proposing, as an alternative, the additional marking of the accessories with the number of type approval extension. Following a controversial discussion, the expert from Poland proposed to set up either a task force or a new informal working group on gaseous fuelled vehicles to work on the best solution. His proposal to establish an IWG did not receive full support. Finally, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in October 2017 on the basis of a new proposal jointly prepared by Poland and AEGPL. Thus, GRSG invited all interested experts to send them, in due time, their written comments.

Comments on the VGL informal group draft justification of its headlamp glare requirements.

Examples of loading situations and their influence on headlamp inclination cut-off.

Proposal to modify the type-approval certificate as specified in Annex 2B by introducing additional points:

1. Type (point 2-type of equipment)
2. its version (point 3)
3. variant (point 4) and pressure classification
4. (point 5 – include the component’s working pressure for class 0)

36. The expert from Poland introduced GRSG-113-08 proposing to amend the provisions of Annex 2B on the layout of the communication form and to insert new items for information on the type, variant, version and class of the approved LPG equipment. The document received a number of comments. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in April 2018 on the basis of a revised proposal by Poland.

Proposal to require labeling of products with the designation of the version, variant and the number of type-approval certificate extension based on which the product was approved for sale in order to ensure linking of the technical documentation with the product designation and to improve the ability to verify the design of the components.

33. Recalling the discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/10 at the previous GRSG session, the expert from AEGPL presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/30 to further clarify the provisions for type approved accessories fitted to LPG containers and to insert an additional indication mark. The expert from Poland raised a study reservation and introduced the obligation to mark the products with the designation of the version, variant and the extension number of the type-approval certificate (GRSG-113-09). Both proposals received a number of comments.

Proposal to delete “trade name” from the approval definition in order to avoid strict interpretations where a manufacturer would be obliged to define a new container type designation whenever the tank’s trade name is updated (whereas the trade name is inconsequential in terms of product approval).

37. Referring to GRSG-113-10, the expert from Poland also proposed to remove the trade name or trade mark from the definition of a type of LPG container. GRSG noted some comments and general support. The expert from Poland volunteered to review his proposal taking into account the comments received and to submit, in due time, a combined official document for consideration at the next GRSG session.

Additional questions from Poland to OICA for clarification the expectations concerning 1.6% cut-off inclination limits range as a result of non-repeatability of vehicles according Reg. 48 load/pitch test (Annex 5 and 6).

24. The expert from Poland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/8 on simplifying and adapting the Regulation to technical progress, specifically for the definition of a type of container and Annex 2B. On the removal of text in the communication form marked in strikethrough, a number of experts preferred to be in line with other UN Regulations and to keep the strikethrough text. The experts from Italy and AEGPL raised study reservations. GRSG noted concerns on the proposal and suggestions on the optional use of versions and variants in the communication form as the Regulation only specifies a definition for type of container, but not for accessories. After discussion, the expert from AEGPL volunteered to prepare with other stakeholders, a new proposal for consideration at the next GRSG session.

36. The expert from Poland recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/8 to adapt the Regulation to technical progress, specifically for the definition of a type of container and Annex 2B. The expert from LG Europe introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/20 as a counterproposal. A number of experts welcomed the amendments to Annex 2B, but could not support the amendments to the definition of “Type of container”. After discussion, GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/20 except the amendments to paragraph 2.4. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as amended to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 16 to the 01 series of amendments and as draft Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67 for consideration at their March 2019 sessions.

Annex 1 of UN R55 concerns the type approval communication form. Item 9.3. requires information “For Class A mechanical coupling devices or components, including towing brackets”. Poland proposes to add “if fitted” to the description in order to avoid interpretations that brackets must be part of the approval (i.e., the approval may concern the coupling ball without additional attachments).

20. The expert from Poland introduced GRRF-86-34 proposing a clarification of item 9.3 in Annex 1 to UN Regulation No. 55. GRRF requested the secretariat to distribute this proposal with an official symbol at its September 2018 session.

Proposal to clarify the text of document GRSG/2018/7 submitted to enable the approval of the laminated-glass panes with improved mechanical properties, especially as designed for front, exterior, forward-facing glazing of the upper deck of a double-deck vehicle. The proposal would amend Annex 7 (laminated-glass panes), inserting a new paragraph 6. to allow optional 2,260 g ball test and headform test for laminated-glass panes.

15. The expert from Finland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/7 on the installation of the laminated-glass panes with improved mechanical properties on vehicles. The expert from Poland introduced GRSG-114-04 that proposed to align the new requirements with the general structure of the Regulation. The expert from India suggested using the same terminology as in the Regulation (GRSG-114-20). GRSG noted a general preference for the optional use of the new provisions and a preference to submit them to the World Forum as a Supplement. GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/7 in reference to GRSG-114-23-Rev.1, as reproduced in Annex IV to the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 8 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 43 for consideration at their November 2018 sessions.

