Proposal to facilitate effective functioning of the LDWS fitted to Australian supplied vehicles of category M₂, M₃, N₂ and N₃ primarily used under highway conditions.

The current format of the type approval mark illustrated in Annex A3 is not consistent with the requirements of Section 5.2.1, which may unintentionally lead to approval marks not being issued or accepted in the correct format. The proposed amendment to Annex A3 aligns the illustrated approval marks with the requirements of Section 5.2.1 and Schedule 4 of Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement. This proposal is available with tracked changes in a pdf version and in a .docx format.

26. The representative from Australia introduced GRPE-87-33. The representative from the UK highlighted there might be a confusion between approval number and approval marking. The representative from Australia said consistency might be desired between approval numbering and marking. The GRPE ambassador to IWGs on IWVTA and DETA agreed with the representative from the UK and recalled the analysis done previously that also highlighted widespread inconstancy across GRs between approval numbering and approval marking. He added that IWGs on IWVTA and DETA were dealing with this topic and requested some more time before coming up with a proposal to potentially solve these issues.

61. GRSP noted the presentation of the expert from Australia (GRSP-72-26) which provides Australian specific data on children left unattended in a vehicle. The expert from CI suggested that the issue should be included in the programme of work of GRSP (see paragraph 60 below). Following the request of WP.29 at its 167th session, GRSP would continue to gather information and statistics on global extent at its next sessions as a first step (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1166, paragraph 76).

Proposal to correct drafting errors within the 06 and 07 series of amendments.

48. The representative from the European Commission introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2023/5. He added that this proposal only applied to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 49. GRPE supported the content of the proposal.

49. GRPE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2023/5 and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2023 sessions as draft new supplement to the 06 Series of Amendments to UN Regulation No. 49.

Proposal to exempt external status indicator lights (e.g., in mirror lamps for blind spot sensor, status of refrigerated trailer cooling systems, trailer REESS status indicators, tyre pressure indicators, ABS status indicator) from UN R48 while specifying permissible colors and behaviors to avoid confusion with police, emergency, and other priority-vehicle lighting.

28. The expert from Australia introduced a proposal to the 06, 07 and 08 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48 on the external status indicators (GRE-87-22). GRE noted comments of several experts and invited the author to liaise with those experts with a view to submitting a working document to the next session.

Proposal concerning deactivation of AEBS related to use of front-mounted devices (e.g., snow plow).

68. GRVA received a report (GRVA-12-09/Rev.1) from the expert from Germany, Co-Chair of the IWG on AEBS for heavy duty vehicles, on the progress made by the group to upgrade UN Regulation No. 131. He presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2022/7 (amended by GRVA-12-08), proposing to adjust the performance requirements in UN Regulation No. 131 to the current state of the art.

69. The expert from the Czech Republic highlighted that the upgraded provisions would be a significant contribution to road safety. He denied that the provisions corresponded to the current state of art technology. He explained that this assessment would only be true for a limited number of truck manufacturers and added that smaller truck manufacturers would be impacted as they were not working closely enough with the big systems suppliers for such systems.

70. The expert from ETSC mentioned the potential positive impact on road safety that this amendment, if adopted, could bring.

71. GRVA worked during the week on different options to introduce the requirements related to the vehicle to vehicle and the vehicle to pedestrian use cases and the corresponding transitional provisions as well as the AEBS deactivation conditions, on the basis of positions expressed by Australia, Germany, Japan, CLEPA, ETSC and OICA (GRVA-12-38, GRVA-12-39, GRVA-12-41, GRVA-12-42/Rev.1, GRVA-12-44, GRVA-12-46 and GRVA-12-47). GRVA also discussed provisions restricting the ability to switch off AEBS.

72. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2022/7 as amended by GRVA-12-49 (reproduced in GRVA-12-50/Rev.1), to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2022 sessions.

69. The representative from Australia introduced GRPE-82-13 on the consultation process on-going in the country for the future emission legislation for light and heavy vehicles. The representative from EC required some information about the consideration to propose the latest 07 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 49 (instead of the 06) for the future heavy vehicles’ legislation. The representative from Australia clarified the 06 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 49 was the latest available when the proposal was drafted and amending this (upon decision from transport minister) would require starting a whole new process.

