Proposal to amend para. 2.8 of Annex 8 to UN R13 to require trailers utilizing service braking system energy reserves to fulfil one of three requirements when uncoupled and park brake control released: pressure in spring brake compression chamber shall reduce to 0 kPa when energy reserves reduce to 280 kPa, pressure reduction in service braking system energy reserve results in corresponding reduction in spring compression chamber pressure, or combined service and parking braking forces shall hold laden trailer as required when service brake energy reservoir reduces from 850 kPa to 0 kPa.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to increase the maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 15 m. UN R79 currently limits the maximum RCP operating range to 6 m, resulting in effective usable range of 2 or 3 m due to radio wave-based ranging inaccuracy. A 15-meter range would enhance RCP function usefulness and safety, reducing driver movement and blind areas. RCP systems with extended ranges have been used in large markets without identified safety threats. The amendment is proposed as a supplement to the 03 and 04 series of amendments to UN R79.

Proposal to insert new para. 3.1.1. and 3.1.2. requiring manufacturers to provide information to approval authorities prior to application and upon extension of type approval; insert new para. 3.2.2. requiring manufacturers to provide summaries of safety definitions, driver safety levels, traffic rules assessment, and testing for each territory where ALKS can be active; and insert new paras. 4.6. to 4.6.6. establishing procedures for approvals covering multiple territories, including notification of receiving approval authorities at least 30 days before approval, review periods, and dispute resolution under the 1958 Agreement. OICA and CLEPA do not support mandatory pre-announcement but would support sharing Safe Operation documentation and lists of compliant territories during the approval process.

Supporting presentation on the proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions intended solely to support low-speed vehicle controllability manoeuvres in off-road environments from the obstacle detection requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided the function operates only until 5 km/h with 1 km/h tolerance, is activated deliberately by the driver in off-road environments only, requires the driver to be in the driver’s seat with safety belt fastened, and allows the driver to retain control and override or deactivate the system at any time.

OICA-CLEPA-EME comments on German proposal GRVA-25-07 to require the approval authority granting UN R155 or UN R156 type approvals to use CSMS or SUMS certificates signed by the same approval authority. OICA-CLEPA-EME identify that CSMS and SUMS are Management Systems covering entire manufacturer organizations, and mandating the same approval authority for Management Systems certificates and approvals will have significant consequences for original equipment manufacturers typically using multiple approval authorities in homologation. The submission proposes keeping text unchanged to allow different approval authorities for Management Systems certificates and type approval based on voluntary acceptance, implementing wording on information exchange if different approval authorities are involved, and establishing a horizontal approach for Management Systems with mutual recognition aspects considered.

Proposal to delete paragraph 1.2.6. excluding e-axle trailers with e-axles providing electric propulsion and/or incorporating an electric regenerative braking system from the scope of UN R13, and add definitions of “e-axle,” “e-axle trailer,” “dynamo function,” and “e-trailer”; add special requirements for power-driven vehicles supporting e-trailer operation, e-axle trailers equipped with dynamo function, and e-trailers of category O; add requirements for electric control lines conforming to ISO 11992-2:²⁰²⁷; specify message support and functional compatibility; and add provisions for electric regenerative braking, dynamo function, and propulsion, including parameters such as retarder torque demand priority, propulsion force limits, overriding mode activation at speeds below 15km/h, and vehicle stability function interaction.

