See below.

UK presented the document AEBS/LDWS-16-02 and OICA presented the document GRRF/2011/39.

The Chair expressed concern that the OICA proposal could be understood as a means to exclude some vehicles from the scope. However OICA clarified that these vehicles with nonpneumatic rear axle suspension may be approved.

CLEPA questioned which authority could verify the meaning of the “available on the market” and “validated”. OICA clarified that this was precisely the reason why such wording had been elaborated.

J was keen to have a visibility of the future.

S supported the OICA position on this topic.

The Chair, as representative of the European Commission, considered this OICA document as being proposals for amendments to the working document GRRF submitted to WP.29. The European Commission considered that the Preamble should be just a guidance and should therefore not entail any restriction of the freedom for the Contracting Parties to mandate AEBS, and therefore should not be introducing a legal uncertainty. UK suggested replacing the proposed date by the 01 Series of amendments. Japan was keen that a Contracting Party can mandate the AEBS on these vehicles BEFORE the date of the 01 Series of amendments.

D found such additional paragraph in the preamble as proposed by OICA not necessary.

NL acknowledged the problems with the rigid suspension, and could support the UK proposal as more flexible.

F supported the addition of a new paragraph, but requested to add the reason why such further development is needed.

RUS proposed to meet the request from J with the addition of a sentence addressing the parameters that should be taken into account when approving these vehicles.

S clarified that the text in the Introduction is not such important, rather the text in paragraph 5.

OICA provided further technical clarifications about the difficulty for the vehicles with rigid rear axle suspension to comply with the text requirements and be simultaneously robust and reliable.

The Chair pointed out that the UK proposal only addresses the Introduction, and pointed out that the OICA proposal for the Preamble is linked with the proposed changes to paragraph 5.1.1.

OICA clarified for the experts that J does not face such problem of pitch angle as the vehicles are not of the same types, and hence does not need particular technology for addressing the large pitch angle problem.

The new wording for the additional paragraph in the Introduction was then developed per document GRRF-71-27.

CLEPA, UK, RUS and D could accept the proposal for compromise of the new text.

J had still concerns and had a reservation toward the new proposal. In addition they were keen to come back to this item after consideration of paragraph. 5.1.1.

S proposed to replace the wording “sensor technology” by “system”. This provoked a further debate which again improved the wording.

NL and F could support the new wording as well.

OICA also could support the compromise.

Conclusion: additional paragraph adopted in the Introduction to be proposed per document GRRF-71-27.