1 IWVTA: UN-Regulation No.0 Flexible scheme allowing for different levels of requirements in different Contracting Parties Transmitted by OICA Document No. IWVTA-SGR rev2 This document SGR rev2 has been updated and extended to reflect the discussions which took place during the sub group R-0 meeting on It supercedes the previous document and should be used as basis for further discussion in the subgroup and informal group In comparison to the previously distributed rev1 feedback from several sides has been takebn up and a preamble slide has been added.

Preamble For the development of UN R-0 OICA has suggested 2 schemes which should be kept entirely separate from each other The stepwise approach towards IWVTA (cf. Document IWVTA ): in the proposed step 2 this would allow to incorporate national/regional requirements into an IWVTA The flexible scheme (this document) is proposed to handle the situation that Contracting Parties would accept lower requirements (approvals to earlier versions or even no approvals at all). It is not intended to be used to include any requirements that are additional to what is in the UN regulations. Way forward: a suitabe starting point for implementation of IWVTA would be to use only step 1 of the stepwise approach (i.e. a set of UN regulations) but apply the flexible scheme right from the start. 2

Basic Principles All CPs applying R-0 must accept approvals to the latest level (=series of amendments) of any UN-Regulation annexed to R-0 * However, a CP may declare that it will accept approvals to an earlier version of any such UN-Regulation This leads to 2 different types of IWVTA approvals –Universal IWVTA: the manufacturer provides in his application approvals to the level of all annexed Regulations as specified in R-0  this IWVTA has to be accepted by all CPs applying UN R-0 –IWTVA of limited recognition: any CP can declare that for some or all annexed Regulations they are satisfied with approvals to earlier versions or no approvals at all  a transparent method is required to determine whether the approval of limited recognition can be accepted in a given CP The following slides explain how this evaluation can be achieved by a commonly available tool 3 * a seperate discussion is necessary how to resolve the situation that CPs cannot accept approvals to the latest version on their territory e.g. because of fuel quality. However, this is seen as a topic independent of UN-R 0.

Evaluation Concept 4 Repository of requirementsManufacturer´s application Acceptance evaluation tool Acceptance table UN RegRequired series of amendments CP1CP2CP3… … UN Reg provided series of amendments … CP1CP2CP3… X

How to handle if-fitted requirements The evaluation concept can also be used to handle if-fitted requirements (as listed in table 2 of Annex 4 Part A of document IWVTA-09-08) Guidance is needed with respect to 2 options: a)If a CP does not mandate a system, this means it imposes no requirements even if the system is fitted voluntarily b)If a system is fitted voluntarily then the requirements of the respective Regulation from table 2 must be met even if the system is not required in a CP 5 System in vehicleMandatedNot mandated Option a) Not mandated Option b) Fitted and certified Fitted but not certified / does not meet requirements X X Not fittedX

Consideration of options for if-fitted requirements Option a) Evaluation is straightforward Only information about approvals in the manufacturers application is necessary Option b) In addition to the approvals the manufacturers application needs to include information about the fitting status of systems (=necessity of approvals for voluntarily fitted systems) For some systems this may lead to discussions whether a voluntarily fitted system is really of the type covered by the if-fitted Regulation or only „similar“ (= whether the approval is necessary or not) Discussion in the subgroup R-0 on showed that maybe both Options may be needed on a case by case basis: For vehicle systems like mechanical couplings option b) seems appropriate For systems like ESC it is OICA´s recommendation that option a) be considered in order to avoid discussions about necessity of approvals. 6

Exemplary acceptance evaluation tool (1 of 3) Use presentation mode when viewing this slide !!! All entries in tables are for illustration only and may not reflect the requirements of a CP The table consists of 3 sections: 7 Topic No.SubjectUN-R latest series of amendments 1Permissible sound level 512 2Fuel tanks 342 3Steering effort 791 4Door latches and hinges Audible warning 280 6Braking 13H0 6ａ6ａ ESC13H-sup.9 0 6ｂ6ｂ BA (Brake Assist)13H-sup.9 0 7Radio interference 104 8Anti-theft / immobiliser Protective steering 124 … Requirements for universal IWVTA Requirements for CPs required level in CP European Union Japan Malaysia Russia South Africa … Content of application Manufacturers application series of amendments no requirement

Exemplary acceptance evaluation tool (2 of 3) Example 1: 8 Topic No.SubjectUN-R latest series of amendments 1Permissible sound level 512 2Fuel tanks 342 3Steering effort 791 4Door latches and hinges Audible warning 280 6Braking 13H0 6ａ6ａ ESC13H-sup.9 0 6ｂ6ｂ BA (Brake Assist)13H-sup.9 0 7Radio interference 104 8Anti-theft / immobiliser Protective steering 124 … required level in CP European Union Japan Malaysia Russia South Africa … Content of application Manufacturer´s application is identical to R-0 content Requirements of EU, Japan and Russia are identical with R-0, but no or lower requirements for Malaysia and South Africa in some cases The approval will be accepted in all CPs

Exemplary acceptance evaluation tool (3 of 3) Example 2: 9 Topic No.SubjectUN-R latest series of amendments 1Permissible sound level 512 2Fuel tanks 342 3Steering effort 791 4Door latches and hinges Audible warning 280 6Braking 13H0 6ａ6ａ ESC13H-sup.9 0 6ｂ6ｂ BA (Brake Assist)13H-sup.9 0 7Radio interference 104 8Anti-theft / immobiliser Protective steering 124 … required level in CP European Union Japan Malaysia Russia South Africa … Content of application Manufacturer does not provide an ESC certifcate As a consequence EU, Japan and Russia will not accept the approval. This is displayed by red markings. However, the approval has to be accepted in Malaysia and South Africa (no red markings in column)* * under the hypothesis of option a) for if-fitted systems