Proposal to modify the specified maximum remote controlled parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m. Large markets including Canada, USA, and China do not regulate maximum remote controlled parking operating range. Remote controlled parking systems exceeding 6 m operating range are already offered in the field. Radio wave-based ranging is inherently inaccurate due to complicated and varying electromagnetic environment in garage and changing orientation of remote device, requiring safety margin integration into product design, which reduces effective usable range below 6 m maximum. Extended range remote controlled parking systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to insert para. 3.2.2. requiring manufacturers of Automated Lane Keeping Systems active in multiple Contracting Party territories to provide information on traffic rules identification, territory-specific testing, and contact details, insert paras. 4.8. to 4.8.6. establishing procedures for granting approval authorities to inform and consult receiving approval authorities at least 30 days before approval, allow receiving authorities 30 days to comment on regulation interpretation, require dispute resolution under Article 10 and Schedule 6 of the 1958 Agreement, and insert footnote [Y] stating these provisions shall be kept under periodic review by GRVA for amendment as necessary.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 2.8 of Annex 8 to add a new requirement that braking forces from combined service and parking braking systems shall hold a laden trailer as required in Annex 4 para. 3.2.1 at any time when service brake energy reservoir pressure reduces from 850 kPa to 0 kPa, ensuring continuous trailer immobilisation during service brake pressure depletion while establishing a performance-based requirement rather than prescribing specific technical solutions.

At the 94th session of GRPE, CLEPA proposed a draft UN Regulation for approval of replacement brake parts. A dual pathway approach was proposed with two options depending on data availability: fully available data or minimal set of data with worst-case assumptions. PMP Task Force 3c was established to prepare a UN Regulation for approving replacement brake parts regarding particle emissions. The TF3c will define minimum information required under the simplified approach, assess variability within a family, and identify worst-case assumptions. CLEPA presented two approval concepts and requested support for Option A only. The next meeting is scheduled for 18 May 2026.

Proposal to amend UN R160:

• Amend definitions 2.8., 2.10., and 2.11. to clarify that automatically commanded steering function categories B2, D, and E are not part of a DCAS
• Delete definition 2.25.
• Amend definition 2.35. to simplify non-volatile memory
• Amend para. 2.45. to change service brake terminology
• Amend para. 2.51. to clarify time interval between events
• Amend para. 2.65. to abbreviate vulnerable road user
• Insert new definitions 2.71.–2.83. for rollover protection system, advanced emergency braking system, trigger activated, pre-event synchronization timer, blind spot monitoring system, emergency stop signal, turn signal, acceleration control for pedal error, advanced driver distraction warning system, driver drowsiness and attention warning system, driver control assistance system, and time to collision
• Restructure para. 5.3.1. to distinguish planar, VRU, and rollover events from AEBS events with specified triggers
• Amend para. 5.3.2. to clarify data locking conditions
• Restructure para. 5.3.3. to establish time zero for planar, VRU, rollover, and AEBS events
• Amend para. 5.4.3. to specify side and frontal collision tests
• Amend para. 6.1. to clarify post-crash acceleration measurement
• Insert transitional provisions 12.12.–12.16. providing that as from the official date of entry into force Contracting Parties shall not refuse type-approvals under the 03 series, as from 1 September 2031 or 2029 [date TBD] shall not accept type-approvals to preceding series first issued after that date, until 1 September 2033 shall continue accepting preceding series approvals first issued before 1 September 2031 or 2029 [date TBD], may grant approvals to preceding series, and shall grant extensions of existing approvals
• Amend Annex 4 Table 1 to split engine throttle and accelerator pedal data elements, increase sampling rates to 10 Hz, extend recording intervals for rollover events, add pre-event synchronization timer, trigger activated, ACPE status, ADDW status, DDAW status, blind spot monitoring status, turn signal status, DCAS status, DCAS driver monitoring system warnings, emergency stop signal status, and time to collision data elements, and modify footnotes accordingly

Proposal for a recording interval of 600 seconds prior to collision for driver drowsiness and attention warnings (DDAW), 240 seconds for advanced driver distraction warnings (ADDW), 240 seconds prior to collision for driver monitoring warnings from the driver-control assistance system (DCAS), triggers planar, VRU, Rollover, AEBS, AEBS for pedestrian, AEBS for bicycle, and AEBS for motor vehicle, and event data recording time-to-collision (TTC) range of 0 s to 5.0 s and resolution 0.1 s for AEBS events.

