Proposal of provisions that can be applied within GTR No. 9 based upon the text developed for Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement (Schedule 8) on the validation of a simulation method.

Presentation on the Pedestrian Detection Impactor 2 performance. The PDI-2 was developed jointly by the Altran Concept Tech GmbH and ACEA to test sensor systems for active pedestrian protection systems (e.g. active engine bonnets).

Proposal of provisions to facilitate the transition to the updated 05 series of amendments to UN R10.

OICA view that no standardized accelerated aging test methods are available which are providing a fair and representative aging estimation.

OICA comments and proposed changes to the “Single Cell Thermal Runaway Propagation” white paper intended to define a consensus on the testing for such risks.

Proposal to amend the wording of the transitional provisions as drafted for the 01 series to Regulation No. 138 (document WP.29/2017/7 for the March 2017 WP.29 session, prohibiting the AVAS pause function) with the guidelines for these provisions as established by Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement.

Consolidation of draft amendments collected by OICA from various sources, including remarks of contracting parties during expert group meetings and meetings, and from discussions within the informal working group on ASEP. The document has been prepared to encourage discussion.

1. Paragraph 1: The scope was originally drafted for the Annex 3 test which refers to normal urban driving. A proposed additional sentence covers the intention of Annex 7.
2. Paragraph 2.8.1.: Adopt the wording from standard ISO 362-1:2015 for clarity. If an electric motor is not operational during the type approval tests, then its power must not contribute to the calculation of the power to mass ratio (PMR).

3. Paragraph 2.24., table: Amendments regarding paragraph 2.2.7.4. of Annex 3 because paragraph 2.2.7.4. is new. Amendments also for line BB’ to reflect that the measurement will not end after line BB’. For the speeds vAA’, vBB’ and vPP’, a wrong reference coming from ISO was corrected.

4. Paragraph 2.27.: A new definition of “kickdown” was introduced since this term is used in this Regulation. With a large variety of products, it is unclear what “kickdown” exactly means. This definition is a design neutral approach and reflects the intention of Annex 3 and Annex 7.
5. Paragraph 2.28.: Prevention of downshift is a legal measure to ensure that the vehicle can be tested within the test conditions as specified by this Regulation.
6. Paragraph 3.3.: Deletion of meaningless sentence given the requirement that the vehicles have to be loaded in order to be able to achieve the urban driving conditions as described in paragraph 3.1.2.2. of Annex 3. The sentence has similarly already been deleted in Regulation (EU) No. 540/2014.
7. Paragraph 6.2.3.: The current specification requires a hybrid vehicle to be assessed according to the additional sound emission provisions (ASEP), even though such a vehicle does not have the internal combustion engine running within the control range of Annex 7. There will be no valid test result. Such vehicles should be exempted from ASEP.
8. Annex 1, Appendix 1: For the test method according to 3.1.2.1 the pre-acceleration length may differ per gear ratio. In this case, it is necessary to report the pre-acceleration length per gear ratio.
10. Annex 1, Appendix 2 : Missing elements of the information document have been added, namely “0.2. type” and “3.2.6. pressure charger(s)”.
11. Annex 3, paragraph 2.1.: Lower temperatures will lead to slightly higher test results due to an increased tyre rolling sound. Thus, testing at lower temperatures will be a disadvantage for the manufacturer. If for practical reasons the manufacturer wishes to carry out tests at lower temperatures, this shall be accepted by the type approval authority.
12. Annex 3, paragraph 2.2.1.: For M1 and N1, the current provision has led to ambiguities about its meaning. The proposed new sentence clarifies the meaning. Further, the tolerances are broadened, as research shows, that the impact of the test mass can be neglected in a wide range. For M2, M3, N2 and N3, the current provision has led to ambiguities about its meaning. The proposed new sentence clarifies the meaning. If the test mass of the vehicle is equal to the target mass, the target mass shall be achieved with a tolerance of ±5 per cent according to equation (2) in paragraph 2.2.7.1. of Annex 3. Consequently this has to be valid also for the test mass mt. If the test mass of the vehicle is lower than the target mass according to equation (12) and (13) in paragraph 2.2.7.1. of Annex 3, the test mass shall be achieved with a tolerance of ±5 per cent. Concerning M2 and M3, for clarification and to avoid misunderstanding, the loading conditions for complete vehicles of category M2 (M > 3,500 kg) and M3 were aligned with the requirements for incomplete vehicles of category M2 (M > 3,500 kg) and M3. As a consequence, vehicles of category M2 (M ≤ 3,500 kg) have to be added to the table and their test mass requirement has to be aligned with those of vehicles of category M1 and N1.
13. Annex 3, paragraph 2.2.7.1.: See the above justification for M2, M3, N2 and N3 in paragraph 2.2.1.
14. Annex 3, paragraph 2.2.7.4.: If a manufacturer does not produce vehicles with two axles only, he is not able to calculate the right test mass for his vehicles with more than two axles. For calculating the test mass, a vehicle with two axles has to be put on a scale to measure the unladen front axle load, mfa load unladen, and the unladen rear axle load, mra load unladen, for being able to calculate munladen as given in formula (3) of paragraph 2.2.7.1. of Annex 3. In addition, a new paragraph provides a procedure for calculating the test mass of a virtual vehicles with two axles, based on an existing vehicle with more than two axles, when a vehicle with two axles is physically not available to be put on a scale.
15. Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.1.: Proposal to extend the measurement to a position where misfiring is detectable. A redundant sentence is deleted per paragraph 2.2.4.
16. Annex 3, paragraph 1.1.2.1.4.1.(d): Clarify gear usage where one gear ratio is above 2 m/s² and the other below a_urban.
17. Annex 3, paragraph 1.1.2.1.4.1. (e): The suggested changes clarify the proper setup for testing for vehicles with very short gear ratios.
18. Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.1.4.3.: Introduction of specifications for vehicles with only one gear ratio.
19. Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.1.5. : Simplify testing. With a fixed vehicle length, it is not necessary to adjust the test equipment (light barriers, pylons) for each vehicle.
20. Annex 3, paragraph 3.2.3.: Reference correction
21. Annex 3, paragraph 3.2.5.3.: Reference correction
22. Annex 4, paragraph 1.: The performance of the fibrous material can be checked by completely removing the fibrous material. This reintroduces an option removed when Annex 5 of the 02 series of amendments was revised.


