38. The expert from OICA introduced a proposal (GRRF-74-10) to implement the type approval administrative procedure called “revision”. GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this subject on the basis of an official document.

39. GRRF was informed that Mr. Jennison and Mr. Sawada would no longer attend GRRF. GRRF thanked both for their excellent contributions. GRRF wished Mr. Jennison all the best for his retirement and Mr. Sawada all the best in his new responsibilities.

47. The Secretary, recalling the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/31, reported on the conclusion of the Chairs of GRs, during their meeting in June 2013, preferring to not amend all UN Regulations but, for example, to include provisions concerning the revision and extensions of type approvals into the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this proposal at its next session.

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.

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.