UN R149 Supplement 6 (00 series) · UNECE Regulation No. 149 (ECE R149) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of road illumination devices (lamps) and systems for power-driven vehicles.
UN R149 — Supplement 6 to the 00 series of amendments
Supplement 5 → 6
- What changed
- For headlamps/AFS installation unit designed to meet the requirements of both traffic systems, paragraph 3.3.2.4.2. now says “with or without an appropriate adjustment”.
- In the Annex 1 items that the amendment lists, the footnote calls now refer to footnote 2 instead of footnote 1.
- Item 9.1.8. of Annex 1 now refers to paragraph 4.5.2.6. instead of paragraph 4.5.6.
- Why
- IWG SLR proposed the change to paragraph 3.3.2.4.2. to clarify that the marking requirements continue to apply to all systems, including the symmetrical ones.
- According to IWG SLR, the Annex 1 changes correct two typos.
Q1What changed35 changes
Arrow marking for headlamps/AFS for both traffic systems (para. 3.3.2.4.2.)
Paragraph 3.3.2.4.2. now says “with or without an appropriate adjustment” instead of “by means of an appropriate adjustment”. For headlamps/AFS installation unit designed to meet the requirements of both traffic systems, it gives a horizontal arrow with a head on each end.
Footnote calls in Annex 1 and the reference in item 9.1.8.
In the Annex 1 items that the amendment lists, from item 9.1. to item 12., the footnote calls now refer to footnote 2. Before, they referred to footnote 1. Footnote 2 says “Strike out what does not apply”. Item 9.1.8. now refers to paragraph 4.5.2.6. instead of paragraph 4.5.6. It also writes the 2,000 lumens value as 2.00∙10³ lumens.
Q2Why it changed
- Proposed by
- Informal Working Group on Simplification of Lighting and Light-Signalling Regulations (IWG SLR)
- Working party
- GRE, 86th session (April 2022)
Reasons
In UN Regulations Nos. 112, 113 and 123, the double-headed arrow marking was mandatory for devices designed to meet the requirements of both traffic systems.
Source
“In UN Regulations Nos. 112 (paragraph 4.2.2.2.), 113 (paragraph 4.2.2.1.) and 123 (paragraph 4.2.2.7.), the marking of a double-headed arrow was mandatory for devices designed to meet the requirements of both traffic systems.”
Devices type approved to UN Regulations Nos. 112 or 123 can meet the requirements of both traffic systems by means of an appropriate adjustment. For devices type approved to UN Regulation No. 113, this is an inherent characteristic, as the beam is symmetric.
Sources (2)
“While devices type approved to UN Regulations Nos. 112 or 123 can meet the requirements of both traffic systems "by means of an appropriate adjustment””
“for devices type approved to UN Regulation No. 113 this is an inherent characteristic as the beam is symmetric.”
When UN Regulation No. 149 was drafted, the paragraphs of UN Regulations Nos. 112, 113 and 123 were merged into paragraph 3.3.2.4.2. The resulting text may be misinterpreted as if now only systems that include “means of an appropriate adjustment” need the double-headed arrow. It may also be read as if symmetrical devices are no longer required to be marked.
Sources (2)
“When UN Regulation No. 149 was drafted, the different paragraphs of UN Regulations Nos. 112, 113 and 123 where merged and led into the current paragraph 3.3.2.4.2.”
“The resulting text may be misinterpreted as if now only systems that include “means of an appropriate adjustment” need to be marked with the double-headed arrow, and symmetrical devices are no longer required to be marked.”
The proposed change to paragraph 3.3.2.4.2. clarifies that the marking requirements continue to apply to all systems, including the symmetrical ones.
Source
“The proposed change to paragraph 3.3.2.4.2. clarifies that the marking requirements continue to apply to all systems, including the symmetrical ones.”
The proposed Annex 1 changes correct two typos. In item 9.1.8., the correct reference should be paragraph 4.5.2.6., because paragraph 4.5.6. does not exist. The reference to footnote 1 throughout Annex 1 is obviously wrong, as it should be footnote 2, that is “Strike out what does not apply”.
Sources (3)
“The proposed changes correct two typos:”
“In item 9.1.8. the correct reference should be 4.5.2.6. Paragraph 4.5.6. does not exist.”
“The reference to footnote 1 throughout Annex 1 is obviously wrong as it should be footnote 2, i.e. “Strike out what does not apply”.”
Document trail
- 2022-02ProposalECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2022/8Proposal by IWG SLR to clarify and correct the text
- —Working party adoptsECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/86Session report, para. 12
- 2022-08Sent to WP.29ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2022/115Text that GRE sent to WP.29 and AC.1
- 2022-11WP.29 adoptsECE/TRANS/WP.29/1168Adopted at the 188th session (session report, para. 138)
- 2023-06-05In forceC.N.180.2023.TREATIES-XI.B.16.149UN depositary notification
Q3Who is affected
Vehicle manufacturer
- No direct action for this role.
Component supplier
- No direct action for this role.
Technical service / Approval authority
- No direct action for this role.
See every change side by side
RegVault customers compare every version of UN regulations, read the consolidated text and download the PDF.
ⓘ This report gives advice only. It is not legal or type-approval advice.
More UN R149 change reports
- 01 series — Supplement 8
- 01 series — Supplement 7
- 01 series — Supplement 6
- 01 series — Supplement 5
- 01 series — Supplement 4
- 01 series — Supplement 2
- 01 series — Supplement 1
- 01 series — Base text
- 00 series — Supplement 11
- 00 series — Supplement 10
- 00 series — Supplement 9
- 00 series — Supplement 8
- 00 series — Supplement 7
- 00 series — Supplement 5
- 00 series — Supplement 4
- 00 series — Supplement 3