23. Annex 6, paragraph 2.1.: Proposal to simplify and clarify CoP. During the conformity of production procedures, neither the vehicle nor tyres will have a proper preconditioning. In many cases, the vehicles are foiled and parts may be missing as theft protection. It is very unlikely that the vehicles will have already the same performance as the type approval vehicle. This provision adopts the specifications from the revised ASEP provisions (Informal document GRB-65-26, Annex 7, para. 1). In addition, the range of masses was broadened in the same way as proposed for type approval.
24. Annex 6, paragraph 3.: Reference correction.

Proposal to align the transitional provisions in the 01 series of amendments with the format introduced following Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement.

UN R51 allows the use mechanical or electronic devices to control the gear shifting and measures to avoid accelerations greater than 2.0 m/s². However, the measures are not defined and the manufacturer or technical service is not obliged to document the methodology in the test report. This proposal would introduce a table with examples for devices and measures for reference and would require documentation of methodology used.

Proposal to update paragraph 6.9.8. with regard to current technologies (e.g. LED and IPS) where instrument panels remain illuminated whenever the engine is running. With the advent of new automated technologies and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), the number of warnings and symbols may dramatically increase in the near future. This proposal aims to reduce risks of driver confusion by reducing the number of symbols displayed on the instrument panel. The Chinese Standard GB 4094 already captures this possibility. The proposal is therefore also a move toward further international harmonization.

Proposal to amend GRE/2016/33 and GRE-76-17 pursuant to discussions at the October 2016 GRE-76 session:

1. The direct reference to Regulations Nos. 97 and 116 that was included in GRE-76-17, para. 2.37. was removed based on the observation of the representative of Finland on a potential split, in the future, of some of the Regulations under the responsibility of GRSG.
2. In another remark from the representative of Finland, the word “indicator” that was missing in the last sentence of para. 2.37. in the text of the proposals GRE/2016/33 and GRE-76-17 has been added.
3. Based on the comments from the representatives of France, UK, Finland and Japan, the area of the apparent surface, mentioned in GRE/2016/33 and GRE-76-17, para. 5.30. (c) has been lowered from 50 cm² to 20 cm², in the case of one indicator is being installed on the vehicle. If two indicators are installed, the area of the apparent surface should not exceed 10 cm² per indicator.