Proposal to align Annex 11 with Annex 3 following the removal of paragraphs in the latter regarding the marking of a vehicle with respect to the mass of baggage (done via Corrigendum 1 to Revision 6). This proposal would delete the same requirements (paragraphs 3.3.1.2.1, 3.3.1.2.2., 3.3.1.2.2.1. and 3.3.1.2.2.2) from Annex 11.

5. The expert from Poland introduced GRSG-114-05 on a possible error in Annex 11 of the Regulation and on aligning it with Annex 3 by deleting paragraphs 3.3.1.2.1. to 3.3.1.2.2.2. The expert from France added that the corresponding paragraphs in Annex 3 had been removed through ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2008/98 on Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 107. Thus, the Chair invited experts to verify the historical development of these provisions. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session and to keep GRSG-114-05 on the agenda as a reference document.

5. The expert from Poland recalled the purpose of GRSG-114-05 on a possible error in Annex 11 of UN Regulation No. 107. The expert from OICA proposed to correct Annex 3 of several Supplements and series of amendments to the Regulation (GRSG-115-41). GRSG endorsed the amendments as reproduced below. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as Corrigenda to Revisions 4 to 8 of UN Regulation No. 107 for consideration at their March 2019 sessions.

Annex 3, paragraphs 7.2.3.1.1. to 7.2.3.1.3., should be deleted.

29. The expert from Poland provided a summary of initial aiming and levelling tolerance issue (GRE-79-23, GRE-79-24). The experts from Italy and the Netherlands briefly introduced GRE-79-29 as a discussion paper for the possible introduction of new requirements for headlamp levelling, in particular on the vertical inclination in relation to the dipped-beam headlamp mounting height. GRE agreed to keep GRE-79-29 as a reference document for the next session.

29. The expert from Poland provided a summary of initial aiming and levelling tolerance issue (GRE-79-23, GRE-79-24). The experts from Italy and the Netherlands briefly introduced GRE-79-29 as a discussion paper for the possible introduction of new requirements for headlamp levelling, in particular on the vertical inclination in relation to the dipped-beam headlamp mounting height. GRE agreed to keep GRE-79-29 as a reference document for the next session.

Poland comments on the CLEPA analysis raising concerns regarding the proposal to establish photometric requirements for Class B1 based on average real performance of present Class B (halogen/LED) without reference to design specifications such as the luminous flux of light source.

Q21 How to fill in the communication form in the case new approval number in accordance with Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement if in the Communication form of the UN Regulations the “Approval number” and “Extension number” is still separated?

Annex 1 of UN R55 concerns the type approval communication form. Item 9.3. requires information “For Class A mechanical coupling devices or components, including towing brackets”. Poland proposes to add “if applicable” to the description in order to avoid interpretations that brackets must be part of the approval (i.e., the approval may concern the coupling ball without additional attachments).

28. The expert from Poland presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/11 clarifying the application of the provisions in Annex 1 of the UN Regulation. GRSG noted a number of comments. The expert from EC raised a study reservation. The Chair invited the expert from Poland to revise his proposal and to insert some concrete examples into the justification. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session.

61. The expert from Poland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/11. GRVA agreed that this proposal should be reviewed by the Working Party on General Safety Provisions.

zip file containing three documents:

• Polish comments on document SLR-24-06 (GRE IWG-SLR-Stage 2: GTB Approach to Glare and Visibility Issues)
• Tomasz Targosinski, Motor Transport Institute paper “Mathematical model of type approval requirements for headlighting”
• "Current Poland thoughts regarding task of 26th IWG-SLR session, September 2018

Comments on discussions from the 27th SLR informal group discussion.

37. The expert from Poland presented GRSG-116-33 to clarify the application of the provisions in Annex 1 of the UN Regulation. GRSG noted several concerns on the proposal. The expert from EC offered to review the proposed text taking into account the comments received and to include a revised wording in an official document (see paragraph 35 above). GRSG welcomed this offer and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session.

Proposal for changes to the discussion document presenting potential new requirements for headlamp levelling, in particular regarding the vertical inclination in relation to the dipped-beam headlamp mounting height.

10. The expert from IWG SLR presented a proposal for a new 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/3). The expert from Poland commented on the proposal (GRE-81-13 and GRE-81-16). GRE focused its discussion on the aiming diagram in paragraph 6.2.6.1.2. Following an in-depth consideration, GRE agreed on a modified diagram (GRE-81-21 and Annex II) and requested IWG SLR to prepare, on the basis of the new diagram, a revised proposal for consideration at the next session. The experts from Germany and Poland made study reservations. The expert from Germany also pointed out that, at the next session, he would present the outcome of a research project on the issue.

Supporting data justifying the headlamp aiming and cut-off points diagrammed in the proposal for a new series of amendments (GRE-81-13).

10. The expert from IWG SLR presented a proposal for a new 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/3). The expert from Poland commented on the proposal (GRE-81-13 and GRE-81-16). GRE focused its discussion on the aiming diagram in paragraph 6.2.6.1.2. Following an in-depth consideration, GRE agreed on a modified diagram (GRE-81-21 and Annex II) and requested IWG SLR to prepare, on the basis of the new diagram, a revised proposal for consideration at the next session. The experts from Germany and Poland made study reservations. The expert from Germany also pointed out that, at the next session, he would present the outcome of a research project on the issue.

8. The expert from the Informal Working Group “Simplification of the Lighting and Light-Signalling Regulations” (IWG SLR) reported on their progress and requested guidance from GRE (GRE-81-19). The expert from Poland commented on the IWG SLR request (GRE-81-22). GRE agreed that:

• The headlamp provisions should continue to be expressed in terms of the luminous intensities equivalent to the illuminance measured on a screen at a distance of 25 m.
• All technologies should be allowed for all SLR functions. Requirements should be common for all technologies; test requirements could be technology-specific.
• Combination of different light source technologies should be possible for all SLR functions.

Proposal to align UN R48 with provisions in UN R4 by introducing parameters for luminance levels, maximum gradient value, angles of visibility and light incidence angle which are necessary to determine the geometric position of devices in relation to the rear registration plate.

27. The expert from Poland proposed modifications to provisions on the rear registration plate lamps (GRE-82-08). Following a brief exchange of views, GRE invited the expert to submit a formal document for consideration at the next session.

Proposal to clarify the definition of “‘on’ time” (t_H) to address cases where a single flash consists of several flashes.

38. The expert from Poland proposed to clarify the definition of the “on” time for the case of a group of flashes (GRE-82-09). The expert from GTB pointed out that the GTB Working Group Photometry had recently considered an alternative wording for the same purpose. GRE invited both experts to submit a new proposal to the next session.

Proposal to include daytime running lamps in the provision for ‘an assembly of two independent lamps to be type approved as lamp marked “D”’.

50. The expert from Poland proposed to add a reference to DRL in paragraph 4.4.1. of UN Regulations No. [148] (GRE-82-10-Rev.1). The expert from IWG SLR stated that this proposal would be included into the consolidated package of amendments to the above UN Regulation.

The IWG-VGL group proposed that the CoP requirements would be the same as for the type-approval. Therefore, Poland will not support the proposal to extend them by another 0.4%.

31. The expert from IWG SLR recalled the previous discussions on the aiming diagram in paragraph 6.2.6.1.2. (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/81, para. 10 and Annex II) and presented GRE-82-25, which had been prepared in line with the GRE request. The expert from Poland proposed a revised diagram (GRE-82-43). For the diagram in GRE-82-25, the experts from Japan, Poland and the United Kingdom expressed their preference to maintain the 2000 lm criteria for automatic levelling and headlamp cleaning. The experts from Germany and the United Kingdom pointed out the need to consider the aiming tolerance for the purposes of, respectively, Periodic Technical Inspections (PTI) and Conformity of Production (CoP). GRE requested IWG SLR to consider the above elements and to prepare a revised document for the next session of GRE.

Proposal to discuss Supplement 18 to 04 series of amendments to UN R44 in lieu of a specific child restraint system that would fall outside the scope of the regulation

Proposal to clarify that it is not necessary to require an ISO 10844 asphalt track surface in cases where the vehicle is at a standstill provided that the surface is dense and without substantial absorption characteristics.

11. The expert from Poland proposed to allow surfaces other than ISO 10844 for measurements in standstill condition (GRBP-71-28-Rev.1). GRBP adopted the proposal, as contained in Annex V, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions as a draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 138.

Proposal to add a reference to the installation parameters of the licence plate illumination lamps determined during their type approval process. Every type-approved device or pair of devices have their own geometrical position in relation to the rear registration plate which is determined based on the illumination levels, maximum gradient value, angles of visibility and light incidence angle. This proposal would introduce a reference to these parameters in UN R48.

21. The expert from Poland proposed adding a reference to the installation parameters of the licence plate illumination lamps (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2020/2). The expert from OICA commented on the proposal (GRE-83-44). GRE adopted the proposal unamended and requested the secretariat to submit it for consideration and vote at the March 2021 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 14 to the 06 series of amendments and draft Supplement 1 to the 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48.

