1. Regulatory strategy when voluntary systems become mandated
Transmitted by the experts from OICA
IWVTA-25-06
Regulatory strategy when voluntary systems become mandated

2. Background
There are several examples where the performance of advanced vehicle systems was first regulated within an already existing UN Regulation. Normally, deployment of these systems was voluntary in the beginning. This resulted in approvals to the UN Regulation granted with or without the respective systems being fitted. In some cases they became mandated by individual Contracting Parties at a later stage, resulting in serious difficulties for the mutual recognition of approvals
Past examples for this include ESC and BAS in R-13H, TPMS in R-64
Current discussion is about immobilizers and vehicle alarm systems in R-116. While alarm systems are clearly voluntary in all CPs some mandate immobilizers.
OICA understands that within the ongoing revision process of the EU general safety regulation (GSR, (EC) 661/2009) it is evaluated to mandate LKAS which is currently discussed by GRRF-ACSF informal group for inclusion into R-79 as a voluntary fitment
With the following slides OICA wants to trigger a discussion how to handle situations where the performance of an up to now voluntary system is regulated (but not in a separate UN-Regulation) and some but not all CPs want to make a system mandatory that was voluntary before.
This document is based on IWVTA-SGR and illustrates the possible ways forward in more detail.

3. Approaches to handle this situation
OICA sees different ways to handle the change from voluntary to mandated system.
Splitting from the existing UN Regulation to become a separate new UN Regulation. (This approach has already been taken for e.g. ESC, BAS, TPMS.)
Leaving the new system as an if-fitted system in the UN Regulation where it is already covered but creating an additional new UN Regulation which has the sole content of requiring the presence of the system.
These 2 options as well as their consequences are explained in the following slides.
We use ESC as an example because in this example the consequences of following either strategy can be easily seen (even though strategy 1 was actually used)

4. Option 1: Splitting the mandated function from the Regulation
Benefit:
clear separation of the functionality
Successfully applied for ESC, BAS, TPMS
In line with the current WP.29 policy (General Guidelines for un regulatory procedures)
Disbenefit
Some duplication of text may be necessary (redundancy)
Parallel updating of any common text may be necessary
* Note that the way R-140 was implemented is not a full split of requirements with respect to braking and ESC, because R140 refers to R-13H for safety of electronic control systems (and requires respective certificates, cf. paragraph 5.5 of R-140).
In a full split it would have been necessary to duplicate Annex 8 of R-13H into R140.
UN R-13H
Braking (general)
ESC (if-fitted)
Electronic safety Annex …
UN R-13H
Braking (general)
Electronic safety Annex …
UN R-140
ESC performance
Reference to electronic safety in R-13H* +

5. Option 2: Additional Regulation for the presence of a system (hypothetical)
Benefit:
No change needed in R-13H
No duplicate text in cases with overlapping requirements for the split functionalities
Disbenefit
Reference in R1xx needs to be updated in case of new series of amendments of R13H
UN R-13H
Braking (general)
ESC (if-fitted)
Electronic safety Annex …
UN R-13H
Braking (general)
ESC (if-fitted)
Electronic safety Annex …
UN R-1xx
Presence of ESC
Reference to R-13H for Technical requirements +

6. Comparison of the approaches
Option 1:
Splitting of Regulation
Option 2:
Regulating the presence
Conformity to 58 agreement and regulatory procedures
Yes
Effort for first draft of new Regulation
Medium +
Low
Effort if update of duplicated content is necessary
-/0
Both Regulations need update (except if shared content remains in only original UN R (see UN R140))
+/0
Only original Regulation needs „real“ update
References in new UN R may need updating to refer to the new version of the original UN R
Effort if other changes in original Regulation occur (new series of amendment)
New Regulation not affected
Reference in new Regulation needs to be updated (unless static reference as in R-139 or R-140 is accepted)

7. Recommendation
Splitting of the Regulation (option 1) should be used if the functionality in question has no overlapping requirements with the other functionalities in the original Regulation.
Example from the past: TPMS and spare wheels
If the split would lead to duplication of requirements (e.g. overlapping requirements with other functionalities) which would need to be included in both Regulations, it is recommended to leave the original Regulation unchanged and create a new one simply regulating the presence of the system, whereby the duplication of requirements would be avoided by using cross-references (option 2).
Example from the past: ESC and braking
If it had been necessary to extract the mandate for DRL from R48, option 2 would have been appropriate as well