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.

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.