30. The expert from Poland requested deferral of discussion on the belt-guide, that was type approved by the authority of her country, to the December 2020 session of GRSP due to the research test results on the belt-guide, which had not yet been made available by the expert of EC. The experts from the Netherlands and ANEC/CI argued that discussion was needed on this subject since they considered this type of CRS as dangerous. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSP-67-05 explaining that the belt-guide was not in the scope of the UN Regulation and could not be type approved; as such, the type approval should be withdrawn. Finally, with reference to the procedure of the 1958 Agreement, Revision 3, Articles 4.2., 10.4 and Schedule 6 (paragraphs 2 and 3), he stated that through GRSP-67-05 he sought support from other contracting parties and cooperation from the expert of Poland to avoid starting the arbitration process – according to Schedule 6 of the 1958 Agreement. The expert from ANEC/CI, introduced GRSP-67-10 and GRSP-67-36 showing the high risk of abdominal injuries in both cases due to severe submarining. In anticipation of the above-mentioned test results, the expert from Poland introduced GRSP-67-32, showing some results of tests demonstrating the performance of this belt-guide type under laboratory conditions. She also clarified that the belt-guide was type approved according to Supplement 10 to the 04 series of amendments. However, she added that according to some stakeholder opinions, this belt-guide type should had been tested according to Supplement 11, thus making the device subject to different criteria. However, she stated that in her opinion there was a clear legal basis which demonstrated that the type approval granted under Supplement 10 was the correct one. The expert of the Netherlands responded by stating that, apart from the fact that this device does not comply with several requirements of UN Regulation No. 44, a supplement only clarifies existing requirements or test procedures and does not introduce new requirements. Even when Supplement 10 was in force, it was evident that a belt guide could not be approved as a child restraint.

31. The expert from EC recalled to GRSP, that the group had agreed to his former proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/28) to amend the scope of UN Regulation No 44 (Child Restraint Systems) with clarification that a belt-guide cannot be approved under Regulation 44 without being part of a child restraint system (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/66, paragraphs 27 and 28). However, he explained that EC had reconsidered the document submission to WP.29, since the interpretation that a “guide strap” and similar devices cannot be separately approved as a child restraint system, had already been endorsed by WP.29 at its March 2012 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1095, paragraph 35). Therefore, he introduced GRSP-67-31, that was only on the phase out of UN Regulation No. 44.

32. The Chair of GRSP referred to Schedule 6 of the 1958 Agreement, and stressed full consideration of the different opinions of the Type Approval Authorities of the concerned contracting parties, and of contracting parties applying UN Regulation No. 44. Therefore, the experts from France, Germany, Italy, Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom explicitly endorsed the request of the expert from the Netherlands to withdraw the type approval granted by Poland on the belt-guide, while none of the other present delegates indicated abstention or disagreement. The experts also noted that the Chair encouraged the expert of the Netherlands to continue discussions with the Type Approval Authority of Poland to seek cooperation with Poland in the aim to avoid the arbitration process according to Schedule 6 of the 1958 Agreement, which would start in the November 2020 session of WP.29.

33. GRSP also considered GRSP-67-14, tabled by the expert from France to correct a date in transitional provisions. Finally, GRSP adopted GRSP-67-14 and GRSP-67-31, as reproduced in Annex V to the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit the two proposals as draft Supplement 18 to the 04 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 44, for consideration and vote at the November 2020 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Proposal to correct requirements for type-IIA (endurance braking performance) tests.

67. The expert from Poland introduced GRVA-07-67 proposing correction to the table in para. 2.1.1. of Annex 4 in Regulation No. 13. GRVA requested the secretariat to distribute the document with an official symbol at the February 2021 session of GRVA.

29. Based on a proposal of IWG SLR, GRE continued its deliberations for preparing a new series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48 with new requirements for headlamp aiming and automatic levelling (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2020/8/Rev.1). The expert from Poland held the view that the justification part contained mistakes and inconsistencies and recalled his earlier proposals on the subject (GRE-83-41). Several experts expressed their support to the IWG SLR proposal.

30. The expert from OICA proposed to keep an option of manual levelling (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2020/23 and GRE-83-31). Some experts supported this option, while others were not in favour.

31. In the absence of a consensus, GRE stressed the need to finalize the issue as soon as possible and requested IWG SLR to take into account the comments made and to prepare a revised working document for the next session, based on the following principles:

• the aiming diagram agreed at the eighty-first session of GRE (Annex II to ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/GRE/81);
• automatic levelling;
• manual levelling, only if a consensus is reached within IWG SLR.

33. GRE instructed IWG SLR to organize a separate meeting on this issue and encouraged all experts of Contracting Parties to participate.

12. The expert from IWG SLR presented draft modifications to UN Regulation No.149 that would be finalized under stage 2 of the simplification process (GRE-83-24 and GRE-83-25). The expert from Poland expressed concerns about the photometric requirements envisaged by IWG SLR (GRE-83-43).

Proposal to correct requirements for type-IIA (endurance braking performance) tests.