CLEPA presentation on the type approval process for replacement brake pads, linings, and drums and the impact of the new approval numbering system adopted under Revision 3 to the 1958 Agreement on approvals and markings of these products.

Proposal to resolve inconsistencies present from Supplement 2 to the 02 series of amendments resulting from the approval of proposals in documents GRRF/2014/23/Rev.2, GRRF/2015/22 and GRRF/2016/22. The proposal also introduces provisions for L category (motorcycle and related) vehicles.

Proposal of requirements for L category vehicles. The original proposal addressed a broader range of issues and could not be finalized during the GRRF session. This document allows items where consensus was reached to move forward for WP.29 consideration.

Proposal to add replacement brake components for L₆ and L₇ (quadricycles) to the regulation, to correct references, and to clarify the text. This proposal aligns UN R90 with UN R78 (motorcycle braking).

Proposal as approved by GRRF to add tyre sizes and tyre classification codes common in the United States and standardised by the Tire and Rim Association, but needed under UN Regulation No. 106 in order to permit their type approval in conformity with Regulation EU 167/2013 for imported tyres. The proposal adds kPa marking specifications for use in measurements and tyre testing. The proposal further includes changes to the text and addition of tyre size designations to Annex 5 and Annex 7:

1. Paragraph 2.33.2 deleted since new tables for IF and VF were added to Annex 7
2. Paras 3.2., 3.2.2. and 5.4. modified because “tyres submitted for approval” cannot bear an approval mark until approved and the “only” as it is written can be misunderstood. Para. 3.2.2. was aligned to the wording in other UN Regulations. Reference to para. 3.3 in paragraph 5.4. is deleted because paragraph 3.3 does not refer to specific markings
3. Para 6.1.2. amended to align the wording to the headers in Annex 5 and to correct the reference to the footnote
4. Para 6.2.1. amended to restore the proper references after renumbering resulting from the latest Supplements
5. The amendment of Annex 5, Table 5 adds the value for the overall diameter (D) in column (*) that applies to tyres marked with classification code “I-3”
6. Annex 5, Table 6, Note 1 amended because most of the tyre sizes listed in the table, especially those identified by the “classification code I‐3” (i.e. Traction tread), are currently available in both versions: ‘implement’ to be used on agricultural machinery and ‘IND’ to be used on construction vehicles. The two types of tyres have the same type of size designation and the same dimensions. Therefore some manufacturers identify those tyres with the suffix ‘IND’ rather than with the suffix ‘IMP’ thus applying the variation of load capacity with speed as published in Annex 7 Part E. The reason for this proposal is to avoid a duplication of tables with a new table only replacing the suffix IMP with the suffix IND.
7. The addition of the footnote to Annex 5, Table 7 answers the request by GRRF to introduce appropriate formulae in the Regulation instead of continuously updating Annex 5.
8. References in Annex 7 corrected pursuant to the renumbering following the introduction of three new paragraphs in Supplement 15 approved during the 172nd session of WP.29.
9. Annex 7, Part A amended to conform with Tire and Rim Association specifications for code designated diagonal tyres with speed symbol A8.

Proposal as approved by the GRRF to introduce formulae for tyre sizes in Annex 5, Table B, add sizes in Annex 5, Part II, Tables C and E for old sizes that do not follow the guidelines/formulae applicable for high flotation tyres, amends footnotes in Annex 5, Part II, Table B in order to clarify categories of use, clarify tyre width tolerances, correct paragraph numbering and references, align the text editorially with UN R30 and to make other editorial improvements,

Addendum 1 to the Report of the GRRF on its 86th session

OICA perspectives for addressing cases of technologies voluntarily installed on vehicles by manufacturers that subsequently become subject to mandatory installation. In particular, the presentation addresses cases where a UN Regulation addresses technologies that are optional in some markets, but mandatory in others. For example, UN R116 includes both vehicle alarms and vehicle immobilizers. Alarms are presently optional across parties to the 1958 Agreement, but some parties require immobilizers. This divergence creates confusion over the validity of UN R116 approvals across all parties to the Agreement.