Exemplary acceptance evaluation tool: comprehensive table A more comprehensive table is provided as an attachment for testing purposes It is based on the list of candidate Regulations and lists all CPs (except EC Member states which have harmonized requirements and are covered by the column EC) Note that all entries concerning the required series of amendment are for illustration only and do not prejudge any decisions of CPs The table can be used to test the concept by either changing the content of the manufacturer´s application or the required levels in CPs. Whenever the application is not „sufficient“ for a CP, the corresponding box will be marked in red. evaluation_tool.xlsx 10

Possible future extension of the approach When moving from step1 to step 2 of the implementation strategy for IWVTA* the presented approach can easily be generalized Respective national requirements are simply added to the table For these only 1 CP requires the corresponding approvals This is illustrated for some elements of EC-WVTA for which currently no UN-Regulation exists in the 3rd sheet of evaluation_tool.xlsx (added entries compared to first sheet marked in yellow)evaluation_tool.xlsx 11 * See Document IWVTA by OICA: stepwise introduction scenario

Additional slides added to the document with rev1 12

Handling of the flexible scheme within Annex 4 of UN-R 0 In Annex 4 only the requirements for a universal IWVTA shall be explicitly included  this refers to tables 1 and 2 in SGR (as well as table 4 when moving to step 2 of the implementations scheme) The alternative requirements (including acceptance of previous versions) which can be used for an IWVTA of limited recognition would be documented outside of R-0 (based on a notification by CPs accepting IWVTA of limited recognition)  table 3 would be replaced by a reference to another document („Repository of alternative requirements“) that while publicly available can be maintained independently of R-0 (see following slide) 13

Process for the Repository of alternative requirements A Contracting Party that intends to accept approvals to IWVTA with limited recognition has to notify the UN secretartiat according to which of the Regulations and which versions thereof it is accepting for IWVTA (similar to the single line entries in current table 3). A standardized format for such notification should be provided. A Contracting Party accepting only approvals to universal IWVTA does not have to provide any notifications. All notifications shall be documented and published by the UN secretariat. R-0 will refer to this repository of alternative requirements It is seen as beneficial to create out of all notifications on central table like the evaluation tool refererred to in slide 9. However such a tool can be created and maintained by persons or organizations other than the UN secretariat. Nevertheless, for practical reasons it should also be commonly available, e.g. via the UN website. Contracting Parties applying R0 for IWVTA with limited recognition may at any time upgrade their application of R0 (to the unniversal or an intermediate level) by notification to the UN secretariat. However, appropriate lead time should be respected for any such upgrade to enter into effect. To be discussed: upgrade become effective only xx months after they have been included into the repository. 14

Update of R-0 As UN-Regulations are frequently updated to create new series of amendments this will cause the need to also upgrade the list of Regulations to be complied with for universal IWVTA It should be decided whether the adoption of a new series of amendments of a Regulation referenced in Tables 1 and 2 of Annex 4 shall automatically trigger an upgrade or R-0 or whether this requires a special vote, e.g. by WP.29 during the adoption vote of the annexed Regulation. Regardless of the outcome of the question from the previous bullet point it is impractical to upgrade R-0 whenever a annexed Regulation is upgraded. This would lead to too many series of amendments for R-0. However, since upgrades of UN-Regulations are usually subject to transitional provisions, in turn upgrades of R-0 can be bundled taking the transition times of the individual amended Regulations into account. The following process is proposed: –Whenever a upgrade of R-0 due to a new series of amendments of an annexed Regulation is decided (see 2nd bullet point), this Regulation is inserted in a repository of candidate upgrades together with the information, by when the upgrade of R-0 has to be done at the latest to ensure that this is done before expiry of the transitional provisions. –In preparation of each WP.29 meeting this repository is reviewed to identify whether the recorded expiry of the trnasitional provisions necessitate a upgrade of R-0 in this WP.29 meeting or whether this can be postponed to the next meeting. –If an upgrade of R-0 has been determined to be necessary the entire content of the repository is used. –It should be decided which institution or group is responsible for the review of the repository of candidate upgrades. 15

Handling of IWVTAs with limited recognition While the flexible scheme in principle allows for arbitrary combinations of limited or earlier requirements using the repository of alternative requirements, it has been discussed whether the number of levels of stringency should be restricted, e.g. allowing only for levels „universal“, „mid“, and „low“. Guidance is needed on this question. In case of a restriction this would have to be implemented into the notification process for CPs to identify the level of the IWVTA with limited recognition (cf. Slide 13): not all series amendments of all Regulations could be notified but only a selection out of a predefined list would be possible. While this would have effect in terms of R-0, it would not compromise the ability of CPs to accept other levels of stringency than those offered in R-0 in their national WVTA-process. It is further proposed to identify via the approval number whether a IWVTA is universal or of limited recognition. This could be implemented e,.g. by adding the letter „U“ for universal and „L“ for limited into the approval number. –In case, the number of variants for limited recognition is restricted (cf. 1st bullet point) the approval number could even indicate the level of stringency, e.g. „M“ for mid and „L“ for low. –If no such restriction is desried, the acceptance can still be determined using the acceptance table. 16

Consequences for the current draft of R-0 Based on the previous slides the follwing items have to be changed in the draft R-0: Reference to the repository of alternative requirements It is suggested to rename the tables of Annex 4 as sections With this change of wording the only further change in Annex 4 is that the table is replaced by a reference to the repository which should be available on the UN-website Defintion of the approval number Distinguish between universal and limited recognition IWVTAs in Annex 2 17