Proposal to clarify and amend the supplement concerning sequential direction indicators adopted by GRE during its 76th session based upon document GRE/2016/20 and finalized in Annex IV of the session report. The proposal would clarify and move the prohibition against the mixing of signals of two or more activation modes to UN R48 and introduces transitional provisions.

Proposal to correct and clarify the text, including to

1. correct the constants for equation (34) to calculate exhaust mass flow using carbon balance method,
2. correct constants used for CVS verification,
3. correct the formula for regression analysis according to Annex 4, Appendix 3, and
4. correct the rise time (to 3.5 s from 2.5 s) for the PEM analyzers under paragraph A.2.2.1. of the 06 series.

Comprehensive amendment of document GRPE/2017/6 to align UN R49 with the latest amendments of EU Euro VI legislation (Reg. EU 2016/1718), including

1. OBD equivalency option for light commercial vehicles to be continued with step ‘D’,
2. editorial corrections (incl. keeping optional THC PEMS measurement for gas engines),
3. implementation dates in Appendix 9 table 1 (2016/1718) and Annex 3 table 1 (R49),
4. implement rejection note for retroactive applicability with regard to in-service conformity (paragraph 13.4.),
clarification of type approval provisions for ‘new vehicle types as of 2017’,
5. deletion of infeasible requirement related to the PEMS test (“…void if … no valid windows left in urban only”), second part of sentence in Annex 8, Appendix 1: A1.4.2.2.2.2.
6. deletion of inconsistency between work based window and CO2 mass based method regarding valid integration windows (A.1.4.2.2.2.2. versus A.1.4.3.1.2.2).

The subject documents would permit Contracting Parties applying UN R83 and/or UN R101 and which have transposed GTR No. 15 (WLTP) into their local legislation to refuse to accept type approvals granted under the UN R83 and/or UN R101 as a compliance alternative to their national/regional legislation (i.e., aligned with GTR No. 15). OICA proposes to clarify the intent by deleting allusions to the measure as a form of derogation, to replace the phrase “may no longer accept” with “may refuse”, and to introduce a sunset clause to noting that the measure is intended as a stop-gap until such time as GTR No. 15 has been transposed into the corpus of UN Regulations.

Proposal to restrict the application of CO2 specific emission limits only to NMHC and CO emissions (back-to-back comparison of NOx and PM to apply under the regulation in any case). The proposal also aligns the text where applicable with the intent of paragraph 2.3.15.: “R49 original emission limits” means the emission limits as defined in Regulation No. 49 to which the original engine system was approved."

Proposal to correct an error in the formula presented in paragraph 5.4.2. Diesel engines – Factor αd. The parameter “f_m” in the equation should be a superscript (e.g., meaning “to the power of f_m”). Through a transcription error, this factor was rendered in normal text.

Amendments from OICA to the proposal to introduce provisions to align UN R49 with recently introduced stage D EU legislation in order enable manufacturers to continue to utilize the provisions in paragraph 4 of Annex 9A to approve light commercial vehicles with a light duty OBD architecture under this regulation.

OICA proposal to include the alignment of the amendment of EU Euro VI legislation (Reg. EU 2014/133) into the Regulation No. 49 which has not been covered before. Reg. EU 2014/133 corrects applicability of OBD threshold levels (OTLs) to all types of vehicles covered by the regulation by removing the reference to vehicle classes and weights.

Proposal to clarify the wording of the determination of the net power for electric motors and to correct an error in the formula presented in paragraph 5.4.2. Diesel engines – Factor αd. The parameter “f_m” in the equation should be a superscript (e.g., meaning “to the power of f_m”). Through a transcription error, this factor was rendered in normal text.

Proposal to clarify the text with regard to the extension of approvals for category N vehicles in order to avoid a possible misinterpretation that extensions may not be granted to vehicles with a reference mass greater than the mass of the type-approved vehicle.

Proposal to adapt the 06 and 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 83 to Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) warning and inducement systems to current vehicles, emissions requirements and reagent infrastructure. In light of further vehicle weight reduction for CO2 optimization and the resultant vehicle packaging challenges, diesel cars will likely have smaller AdBlue® reagent tanks. For passenger cars, the warning indicator to refill AdBlue® has to be activated at 2,400 km of remaining reagent range which could result in very frequent refills of smaller reagent tanks. This proposal would allow for reagent refill inducement warnings as a percentage of tank capacity or as a function of the average driving range with a complete tank of fuel.

