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.

Using AMEVSC-08-11e – which was the resulting document from the 8th meeting – as a basis, the proposal from Japan (AMEVSC-09-03e) was discussed.

Japan explained that their concern was that the technical service carrying-out the braking system type-approval would have no choice other than to accept the use of a simulation tool with an old simulation tool validation report regardless of its suitability.

No other changes were made and the secretary undertook to check the document AMEVSC-09-05e for consistency, add a justification and send it to GRRF as an informal document amending GRRF/2012/2 for consideration at the September 2012 GRRF.

The secretary also undertook to create a revision of GRRF/2012/2 which took into account the changes proposed in the informal document.

It was pointed out that the use of the word “may” in the first sentence (“….. amendments to this Regulation, may continue to be used ….”) meant that there was no compulsion on the technical service to accept the validation report and that, therefore, the last sentence in the Japanese proposal was not necessary. To clarify the suitability of the simulation tool for a braking system type-approval with regard to Annex 21, the wording “the relevant technical requirements are fulfilled” was added. This would ensure that a simulation tool with an old validation test report could only be used if it met the requirements of the proposed amendment.

The resultant text is given in document AMEVSC-09-05e.