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)

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.

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).

Alternative solution from OICA to the German proposal GRSG/2017/16 regarding visibility/access requirements for PRV/PRD-related components in order to improve maintenance and reduce the risk of critical failures of pressure relief devices.

OICA proposal of modifications to the Turkey proposal to insert new provisions on the location on the vehicle of the filling unit, marking of the LPG container date of production, and a limitation on the maximum service life of LPG containers to 15 years. Given that the risks concern containers located outside and under the vehicle, OICA proposes focusing discussion of the 15-year service life on such containers. In addition, the proposal would introduce new requirements and therefore would require transitional provisions.

1. Document GRSG/2017/22 proposed by Turkey raised concerns regarding the location on the vehicle of the filling unit and a limitation of the service life of LPG containers
2. In order to prevent a proliferation of different service-life specifications, AEGPL proposes a fixed mandatory service live of 10 years.

Proposal to require marking of extension numbers on accessories relevant to the UN R67 bonfire test (e.g., multivalve, pressure relief valve, pressure relief device) in order to prevent/prohibit the misuse (in container configurations) of these accessories. The proposal includes provisions for components where such marking is impractical based upon text drawn from UN R46.

Proposal to improve the specifications for LPG multi-valves in response to an LPG vehicle fire that resulted in injuries to first responders. A German Type Approval Authority (KBA) analysis concluded that the hose connecting the PRV/PRD of the multi-valve to the gaseous phase was damaged and hose-fragments blocked both PRV and PRD such that pressure could not be adequately reduced. The PRV and PRD were activated, but the fragments considerably reduced the effective section of the relevant tubing and prevented the release of pressure. This proposal aims to prevent such occurrences.

Proposal to insert new provisions on the location on the vehicle of the filling unit, marking of the LPG container date of production, and a limitation on the maximum service life of LPG containers to 15 years.

Proposal for new safety provisions with regard to LPG systems having hydraulic interconnections with the petrol or diesel fueling system through which inter-flows of fuels may occur.

Proposal to establish procedures for the approval of non-seamless gas tube(s), gas tube(s) made of materials other than copper, stainless steel, and steel with corrosion-resistant coating, and their couplings in Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) vehicles provided they can withstand the applicable tests according to Annex 15.

Proposal presented as an alternative to the previous proposal from Poland (GRSG/2017/10) to require manufacturers to mark the approval extension number on any accessories relevant to the bonfire test (multivalve or, when approved separately, pressure relief valve (discharge valve) and pressure relief device) so that the fitting of any accessory not on the list of approved configurations (Table 3 in the appendix of Annex 2B) will be prevented/forbidden. This solution would imply a new requirement in Annex 2A for the marking of the accessories fitted to the containers.