45. The GRRF Chair, informed WP.29 about the results achieved by GRRF during its seventy-second session (for more details, see the report of the session ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/72).

46. The GRRF Chair reported that a number of open issues in the new Regulation on AEBS had been solved by GRRF. It was recommended that the delegates of WP.29 and WP.1 should coordinate their positions regarding potential conflicts with the text of the Vienna Convention.

47. He reported that GRRF had adopted the terms of reference and rules of procedure for the new informal working group on Automated Connections between Vehicles (ACV) and the establishment of an informal working group on UN Regulation No. 55 (mechanical coupling). The World Forum endorsed the establishment of these two informal working groups pending the adoption of their terms of references.

48. He informed WP.29 that, for the November 2012 session of WP.29, GRRF would adopt several amendments to Regulation No. 117 (Tyre rolling noise, wet grip adhesion, rolling resistance) aimed at: appending, amongst others, a new test method for tyres class C2, and amending the definition of C1, C2 and C3 tyres. These amendments would have to be reviewed by GRB at its September 2012 session. The World Forum endorsed this approach.

49. He added that the draft UN GTR on tyres was still in progress within the informal working group, but could be finalized during 2012 so that a final draft UN GTR would be submitted to WP.29 for consideration at its March 2013 session.

20. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRRF, given during the 156th session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1095, paras. 45 – 49) and approved the report.

There was insufficient time to discuss the various documents and, as a result, come to a conclusion. However, it was clear that there are still widely differing views on the responsibilities and implications in the use of test reports within a type-approval.

While it was agreed that only the vehicle manufacturer can obtain a braking system type-approval and in the case of a problem related to the type-approval it is the vehicle manufacturer who is responsible for the consequences, there was disagreement as to whether this was clearly the case in the actual use of a test report.

• ► Paragraph 3.3. specifies that “a vehicle, representative of the vehicle type to be approved, shall be submitted to the Technical Service conducting the approval tests.”
  • o Does this mean, for example, that:
    • a) the vehicle referred to in paragraph 3.3. and a vehicle in the test report shall be the same with regard to type, i.e. the same type from the same manufacturer, or
    • b) the vehicle referred to in paragraph 3.3. shall contain the same item that is the subject of the test report and the “approval tests” referred to in paragraph 3.3. are the tests to be carried-out at the time of type-approval for which there are no test reports.
• ► Regarding paragraph 3.4. is the need for the vehicle manufacturer to show conformity of production sufficient for the vehicle manufacturer to be aware of their responsibilities when using test reports.

As a means to resolve the issues surrounding the use of test reports, OICA suggested the replacement of the test report with a component or system type-approval and indicated that this was under investigation by a Germany Industry (VDA) special working group.

The Chair recalled the background as follows:
2-step approach :

• • 1st step :
  • - N2 > 8 t
  • - M2 with non-hydraulic braking system
  • - M3 with non-hydraulic braking system
  • - N3 with non-hydraulic braking system

• • 2nd step:
  • More stringent criteria for the vehicles specified in step 1, + introduction of criteria for the following vehicle types and classes:
    • - N2≤8 t with hydraulic braking system
    • - M2 with hydraulic braking system
    • - M3 with hydraulic braking system

1st step and 2nd step for vehicles covered by step 1 finalized – expected to be adopted at
November 2012 session of WP29.

2nd step for vehicle types with no criteria in step 1 needs to be developed now – deadline for
decision: November 2013 session of WP29, i.e. 3 years in advance of the 2016 deadline.

The Chair concluded that this group will have to work fast and some additional meetings are
expected to be decided for the following months.