1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Document Title | Revised AMEVSC UN R13 proposal adding term 'vehicle manufacturer' | ||||||||
Reference Number | AMEVSC-07-05 | ||||||||
Date |
9 Feb 2012
|
||||||||
Summary | Revised draft copy of the "Proposal for Supplement 9 to the 11 series of amendments to Regulation No. 13" returned by GRRF for revision. | ||||||||
Rulemaking Area(s) | AMEVSC and UN R13 Heavy-Duty Braking | ||||||||
Meeting(s) | |||||||||
Downloads | |||||||||
UNECE server | .pdf format | ||||||||
Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
AMEVSC | Session 7 | 18 Oct 2011 |
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. |
||||||||