Mr. Hansen of KBA was not present. The item was despite of that discussed. There were different views on this subject. One part of the discussion ended in how to interpret the §2.10. of the regulation R55.

1. Some then had the view that the alternative value is an alternative set of performance values (§2.10.4.) with all other characteristics according to §§2.10.1. – 2.10.3. being unchanged.
2. Others had the view that the characteristics according to §§2.10.1. – 2.10.3. could vary and that an alternative performance value was a set of performance values specifically applicable to one of the design alternatives within the variation.
3. Still others had the view that the characteristics according to §§2.10.1. – 2.10.3. can vary within one type and that the performance values were the same for all variants. In such case an alternative performance value is an additional set of performance values applying to all variants.

Then Mrs. Domagala brought up a practical and concrete example with a class B coupling head that had two alternatives for installation. One unique alternative was then chosen by the customer at installation. For this product it happened to be such that the two installation alternatives had different performance values. This example may be seen as an illustration of case 2 above. Considering this case Mr. Svensson argued that either you chose the lower performance value that is applicable for both installation alternatives or you get two different type approvals for that product (i.e., a vital point is how to handle the type approval plate). No agreement could be reached at this meeting.