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.

Documents AMEVSC-06-012e (Annex 21 Appendix 1 – use), AMEVSC-06-13e (Annex 21 Appendix 2 – validation) and AMEVSC-06-14e (Annex 21 Appendix 3 – test report) were reviewed and further refined with the results given in the documents AMEVSC-07-07e, AMEVSC-07-08e and AMEVSE-07-09e respectively.

The secretary was asked to consolidate the 3 documents in to a single document, add the justification and send it to GRRF for consideration at its February 2012 session as Supplement 10 to the 11 Series.

Note: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/2 is the resulting document.

Using AMEVSC-08-05e as a basis and taking into account the comments in AMEVSC-08-10e, the proposal tabled at the 72nd GRRF (GRRF/2012/2 (AMEVSC-07-10e)) was review paragraph-by-paragraph and point-by-point.

The results of this review are given in document AMEVSC-08-11e with the major amendments being:

► Appendix 1 paragraph 1.3.

• o Clarified that the simulation tool can only be used in a braking system type-approval when the vehicle parameters of the vehicle to be type-approved are included in the simulation tool and when the value of each parameter is within the validated range of the simulation tool.
• o Clarified that a vehicle manufacturer using an externally sourced simulation tool must carry-out at least one confirmation test and that any subsequent confirmation tests resulting from a simulation tool modification are subject to a discussion between the vehicle manufacturer, the Technical Service and the Type-approval Authority.

► Appendix 2 paragraph 1.1. – all listed parameters divided into 2 types and placed in 2 new sub-paragraphs 1.1.1. and 1.1.2.

• o Parameters that do not have a numerical value within the simulation model, but are important in understanding the capability of the simulation tool in paragraph 1.1.1.
• o Parameters that do have a numerical value within the simulation model in paragraph 1.1.2.
• o Footnote clarifies that the simulation tool must not include all the parameters listed in paragraphs 1.1.1. and 1.1.2., but any parameter that is not specifically accounted for shall be a limitation on the use of the tool.
• o Changes within the parameter:
  • ► Gearbox
    • ► In addition to moving gearbox type with examples to paragraph 1.1.1., gearbox characteristics are added to paragraph 1.1.2.. This allows both the suitability of the tool to be established with regard to the different gearbox types, and the way in which they are taken into account within the tool to be identified.
  • ► Brake
    • ► In addition to moving brake type with examples to paragraph 1.1.1., brake characteristics are added to paragraph 1.1.2.. This allows both the suitability of the tool to be established with regard to the different brake types, and the way in which they are taken into account within the tool to be identified.
  • ► Additional steering axles
    • ► The word “additional” and the examples deleted. This removes the any confusion with regard to the word “additional” as the item now clearly applies to all steered axles. The wording “working principle” in brackets indicates that the influence of the steering axle(s) on the vehicle stability function has to be considered in the simulation tool.
  • ► Drive train option
    • ► Additional examples added for clarification

• o Additional parameters
  • ► While the listing of parameters in paragraphs 1.1.1. and 1.1.2. are considered to represent a minimum check list, it was recognised that a simulation tool manufacturer might wish to included additional parameters, e.g. tyre characteristic value, suspension characteristic value. Therefore, the introducing sentence to paragraph 1.1.2. includes the wording “at least” to clarify (ensure) that additional parameters – as considered desirable by the simulation tool manufacturer – can be added to the simulation tool.

► Appendix 2 paragraph 1.4.2.

• o Paragraph structure revised to clarify that the requirement is a minimum specification for the simulation tool.

► Appendix 3

• o Appendix 3 brought inline with the amendments made to Appendix 2.

The proposed new paragraph 2.5.1. to Appendix 2 – document AMEVSC-08-09e – was discussed, with the result being shown in document AMEVSC-08-12e and the clean text taken into AMEVSC-08-11e.

► Similar idea to Annex 11 Appendix 2 paragraph 1.2.1.
► Part of the appendix and not a transitional provision with specific dates, as it will be a supplement

• o The change does not justify a series of amendments status
  • ► It was considered that very few simulation tools have been validated.
  • ► Any modification to the simulation tool that affects its scope of application will necessitate a re-validation of the tool.

11. The expert from OICA introduced a proposal for editorial corrections to Regulation No. 13 (GRRF-73-02). GRRF agreed to two of the three proposed changes and adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex 3 to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2013 session as Corrigendum 2 to UN Regulation No. 13.

12. GRRF noted the state of discussions in WP.29 on dynamic or static references to other UN Regulations and private standards. GRRF welcomed the recommendation to proceed on a case by case approach. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal to insert in Regulations Nos. 13 and 13-H a reference to Regulation No. 10 and its 04 series of amendments. The experts from OICA and CLEPA proposed to make a reference to the 03 series, as the 04 series only defines new requirements for hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) and electric vehicles (EV) vehicles. OICA recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP29/GRRF/2011/34 and especially the justification part. GRRF agreed to resume the discussion at its next session. For this purpose, the Chair requested the secretariat to distribute GRRF-73-14 with an official symbol, to keep ECE/TRANS/GRRF/2012/21 and to reinsert ECE/TRANS/GRRF/2011/34 on the agenda.

13. The expert from Belgium recalled the work progress (GRRF-73-09) made by the informal group on AMEVSC proposing updated provisions of Annex 21 (and its appendix) to UN Regulation No. 13 dealing with the use of simulation tools duly validated to prove compliance of the vehicle stability function (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/2). The Secretary introduced GRRF-73-06. GRRF was supportive of the proposal but raised some detailed issues. The Chair invited GRRF to provide the Secretary of the informal group with written comments to allow a revision to be prepared as an official document for consideration by GRRF at its next session .

14. The Chair recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/11 and GRRF-72-28 on the introduction of an electro-hydraulic transmission for electrical brake systems. The expert from the Netherlands reported on a first meeting with Germany and his intention to produce an enhanced proposal for consideration at the next session. GRRF agreed to resume the discussion at its next session, keeping these documents as a reference.

4. The Chair of the informal working group on “Alternative Method to assess the Electronic Vehicle Stability Control system” (AMEVSC) reported on the progress made by the group on using test reports, e.g. according to various annexes of UN Regulation No. 13. He introduced GRRF-74-07, reporting on the work accomplished and the conclusion of the group on the rights and obligations when using a test reports procedure (e.g. as defined in Regulation No. 13, Annex 19) linked to the 1958 Agreement. GRRF endorsed these conclusions. The summary of these conclusions is listed in the form of a table in Annex III to this report.

5. The Secretary to the informal working group on AMEVSC introduced GRRF-74-06 on the use of a simulation tool as an AMEVSC, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/10 and especially the justification section. GRRF adopted this proposal as amended below. GRRF requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2013 sessions as part of the draft Supplement 10 to the 11 series of amendments to Regulation No. 13.

Annex 21, Appendix 1, paragraph 1.4., amend to read:

“1.4. The availability of the simulation tool software, to the software version used, shall be maintained for a period of not less than 10 years following the date of the approval of the vehicle.”

Annex 21, Appendix 2, footnote 1, amend to read: