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.