63. The World Forum considered the draft amendment under agenda item 4.10.1 and agreed to postpone the voting of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/94 and Amend.1 to its March 2012 session. WP.29 referred WP.29-155-06, WP.29-155-19 and WP.29-155-20 to GRRF for detailed consideration of the documents at the February 2012 session.

63. The World Forum considered the draft amendment under agenda item 4.10.1 and agreed to postpone the voting of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/94 and Amend.1 to its March 2012 session. WP.29 referred WP.29-155-06, WP.29-155-19 and WP.29-155-20 to GRRF for detailed consideration of the documents at the February 2012 session.

4. Documents for consideration at September 2011 GRRF:

4.1. In discussing document AMEVSC-06-01e (GRRF/2011/36) from OICA it was considered that it was too restrictive on the modifier – provided the manufacturer of the original vehicle with commercial leverage – and was not only applicable to Annex 21, but also to Regulation 13 as a whole. Therefore, an alternative proposal for a new paragraph in the regulation was developed under the reference AMEVSC-06-08e (subsequently GRRF-71-15).

4.2. The secretary advised that in reviewing the documentation after the last meeting he had noted that the proposed amendment WP.29/2011/94 did not contain the amendment of the existing references to Annex 19 to include “part 1”, as there are now 2 parts and there should be a reference to part 1 to prevent any confusion. Therefore, document GRRF-71-03 (AMEVSC-06-02) had been raised to correct this situation. In reviewing the proposal the group indicated its agreement.

5. Development of amendments to appendices:

5.1. The text of the proposed amendments to Appendix 1 (AMEVSC-06-03e) was further refined, with the results shown in document AMEVSC-06-12e.

5.2. In reviewing the initial proposal for amendments to Appendix 2 (AMEVSC-06-04e, red text) it was considered that the use of the words “explicit” and “implicit” could lead to misunderstandings. Therefore, they were deleted. However this may need to be re-considered in light of the unfinished discussion regarding Appendix 3. Further refinements were made with the results shown in document AMEVSC-06-13e.

5.3. In developing amendments to Appendix 3 the working document AMEVSC-06-09e inadvertently did not include the amendments already agreed and contained in WP.29/2011/94. Therefore, they have been subsequently included by the secretary in document AMEVSC-06-14e.

11. GRRF noted the outcome of the discussion in WP.29 on dynamic/static references to other UN Regulations and private standards (see report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1093, paras. 48 and 49). GRRF endorsed the recommendation to proceed on a case by case approach awaiting a final decision by WP.29 at one of its next sessions.

12. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/35/Rev.1 clarifying the levels of braking performance of vehicles in relation with different positions of the ignition key. GRRF noted a number of comments. Following the discussion, CLEPA presented GRRF-72-27 amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/35/Rev.1. GRRF adopted the proposal, as reproduced in Annex II, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration at their June 2012 sessions, as Supplement 14 to Regulation No. 13-H.

13. Recalling the purpose of WP.29-155-19, the expert from EC withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/9. As a consequence, the expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/7. Nevertheless, the experts from Germany, Japan and OICA expressed their support for ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/9 and their preference to keep it on the agenda. The Chair concluded that the item should be revisited, together with the related document from CLEPA (GRRF-72-17), at the next GRRF session on the basis of a new proposal, if available.

14. The expert from Belgium reported on the progress (GRRF-72-08) made by the informal group on Alternative Method Electronic Vehicle Stability Control (AMEVSC). On behalf of informal group, the expert from CLEPA proposed to use simulation tools to prove compliance of the vehicle stability function (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/2). The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-72-22 on some weaknesses in the current simulation tool. GRRF noted a number of comments and agreed to refer the proposal back to the informal group. GRRF agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal to be submitted by the informal group, taking into account GRRF-72-17, GRRF-72-22 and the comments received. GRRF noted that the informal meeting was scheduled to be held in Brussels (at CLEPA offices) on 10-11 May 2012.

15. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/11 and GRRF-72-28 on the introduction of an electro-hydraulic transmission for electrical brake systems. GRRF noted some concerns and agreed to resume the discussion on this subject to the next session of GRRF on the basis a revised proposal, if available.

[Adopted by AC.1.]

It was understood, although there was no documentation available at the time, that the European Commission would table an amendment to the proposed Supplement 9 to the 11 Series of Amendments (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/94) which was on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29/AC.1. The amendment, which had been proposed by Germany, would replace “system manufacturer” with “vehicle manufacturer”.

In considering this proposal it was concluded that this would be a complete change in the fundamental philosophy behind the work of the informal working group and could, therefore, not be supported.

The group had the understanding that a vehicle manufacturer could also be a vehicle stability function system supplier, i.e. the vehicle manufacturer designs and manufacturers the vehicle stability function. However, it was considered that this may not be clear to people who are not participating in the informal group. Therefore, document AMEVSC-07-05e was created in which all the references to system manufacturer in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/94 were reviewed and either vehicle manufacturer was added – so as to read “vehicle manufacturer / system manufacturer” – or system manufacturer was deleted when it was not necessary to specify vehicle manufacturer / system manufacturer.

Following the meeting, the AMEVSC chairman made the views of the group (including AMEVSC-07-05e) known to the European Commission. In response the European Commission advised that the proposal would stand as it was a TCMV decision. Subsequently document WP.29-155-06 was presented by the European Commission.

Note: In response to WP.29-155-06, CLEPA presented documents WP.29-155-19 and WP.29-155-20 at the 155th session of WP.29/AC.1. At WP.29 no decision was reached and the proposed supplement was referred back to GRRF for further discussed at the February 2012 session of GRRF.