Proposal to improve the definition of “identical” parts as applied to replacement brake discs and drums and to introduce an “identical” part definition for brake linings.
20. The expert from FEMFM introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/4 taking into account the remarks received during the previous session of GRRF. He recalled the purpose of the proposal and underlined that so called “chemically and physically identical replacement brake lining assemblies” and “chemically and physically identical drum brake linings” should not have to be retested but should be approved on the basis of the homologation of the original equipment supplier. In that case, the applicants for approval should only demonstrate that they supply the brake lining assemblies or the drum brake linings for the vehicle or brake manufacturer as original equipment for the specific model(s) for which approval is being sought, and that they produce the parts under the same production conditions, quality assurance system, and with the same results of the conformity of production tests as for the original parts. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-74-19, expressing some concerns with the proposal made by FEMFM. The expert from Spain underlined the need for GRRF to confirm the endorsement of the philosophy behind the proposal made by FEMFM. The expert from the Russian Federation observed that the proposal is consistent with an approach which is already used in other parts of Regulation No. 90. The expert from CLEPA volunteered to organize a meeting with OICA, FEMFM as well as interested Contracting Parties and NGOs interested in this issue. GRRF agreed to resume consideration at its next session.
24. The expert from CLEPA, recalling the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/4, reported on the work of OICA, CLEPA and CLCCR and introduced GRRF-75-18 amending the original proposal. GRRF noted the completion of technical work. The expert from OICA also introduced GRRF-75-19 supporting the technical content of the proposal but disagreeing with legal aspects such as intellectual property, product liability and reputation issues that may occur. The expert from CLEPA addressed the concerns of OICA (GRRF-75-41). The expert from Spain noted some administrative and procedural difficulties for Type Approval Authorities that this proposal may create. The expert from France requested a justification for the deletion proposed in Annex 4B. GRRF agreed, in principle, with the technical provisions and requested the secretariat to distribute GRRF-75-18 with an official symbol for further consideration at its next session. GRRF requested the Chair to report to WP.29 at its November 2013 session on both the technical and the legal aspects.
24. The expert from CLEPA, recalling the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/4, reported on the work of OICA, CLEPA and CLCCR and introduced GRRF-75-18 amending the original proposal. GRRF noted the completion of technical work. The expert from OICA also introduced GRRF-75-19 supporting the technical content of the proposal but disagreeing with legal aspects such as intellectual property, product liability and reputation issues that may occur. The expert from CLEPA addressed the concerns of OICA (GRRF-75-41). The expert from Spain noted some administrative and procedural difficulties for Type Approval Authorities that this proposal may create. The expert from France requested a justification for the deletion proposed in Annex 4B. GRRF agreed, in principle, with the technical provisions and requested the secretariat to distribute GRRF-75-18 with an official symbol for further consideration at its next session. GRRF requested the Chair to report to WP.29 at its November 2013 session on both the technical and the legal aspects.
22. The Chair of GRRF presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2014/9 based on GRRF-75-18, discussed at the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRRF-76-42-Rev.1 proposing an amendment to the scope of the Regulation as well as further minor clarifications. GRRF adopted this proposal as amended by Annex IV of the session report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2014 sessions as a part of the draft Supplement 2 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 90.
22. The Chair of GRRF presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2014/9 based on GRRF-75-18, discussed at the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRRF-76-42-Rev.1 proposing an amendment to the scope of the Regulation as well as further minor clarifications. GRRF adopted this proposal as amended by Annex IV of the session report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2014 sessions as a part of the draft Supplement 2 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 90.
22. The Chair of GRRF presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2014/9 based on GRRF-75-18, discussed at the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRRF-76-42-Rev.1 proposing an amendment to the scope of the Regulation as well as further minor clarifications. GRRF adopted this proposal as amended by Annex IV of the session report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2014 sessions as a part of the draft Supplement 2 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 90.