For vehicles equipped with an Automated Driving System, it shall be possible to retrieve DSSAD time-stamp data elements specified under paragraph 5.2. of Annex 8 of UN Regulation No. 185 recorded within at least the last 30 seconds prior to triggering of the respective EDR event, regardless of whether the DSSAD and the EDR are implemented as a single system or as separate systems. The time-stamp data elements retrievable from the DSSAD shall include the record for the last activation or deactivation of the feature used at the time of the event within the same power cycle. The data elements shall be retrievable in the format specified in Annex 8 of UN Regulation No. 185, though DSSAD location data may be omitted and dates and times recorded may be replaced with information representing the time elapsed between the recording of each DSSAD data element and the triggering of the EDR.

The document addresses how to define and measure effective seat belt webbing length for buses of category M₂/M₃. It proposes defining effective length by pulling the lap belt at the geometrical midpoint under a 60-degree angle to form an equilateral triangle, where the leg on the buckle side defines 50 percent of pursued effective length for 2-point belts and 25 percent for 3-point belts. Additional webbing for attachment, handling, connection to spool, and spool length must be added based on seat design and geometry. The proposal suggests the definition may work using diagonal belt alone in the ghost position and questions where to include it in UN R173.

UN R145 and UN R173 establish optional ISOFIX installation for vehicles of category M₂ and M₃. ISOFIX seating positions require compatibility with specific Child Restraint Fixture volumes and lower isofix forward strength of 8kN. I-Size seating positions require minimum 440mm distance between adjacent positions, compatibility with ISO/F2X and ISO/R2, and additional support leg strength testing. The document proposes allowing labels on bus windows and removing marking requirements for M₂ and M₃ from UN R145.

Proposal to add para. 3.2.3.1. requiring manufacturers to provide additional information on the Cyber Security Management System at request of the Approval Authority when the Certificate of Compliance for CSMS is issued by a different Approval Authority, add para. 5.1.5. allowing the Approval Authority to refuse type approval if insufficient information on the CSMS and its implementation was provided, and add para. 7.4.1.1. requiring all granting Approval Authorities to be included in reporting when different Approval Authorities are used for the Certificate of Compliance for CSMS and type approval of the vehicle type.

CLEPA welcomes questions raised by Japanese experts under doc TFCS-37-06 and identifies points requiring further clarification regarding component and STU type approval scope, technical integration, STU definition, implementation, risk assessment, impact and benefit, and post-market monitoring. CLEPA proposes that components or STUs required for initial vehicle type approval under Part I should not be subject to separate approval under Part II, noting that vehicle cybersecurity depends on vehicle-level system interactions and E/E architecture, the OEM has full visibility of system architecture, and Part I approval ensures integrated assessment.

Proposed changes to align RxSWIN provisions with the RxSWIN template adopted through WP.29-197-06, remove the proposed requirement to comply with UN R156/01 or later from R157 and R171, remove amendments to UN R155 as decided by the IWG CS/OTA, apply the RxSWIN amendments also to earlier series of amendments in R13, R13-H, R79, R131, R152, R157, and R171, update references to the latest version of R.E.3, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.8, in earlier series, and correct paragraph references and improve structure in R89, R139, R140, R155, R156, and R171.

OICA, CLEPA, and CLCCR oppose the requirement in GRVA/2026/30 for a single Approval Authority to issue the Certificate of Compliance for CSMS/SUMS and vehicle type approval. They contend the approach would create multiple approvals of the same Management System, imposing administrative burden and creating unresolved legal consequences if a CoC is challenged. The organizations propose adding a new paragraph 5.1.5. instead of paragraph 5.1.3. e) to permit mutual agreement between Approval Authorities, allowing usage of a CoC issued by another Approval Authority, with such agreement documented in type approval documentation.

Proposal to insert new paras. 27 and 28 in Part C Guidance for the application of UN Regulation No. 155 to transformed vehicles. Para. 27 states the requirement that the Certificate of Compliance and type approval are issued by the same Approval Authority applies only within the scope of the type approval granted to the manufacturer concerned. Para. 28 states where a vehicle manufacturer modifies a vehicle with existing type approval and applies for new type approval covering the modification, they need not use the same type approval authority as was used by the original vehicle manufacturer.