Proposal to introduce options to fulfil marking requirements in cases where more than one Regulation applies (e.g. avoid duplicating the E-Marking).

Proposal to introduce options to fulfil marking requirements in cases where more than one Regulation applies (e.g. avoid duplicating the E-Marking).

Proposal to clarify the conditions under which Enhanced Child Restraint Systems must be tested in a vehicle body shell.

Explanatory presentation to …/GRSP/2023/38 – Clarification of test bench vs. bodyshell testing

Proposal to prevent the approval mark from being replaced by a Unique Identifier (UI) in UN Regulation No. 16.

Proposal to clarify the conditions under which Enhanced Child Restraint Systems must be tested in a vehicle body shell.

Draft proposal to introduce provisions for the type approval of vehicles with electro-mechanical braking (EMB) systems.

Proposal to introduce the option of using a QR code (or other type of digital data carrier) to replace the paper installation instructions physically included in the packaging.

Proposal to introduce the option of using a QR code (or other type of digital data carrier) to replace the paper installation instructions physically included in the packaging.

Proposal to clarify a logical cascade of actions regarding activation of ACSF B1 and C and the indication on when the vehicle has entered an eligible road based on the following:

1. When the same means is used by the driver to simultaneously activate the Automatically Commanded Steering Function of Category B1 (ACSF B1) and of Category C (ACSF C), both functions switch to standby mode when the vehicle enters an ACSF C eligible road. But if the road is non-eligible to ACSF C, then only the ACSF B1 is activated.
2. With the current text of the regulation, once the vehicle moves to an ACSF C eligible road, the driver must operate again the means to activate the ACSF C. This second deliberate action is confusing for the driver since it makes the manipulation more complex. The current wording discourages most drivers from using this assistance function.
3. The proposed wording permits the following, logical, cascade of actions:
   1. The driver has done a deliberate action to activate ACSF B1 and ACSF C (on a non-eligible road); then
   2. He drives into an eligible road, and is clearly informed thereof; then
   3. He initiates a lane change procedure by activating e.g. the direction indicator.
4. This amendment further clarifies the requirement on the indication of when the vehicle enters an eligible road. It gives some examples of the type of indication to be given to the driver, e.g. additional popup or blinking indication, without being design restrictive.
5. A dedicated status indication of an ACSF C off-mode is by nature already different from the standby or active indication. Therefore, the driver is already sufficiently informed on a potential status change.

Proposal to clarify a logical cascade of actions regarding activation of ACSF B1 and C and the indication on when the vehicle has entered an eligible road.

Proposal to clarify the provisions for ACSF Cat. A “Remote Controlled Parking (RCP)” for vehicle combinations. The current definition for RCP S_RCPmax sets a maximum limit of 6m distance to the motor vehicle, which is insufficient in situations where the operation is supervised by the driver located behind the vehicle combination.