The experts were informed that WP29 at its 158th session of November 2012 adopted the four documents creating the new regulation on AEBS and its 1st series of amendments. This information can be found in p 26 of the official report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1099:

The Chair was of the opinion that some clarification of the text adopted at WP29-158, p 3 of document WP29/2011/93/Amend.1, last sentence of the row 2, was necessary because an interpretation could be that the M3 vehicles with hydraulic braking would not have to fulfil the requirements of row 1 before the 2016 date mentioned in row 2. The authors of the text in cells B-H/2 indeed aimed the vehicles mentioned in cell A/2, but omitted to precise whether the vehicles addressed by the footnote 1 (Vehicles of category M3 with hydraulic braking system) would be subject to the same provisions.

OICA was of the opinion that the vehicles in footnote 1 are part of row2. Then the 1st date would be in Nov 2016. But the expert acknowledged that the wording is such that these vehicles could be approved already as from 2013.

CLEPA did not share the interpretation of OICA, and proposed to discuss this at a later stage.

The question of the true date of the Nov 2013 WP29 session was also raised, leading to the question whether the values should be adopted already at the June session of WP29.

The European Commission representative clarified that the intention is that, once the AEBS and LDWS UN Regulations have entered into force and the EU has acceded to them, UN regulations approvals would be accepted as an alternative to the EU approvals, taking into account that the EU legislation provides for a number of exemptions from the AEBS/LDWS carriage requirements. The representative of the European Commission informed that the European Commission Services were about to send a letter to the UN Secretariat to clarify the way how the EU intends to apply the new UN regulations, in response to the request of the WP.29 Secretariat to CPs to provide information on the application of the 01 series of the AEBS regulation (done, see Annex 1 attached).

Conclusion: items to be addressed at a later stage, to be added in the agenda for next meeting.

The informal document WP.29-158-12 was withdrawn by Russia.

The proposed regulatory text still includes bracketed text that was presented for review and guidance by the Contracting Parties. These passages were addressed in the 155th WP.29 session and resolved in paragraph 39 of the session report (document WP.29/1093). The request is for the Secretariat to make these changes prior to submitting the text to the UN Office of Legal Affairs for approval following the expected vote of the Forum to adopt the new regulation.

Proposal as stipulated above unanimously adopted.

As noted in paragraph 53 under agenda item 4.12 above, the World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item to its next session. The EU has not yet completed its internal review of the proposed regulation, but strongly suspects it will be positioned for a positive vote in November.

[This regulation proposal is complete and the EU intends to develop companion regulations for AEBS for lighter vehicles to be put forward in the future. Nonetheless, as is the case for lane departure warning systems, work remains to be completed towards establishing the legal basis for adoption of AEBS, including its potential conflict with the current interpretation of the 1968 Vienna Convention which requires a driver to be in complete control of a vehicle at all times. Therefore, the vote on this regulation is remanded to the June WP.29 session and likely will not be voted upon until the November 2012 WP.29 session.

Japan will introduce AEBS legislation into its national law from April 2012.]

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

See below.

See below.

RUS assumed that the 01 series of amendments will probably be enforced later than the 00 series.

IND informed that the definition 2.3. was missing from document WP29/2011/92.