Proposal to improve the “random check requirement” and define the rounding of test results calculated according to Annex 4A in the 05 series of amendments.

Proposal to improve the Engine Control Unit (ECU) torque signal validation requirement in the 06 series of amendments to R49 with regard to dual-fuel or flex-fuel vehicles. Under the regulation, the ECU torque information can be calibrated only to one fuel’s heat value (usually the basic reference fuel) even though the heat value of the alternative fuel is different. In order to increase the accuracy of the torque values used for calculating the emission results during in-service conformity testing, OICA proposes to change the provisions to either:

1. Demonstrate that both fuels comply because the ODB system is able to detect the fuel used, or
2. Determine the torque deviation caused by the alternative fuel heat value compared to the standard fuel and apply this correction factor to calculate a more accurate power signal for the emission calculation.

OICA presentation on its field study to develop data on TPMS performance and comments on the T&E test procedure for evaluating indirect TPMS. In particular, OICA states that the T&E methods did not represent normal use cases or correspond to the intent of UN R141 to address slow diffusion of air that leads to underinflation.

OICA comments and questions regarding the EC proposal to amend the UN R79 annex on complex electronic systems to require auditing of methodologies used to ensure system safety at both concept and system level.

OICA request for confirmation that:

• the provisions for CSF, ACSF A and ACSF B1 will be introduced via a new supplement 06 to the current series of amendments to UN R79;
• the vehicles approved prior to the introduction of the new supplement will not be required to comply with it, even in case of an extension.

Proposal to amend provisions on electronic stability control warnings under braking regulations to allow for activation of the ESC visual warning during a stability-assistance intervention of an electronic steering control. The aim is to avoid separate requirements for brake-actuated and steering-actuated stability assistance that would lead to two visual warnings where only one is appropriate.

OICA/CLEPA comments on the proposal to restrict manual deactivation of AEB systems to speeds under 30 km/h, noting cases where, given the current state of the technology, manual deactivation (regardless of speed) is warranted.

This proposal supplements proposal GRRF/2017/23 which amends UN R13, R13H and R140, to allow the use of the ESC tell-tale to indicate the intervention on the steering angle of one or more wheels for the purpose of vehicle stability. The intention allow design options that avoid two optical warning signals (ESC flashing + constant CSF) during an ESC intervention.

Draft proposal to enable the approval of automated emergency steering systems intended to avoid or mitigate collisions. The proposal based on document ACSF-14-07 submitted by OICA and CLEPA which was discussed during the 14th meeting of the ACSF informal group. The square brackets indicates paragraphs which are still under discussion in the informal group.

Set of diagrams illustrating the phases and timing of the test procedure for an automated lane-change maneuver as envisioned by the draft amendment to introduce Category C¹ ACSF into UN R79. These figures include the vehicle under test and approaching motorcycle speeds and distances under the lane-change phases, including timing and duration of each phase.

Vehicle manufacturer perspectives on the permissibility of non-driving activities by the operator of a highly automated vehicle. This presentation relates to discussions between traffic regulators (represented by UN Working Party 1) and vehicle regulators (represented by UN Working Party 29) on responses under traffic laws and vehicle regulations to the advent of automated driving systems.

OICA presentation on a field study undertaken to collect data on tyre pressures of vehicles in use towards assessing the effectiveness of direct and indirect tyre-pressure monitoring systems on the maintenance of correct inflation levels.

Proposal to cease approvals under the 02 series of amendments from September 2020 in order to allow manufacturers adequate time to adapt to the new requirements;

• ESF, ACSF C and unexpectedly ACSF B1 (despite originally assumed to be compatible with ACSF C new requirements),
• new CEL assessment (documentation, tests…) whose scope is also extended to all non-complex electronic systems under series 03.

Regarding the application to “All Types” (e.g. for new registration), industry proposes to leave unchanged the existing vehicles on the market which are approved on the base of national of regional exemptions by Contracting Parties signatories of the UN R79 regulation, given the heavy technical impacts on ACSF C (sensor range…) which are indirectly affecting ACSF B1 systems that were initially assumed to be compatible with cat. C (e.g. 3s hands-off detection instead of 15s, lane centering prior to the lateral movement towards the marking etc.), and the add-on of requirements restricting design possibilities without clear safety benefits (e.g. the use of direction indicators to suppress the procedure).