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.

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.

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.