70. The representative from EC asked whether feedback to the consultation was expected from GRPE and its stakeholders. The representative from Australia said the consultation was primarily aimed at domestic stakeholders, and the he would be thankful to receive feedback from international stakeholders too.

71. The representative from OICA recalled that Australia was not a contracting party to UN Regulation No. 83 and asked if this was expected to change if Australia was to adopt UN Regulation No. 83 as part of its emission legislation. The representative from Australia said that Australia would in principle become a contracting party to UN Regulation No. 83 if adopted as part of this legislative process.

Proposal to clarify that UN R139 does not mandate the installation of brake assist systems (BAS) on vehicles but rather specifies requirements for the approval of vehicles should they be equipped with a BAS system.

50. GRVA considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/12 (together with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/6) under agenda item 7 (a) above. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-02-29) and reproduced in Annex V. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 139 (BAS) for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

Proposal to clarify that UN R140 does not mandate the installation of electronic stability control systems (ESC) on vehicles but rather specifies requirements for the approval of vehicles should they be equipped with an ESC system.

47. The expert from Australia introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/6 addressing the concern expressed during the 175th WP.29 session. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-02-30) and reproduced in Annex IV. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 3 to UN Regulation No. 140 for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

Proposal to clarify the purpose of UN R139 which was originally established through the extraction of brake assist system (BAS) provisions from UN R13-H on brake systems. Within the context of UN R13-H, the BAS provisions were written to assess performance in cases where a vehicle was fitted with a brake assist system. As a stand-alone regulation, UN R139 applies only to vehicles that are equipped with BAS. Therefore, this supplement proposes to refine the text to remove the “if fitted” language and ensure that UN R139 can only be applied to a vehicle equipped with a BAS.

12. The expert from Australia presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/3 clarifying the obligation for the vehicle type to be equipped with a Brake Assist System (BAS) or an Electronic Stability Control (ESC) system in order to receive a type approval according to UN Regulation No. 139 or UN Regulation No. 140 respectively. GRRF supported both proposals and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplements 1 to UN Regulations Nos. 139 and 140 for consideration and vote at their June 2018 sessions.

Proposal to remove “if fitted” language from the text to clarify that UN R140 can only be applied to a vehicle equipped with a ESC system. UN R140 was originally established through the extraction of electronic stability controls (ESC) provisions from UN R13-H on brake systems. Within the context of UN R13-H, the ESC provisions were written to assess performance in cases where a vehicle was fitted with an electronic stability control system. As a stand-alone regulation, however, UN R140 applies only to vehicles that are equipped with ESC. The proposal also would correct an apparent error in to Annex 4, paragraph 2.1. where the reference to “ISO 15037 Part 1:2005” should read “ISO 15037 Part 1:2006”.

12. The expert from Australia presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/3 clarifying the obligation for the vehicle type to be equipped with a Brake Assist System (BAS) or an Electronic Stability Control (ESC) system in order to receive a type approval according to UN Regulation No. 139 or UN Regulation No. 140 respectively. GRRF supported both proposals and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplements 1 to UN Regulations Nos. 139 and 140 for consideration and vote at their June 2018 sessions.

Proposal to insert provisions for vehicles equipped with manual airbag deactivation devices, especially to ensure that vehicles meet performance requirements regardless of the airbag activation setting and to specific requirements for airbag status reminders and telltales.

23. Finally, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13 to its December 2016 session due to lack of time.

16. The expert from Australia introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13 aimed at introducing provisions for airbag deactivation devices (where fitted). The expert from France argued that the proposed requirements should provide the right information for airbag deactivation and avoid [erroneous] reactivation of the airbag when e.g. a rearward-facing CRS is installed on the front passenger seat. Finally, he required data rationales to justify the proposal. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2017 session and requested experts to provide their comments on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13 to the expert from Australia.

19. GRSP resumed discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13 which aims at introducing provisions for airbag deactivation devices (where fitted). The expert from Australia requested that more statistical data was needed to support the proposal and reiterated his invitation to experts to provide information, otherwise he would withdraw the proposal at the December 2017 session of GRSP.

16. Finally, the expert from Australia, withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13.

Australian proposal to adapt UN R14 to current Australian child restraint system anchorage requirements within the context of enabling the use of UN R14 within the international whole vehicle type approval system.

17. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-58-13 that aims to: (i) solve the incompatibility of the requirements of the UN Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia, Canada and the United States of America and (ii) include Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future UN Regulation No. 0 of the IWVTA. He added that this proposal would avoid splitting UN Regulation No. 14 into two Regulations: safety-belt anchorages and child restraint anchorages (the latter would be excluded by Annex 4 of UN Regulation No. 0). He clarified that the proposal would instead propose changes to UN Regulation No. 14, making CRS anchorages suitable for both safety-belt anchored CRS and rigid ISOFIX type CRS in a larger number of countries. The Chair of GRSP introduced GRSP-58-24, which supports, in principle, the proposal and shows the benefits of harmonizing CRS standards. The expert from OICA requested time to examine the proposal in view of splitting the UN Regulation, which he considered to be the most pragmatic approach.

18. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2016 session and requested experts to provide comments on the proposal to the expert from Australia by the end of March 2016, pending other comments from the IWVTA IWG. Finally, it was agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 in the agenda of the next session of GRSP as an informal document and as a possible basis for development of proposals on harmonization in the framework of the 1998 Agreement.

15. The expert from Australia recalled the purpose of GRSP-58-13 aimed at solving the incompatibility of the requirements of the UN Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia and North America, and including UN Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future UN Regulation No. 0 on the IWVTA. He added that he received the following main comments: (i) recommending the exclusion of any provision to cover non-ISOFIX anchorages and leave to be regulated at the national level and (ii) changing the excursion limits to the test applied load. The expert from OICA reiterated his preference for splitting the UN Regulation into two Regulations: safety-belt anchorages and child restraint anchorages (the latter would be excluded by Annex 4 of UN Regulation No. 0). He explained that this solution would cope with the lack of harmonized provisions on CRS anchorages worldwide and would avoid type approval issues in countries like Australia. The expert from United Kingdom expressed his preference in a long-term solution by keeping a unique Regulation. However, he added that if this would result in design and type approval issues to vehicle manufacturers, he would eventually be in favour of the solution proposed by the expert from OICA. The expert from France supported the opinion of the expert from United Kingdom. However, he raised a study reservation to review all the consequences implied by splitting the UN Regulation.

16. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2016 session, on the basis of a possible revised proposal and to keep GRSP-58-13 on the agenda of the next session of GRSP as an informal document.

14. The expert from OICA introduced two proposals: (a) GRSP-60-04 to remove ISOFIX anchorages from the Regulation and (b) GRSP-60-05 to incorporate them into a new one dedicated to these anchorages only. He explained that, in his opinion, the two proposals constitute the most viable solution aimed at solving the incompatibility of the requirements of the Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia and including Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future Regulation No. 0 on the International Whole Vehicle Type Approval (IWVTA). The expert from Australia supported the solution proposed by the expert from OICA as well as the experts from Italy, Japan and Sweden. However, the experts from the Netherlands and EC argued that the improvement proposed by Australia and covering harmonization issues should not be disregarded. The experts from France and the United Kingdom supported the splitting of Regulation No. 14 and urged that some improvements on ISOFIX provisions were needed once that the new Regulation was established.

15. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2017 session, on the basis of revised proposals tabled by OICA including the replacement of dynamic with static references in Regulation No. 14 and in a number of other Regulations. In the meantime, it was agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 on the next GRSP agenda for future development of ISOFIX provisions.

45. The expert from OICA introduced the draft new UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/7) on ISOFIX. He also provided for information the list of UN Regulations (GRSP-61-11) affected by the splitting of UN Regulation No. 14. He also introduced GRSP-61-06-Rev.1, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/7. GRSP adopted the proposal as amended by Annex VIII to the report for submission to WP.29 in November 2017.

46. Finally, GRSP agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 as a reference in the agenda of the next session for possible future discussion on harmonization of requirements on ISOFIX.

42. The expert from Australia withdrew GRSP-58-13 and GRSP agreed to delete this item from the agenda of its May 2018 session.

Australia wishes to accept the new full-width rigid barrier crash test regulation (expected as UN R137) as an alternative to its ADR 69/00; however, Australia wishes to avoid possible confusion over the use of an airbag deactivation device (such as used to turn off an airbag when a child seat is used in the front seat). Therefore, Australia proposes to clarify the provisions of UN R16 to avoid misunderstandings or misuse of such devices along the lines of requirements found in Euro NCAP and US FMVSS 208.

24. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-58-14 proposing to introduce a provision on airbag de-activation switches; this would be in line with EuroNCAP requirements and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session and experts were recommended to provide comments on GRSP-58-14 to the expert from Australia before the end of January 2016 to allow the submission of a revised official proposal.

Australia Road Research Board (ARRB) Internal Report related to ISO/TC22/SC15/WG4 N 535 Annex 5.

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55-04­­-11, R55-05-05, R55-06-09, R55-07-06, R55-07-14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55-09-04, R55-09-05, R55-09-11, R55-09- 13, R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06; R55-10-07; R55-10-08; R55-10-15)
At the previous meeting Mr. Stokreef requested more of the background information to the ISO18868:2013 standard. In order to respond to that request Mr. Svensson had uploaded the documents R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06. The last of those documents was a history summary over the work with that standard going back to 2002. The document R55-10-07 was a summary of many recent measurements of coupling forces in different vehicle combinations. There is also a comparison with the requirements as calculated using the ISO18868:2013. It could be noted that the measure peak forces only at on instance came close to the fatigue test load corresponding to the performance required.

Mr. Westphäling at the 9th meeting argued that road conditions in Germany are worse than in Australia. To this meeting Mr. Svensson had gathered information that showed that the German Autobahn does not have worse conditions than the Australian roads. Hence the measured forces and the experience over 30 years supporting the ISO18868 are valid. Mr. Stokreef was not present but had prior to the meeting expressed support for the proposal for this item. Mr. Westphäling argued that different engine power and and brakes requirements would the still make the proposal questionable. In response to that Mr. Svensson showed the diagram in the document R55-10-07. There it could be seen that the real high coupling forces is generated neither by traction nor by braking but through interaction between unevenness in the road and the geometric layout of the vehicle combination. Hence the difference in engine power and braking performance is not a significant factor. While support for the proposal is converging Mr. Westphäling wanted to the next meeting to challenge OEM:s and trailer manufactures for more measurements. Mr. Alguëra was doubtful whether there are any better measurements available. Next meeting

Proposed text to explain procedures for the withdrawal or revocation of a whole vehicle type approval, including differences between a universal (U-IWVTA) approval and a limited (L-IWVTA) approval.

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55-04­­-11, R55-05-05, R55-06-09, R55-07-06, R55-07-14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55-09-04, R55-09-05, R55-09-11, R55-09- 13, R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06; R55-10-07; R55-10-08; R55-10-15)
At the previous meeting Mr. Stokreef requested more of the background information to the ISO18868:2013 standard. In order to respond to that request Mr. Svensson had uploaded the documents R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06. The last of those documents was a history summary over the work with that standard going back to 2002. The document R55-10-07 was a summary of many recent measurements of coupling forces in different vehicle combinations. There is also a comparison with the requirements as calculated using the ISO18868:2013. It could be noted that the measure peak forces only at on instance came close to the fatigue test load corresponding to the performance required.

Mr. Westphäling at the 9th meeting argued that road conditions in Germany are worse than in Australia. To this meeting Mr. Svensson had gathered information that showed that the German Autobahn does not have worse conditions than the Australian roads. Hence the measured forces and the experience over 30 years supporting the ISO18868 are valid. Mr. Stokreef was not present but had prior to the meeting expressed support for the proposal for this item. Mr. Westphäling argued that different engine power and and brakes requirements would the still make the proposal questionable. In response to that Mr. Svensson showed the diagram in the document R55-10-07. There it could be seen that the real high coupling forces is generated neither by traction nor by braking but through interaction between unevenness in the road and the geometric layout of the vehicle combination. Hence the difference in engine power and braking performance is not a significant factor. While support for the proposal is converging Mr. Westphäling wanted to the next meeting to challenge OEM:s and trailer manufactures for more measurements. Mr. Alguëra was doubtful whether there are any better measurements available. Next meeting

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55-04­­-11, R55-05-05, R55-06-09, R55-07-06, R55-07-14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55-09-04, R55-09-05, R55-09-11, R55-09- 13, R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06; R55-10-07; R55-10-08; R55-10-15)
At the previous meeting Mr. Stokreef requested more of the background information to the ISO18868:2013 standard. In order to respond to that request Mr. Svensson had uploaded the documents R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06. The last of those documents was a history summary over the work with that standard going back to 2002. The document R55-10-07 was a summary of many recent measurements of coupling forces in different vehicle combinations. There is also a comparison with the requirements as calculated using the ISO18868:2013. It could be noted that the measure peak forces only at on instance came close to the fatigue test load corresponding to the performance required.

