Japan proposals, modified pursuant to discussions during the 79th GRE session, to improve human-machine interfaces and otherwise clarify elements in the Headlamp Switching Task Force proposal for the electrical connections of headlamps, daytime running lamps, and related lighting devices (documents GRE/2018/20 and GRE-78-21/Rev.1).

Proposal from the SLR informal group to improve the general requirements proposed in documents GRE/2018/16 and GRE/2018/18.

Because the new lighting device regulations (LSD, RRD, and RID) each cover multiple lighting functions (e.g. direction indicators, marker lamps, DRL in the LSD regulation), the potential exists for a change in stringency to impact some, but not all functions within the scope of each regulation. The change index is proposed in order to track the impact on each function and so restrict the need for new type approvals only to those functions impacted by a change in stringency.

Proposal from the SLR informal group to improve and correct the official documents to introduce references to the three new simplified UN Regulations on LSD, RID and RRD.

Proposal for changes to document GRE/2018/13 consolidating common definitions of terms concerning lighting, light signalling, retro-reflective devices and device installation into Regulation No. 48.

a) Proposal to amend UN R48 to clarify the DRL switching-off conditions (also aligning them with the existing switching-off conditions for front position lamps reciprocally incorporated with DI) and/or light intensity reduction when DRL and DI are totally or partially reciprocally incorporated and when their distance is equal or less than 40 mm.
b) Proposal to introduce into UN R87 the possibility of a supplemental verification and certification of the “reduced luminous intensity”, fulfilling the pertinent requirements in Regulation No. 48.

Proposal from the Headlamp Switching task force co-chairs to clarify the wording used in requirements related to functional electrical connections of lamps in document GRE/2018/22.

Discussion document from the Netherlands and Italy to serve presenting potential new requirements for headlamp levelling, in particular regarding the vertical inclination in relation to the dipped-beam headlamp mounting height. The proposal is based on the original proposal of the Informal Working Group on Visibility, Glare and Levelling (VGL) (informal documents GRE-78-23-Rev.1, GRE-78-32, GRE-78-36) and discussions during the GRE 78th session.

Comments on the proposal from Germany and Italy for the 07 series of amendments to UN R48 and for Supplement 20 to UN R87.

Proposal to a) improve the transitional provisions presented in GRE/2018/11 with regard to the collective
amendments to Regulations Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 19, 23, 27, 38, 50, 69, 70, 77, 87, 91, 98, 104, 112, 113, 119 and 123 and b) introduce new requirements into the 06 series of amendments to UN R48 with regard to the validity and installation of type approved lighting and light-signalling devices.

Proposal to define specifications for the design and operation of external status indicators for Vehicle Alarm Systems (VAS), Alarm Systems (AS) and immobilizers under UN R48 pursuant to provisions of UN R97 and R116.

Proposal to address inconsistencies, clarify text, and correct terminology in Regulation No. 48:

• para. 5.7.2.1. editorial alignment of text with current terminology
• replace undefined “effective outlet” terminology with defined “apparent surface” reference
• reintroduction of missing reference to “transverse plane” in paras. 5.10.1. and 5.10.2.
• para. 6.2.9. and related subsequent paragraphs to clarify the application of the 2000 lumen criteria
• para. 6.26.9.2. to correct a cross-reference with UN R23.

Request for guidance regarding interpretation of UN lighting rules:

1. Is it allowed that the shape of the apparent surface can be the logo of the manufacturer brand or other brand-identifying figures?
2. Is it allowed that the shape of the apparent surface can be the same as an evocative/suggestive figure? Even as an informative figure such as road traffic
   signs?
3. Is the advertising lighting allowed at the national level in the Contracting parties, regarding to its influence on road safety and distraction?
4. Do we have to consider an apparent surface, whose shape is the logo of a brand manufacturer or other brand-identifying figures, as a advertising lighting?