Proposal to allow the option of using a QR code (or another type of digital data carrier) to supplement, in case of necessity, some packaging information.

Proposal to add the option of using a QR code (or another type of digital data carrier) to replace, if necessary, some packaging information.

Proposal to include the option of using a QR code (or another type of digital data carrier) in place of the paper fitting instructions physically included in the packaging.

123. GRVA noted the documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/13, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/14 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/15, which were not introduced as no representative of FEMFM was present.

124. The experts from CLEPA and the Netherlands stated that they could not support these documents.

125. GRVA agreed to keep the documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/13, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/14 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/15 on the agenda until its next session.

Proposal to include the option of using a QR code (or another type of digital data carrier) in place of the paper fitting instructions physically included in the packaging.

123. GRVA noted the documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/13, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/14 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/15, which were not introduced as no representative of FEMFM was present.

124. The experts from CLEPA and the Netherlands stated that they could not support these documents.

125. GRVA agreed to keep the documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/13, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/14 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/15 on the agenda until its next session.

Proposal y to include the option of using a QR code (or another type of digital data carrier) to replace the paper fitting instructions physically included in the packaging.

123. GRVA noted the documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/13, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/14 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/15, which were not introduced as no representative of FEMFM was present.

124. The experts from CLEPA and the Netherlands stated that they could not support these documents.

125. GRVA agreed to keep the documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/13, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/14 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2023/15 on the agenda until its next session.

Proposal to establish a uniform CoP inspection questionnaire to harmonize conformity of production administrative requirements across Contracting Parties under UN R90. The intent is to increase efficiency and lower costs due to the absence of mutual recognition of CoP certifications among approval authorities.

Proposal based on informal document GRRF-76-21 to remove all references to Annex 10 from Annex 13 by transferring the provisions concerning vehicles with and without anti-lock braking systems to Annex 10.

15. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2014/27, proposing amendments to Annexes 10 and 13 of UN Regulation No. 13. GRRF adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2015 sessions as draft Supplement 13 to the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13.

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. This documents supersedes document GRRF-75-18.

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.

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.

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.

Text prepared by the Federation of European Manufacturers of Friction Materials (FEMFM) proposing to exclude brake linings and/or lining assemblies that are chemically and physically identical to the original part from the requirements (as is currently the practice for brake discs and drums).

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.

Proposal from the Federation of European Manufactures of Friction Materials (FEMFM) to align the requirements for chemically and physically identical brake lining assemblies or drum brake linings.

20. The expert of FEMFM introduced GRRF-73-04 taking into account some remarks received during the last 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 tested 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/models 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.

21. The expert of Spain reported some weaknesses in a similar case (for discs and drums), where this type of provision was already in force. Based on this experience, he underlined the need to be precise. He added, the goal is to make sure that only original manufacturers can use this procedure. GRRF reviewed the wording of the informal document and the expert of FEMFM invited GRRF to send him any further contributions to allow him to submit in due time an updated wording in the form of an official document for consideration at the next session of GRRF.

The extension of UN R90 to include brake drums and discs introduced the concept of a part “identical” to the OE part. Because such parts would have been approved under UN R13/13-H, they were exempted from redundant approval under R90. This proposal would similarly define and exempt brake linings.

22. The expert from CLEPA presented GRRF-72-15, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/3, on the “Bedding in” test procedure for brake drums. GRRF adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex VI and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, as a Corrigendum to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/4, for consideration at their March 2012 sessions.

23. The expert from FEMFM introduced GRRF-72-05 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/3 clarifying the meaning of “identical” brake linings.

Following the discussion, he presented, jointly with the expert from Spain, a revised proposal (GRRF-72-05-Rev.1).

GRRF supported the approach but noted some concerns and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session. This will be on the basis of an official document to be prepared by FEMFM jointly with Spain, the Russian Federation and OICA.

22. The expert from CLEPA presented GRRF-72-15, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/3, on the “Bedding in” test procedure for brake drums. GRRF adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex VI and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, as a Corrigendum to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/4, for consideration at their March 2012 sessions.

23. The expert from FEMFM introduced GRRF-72-05 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/3 clarifying the meaning of “identical” brake linings.

Following the discussion, he presented, jointly with the expert from Spain, a revised proposal (GRRF-72-05-Rev.1).

GRRF supported the approach but noted some concerns and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session. This will be on the basis of an official document to be prepared by FEMFM jointly with Spain, the Russian Federation and OICA.

22. The expert from CLEPA presented GRRF-72-15, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/3, on the “Bedding in” test procedure for brake drums. GRRF adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex VI and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, as a Corrigendum to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/4, for consideration at their March 2012 sessions.

23. The expert from FEMFM introduced GRRF-72-05 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/3 clarifying the meaning of “identical” brake linings.

Following the discussion, he presented, jointly with the expert from Spain, a revised proposal (GRRF-72-05-Rev.1).

GRRF supported the approach but noted some concerns and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session. This will be on the basis of an official document to be prepared by FEMFM jointly with Spain, the Russian Federation and OICA.

27. GRRF considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/38 by the experts from CLEPA and OICA clarifying the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 90. GRRF adopted the proposal as amended below and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration at their March 2012 sessions, as draft Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 90.

Page 18, paragraph 4.2.1.1.3., fourth ident

• For less than 300 brake applications read less than 250 brake applications

28. GRRF considered GRRF-71-02 by the expert from FEMFM proposing that no test be required for “identical” replacement brake linings as it is the case for “identical” replacement discs and drums. GRRF noted a number of comments and agreed to consider again this proposal with an official symbol.