Mr. Westphäling at the 9th meeting argued that road conditions in Germany are worse than in Australia. To this meeting Mr. Svensson had gathered information that showed that the German Autobahn does not have worse conditions than the Australian roads. Hence the measured forces and the experience over 30 years supporting the ISO18868 are valid. Mr. Stokreef was not present but had prior to the meeting expressed support for the proposal for this item. Mr. Westphäling argued that different engine power and and brakes requirements would the still make the proposal questionable. In response to that Mr. Svensson showed the diagram in the document R55-10-07. There it could be seen that the real high coupling forces is generated neither by traction nor by braking but through interaction between unevenness in the road and the geometric layout of the vehicle combination. Hence the difference in engine power and braking performance is not a significant factor. While support for the proposal is converging Mr. Westphäling wanted to the next meeting to challenge OEM:s and trailer manufactures for more measurements. Mr. Alguëra was doubtful whether there are any better measurements available. Next meeting

The scope of the new Global Technical Regulation on Pole Side Impact includes vehicles of category N1 (limited to GVM < 3.5 t) and vehicles of category M1 (without mass limit). However, the vehicle fleet includes a small number of M1 vehicles with a GVW > 3.5t which are based on vehicles of category N2, N3, M2 or M3. Based on the OICA proposal (document GRSP-56-12) and ensuing discussions, Australia proposes to limit the scope of the GTR to both M1 vehicles under 3.5 t maximum vehicle mass and to certain N1 vehicles based on geometric measurements.

48. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-56-33 (superseding GRSP-56-12), to clarify the scope of the UN Regulation. GRSP adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex VII of this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2015 sessions, as draft Supplement 1 to the new UN Regulation on Pole Side Impact.

Proposal to raise the voting threshold required under the 1958 Agreement to approve a given text (e.g., new UN Regulation or amendment of an existing regulation) from the present two-thirds majority (achievable by the EU vote alone) to a four-fifths majority.

54. On behalf of Australia, Japan, Malaysia and the Russian Federation, the representative of Japan introduced WP.29-164-14 justifying the need to raise the voting majority threshold from the two-third to a four-fifths majority. The representative of EU presented a declaration (WP.29-164-30) by the European Commission Services on behalf of the EU member States and announced the intention to establish a coordinated position by March 2015.

55. The representative of India stated that his country was thankful to Japan for representing its views in IWVTA on the revision of 1958 Agreement. India was already a Contracting Party to 1998 Agreement. He noted that some of the suggestions were under consideration with respect to the 1958 Agreement. Ideally, India would prefer a consensus vote. Additionally, some suggestions have not reached consensus such as proxy voting, choice for accepting or not accepting higher version of UN Regulation, mechanism of validation of test agencies, dispute resolution mechanism, flexibility to apply a UN Regulation to a sub-set of vehicle categories, Contracting Party’s right to declare which versions it would accept, etc. He further stated that India appreciated that several countries had shown interest in developing the Indian market. This had improved the indigenous manufacturing industry in India, but India was carefully analysing the advantages that the 1958 Agreement would bring. He added that apart from being a large consumer market, India was also a significant producer of automobiles. India had established testing facilities in the country and was planning other advanced testing centres in near future. India also aspired to participate in other markets in future. India would like to actively participate in all WP.29 sessions and remained committed to better safety, emission and energy solutions, thus accepting regulations which were relevant for the country. India would, therefore, convey its decision on the 1958 Agreement after a detailed study of the final draft document before the March 2015 session of WP.29.

56. The World Forum recognized that the Contracting Parties would need more time to review the above proposals and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in March 2015. The representatives of Germany and the United Kingdom noted the need for a finalized text prior to submitting to their national authorities for approval and so the World Forum agreed that adoption of the revised agreement would be delayed accordingly. The secretariat was also requested to circulate WP.29-164-23 as a separate official document.