46. GRSP noted GRSP-64-45 on the decision of WP.29 to convert the Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) into the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) and to reallocate certain tasks of GRRF to other GRs (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1139, para. 33). GRSP also noted the recommendation of WP.29 that GRSP should insert UN Regulation No. 111 into its programme of work. The Chair of GRSP suggested that the group start exploring which areas under the responsibility of GRSP should be revised by developing vehicle automation. Thus, he indicatively mentioned topics such as safety-belts, frontal impact and seat strength and volunteered to provide a more complete list at the May 2019 session of GRSP.

44. The expert from the ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands submitted a presentation and two videos (GRVA-01-43, GRVA-01-44 and GRVA-01-45) reporting on field tests performed with trucks equipped with AEBS systems. The Chair agreed to dedicate time to this presentation at the next session of GRVA

44. The expert from the ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands submitted a presentation and two videos (GRVA-01-43, GRVA-01-44 and GRVA-01-45) reporting on field tests performed with trucks equipped with AEBS systems. The Chair agreed to dedicate time to this presentation at the next session of GRVA

44. The expert from the ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands submitted a presentation and two videos (GRVA-01-43, GRVA-01-44 and GRVA-01-45) reporting on field tests performed with trucks equipped with AEBS systems. The Chair agreed to dedicate time to this presentation at the next session of GRVA

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

8. The expert from Germany recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/24 proposing more stringent provisions on automatic reactivation of AEBS. He presented GRRF-86-32 addressing concerns expressed at the September 2017 session on the original proposal. The expert from OICA answered to the proposal (GRRF-86-18). The experts from Nordic Countries supported OICA’s proposal as they are facing user acceptance issues on their market due to false AEBS warnings. GRRF urged the experts from Germany and from OICA to submit a revised proposal for the September 2018 session of GRRF.

8. The expert from Germany recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/24 proposing more stringent provisions on automatic reactivation of AEBS. He presented GRRF-86-32 addressing concerns expressed at the September 2017 session on the original proposal. The expert from OICA answered to the proposal (GRRF-86-18). The experts from Nordic Countries supported OICA’s proposal as they are facing user acceptance issues on their market due to false AEBS warnings. GRRF urged the experts from Germany and from OICA to submit a revised proposal for the September 2018 session of GRRF.

6. The expert from Japan presented (GRRF-86-12) a status report of the activities of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). GRRF agreed that AEBS for light vehicles should perform when the target is a vehicle, a pedestrian or a cyclist, recognizing that the technology for cyclist detection is still being refined . GRRF agreed to also consider the concern raised by the expert from Sweden on the detection of big animals by AEBS.

7. GRRF also agreed that AEBS for light vehicle should not be included in UN Regulation No. 131, noting that UN Regulation No. 131 is aimed at addressing situations on highways, while AEBS systems for light vehicle would primarily address urban situations.

8. The expert from Germany presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/24 proposing provisions on automatic reactivation of AEBS. The expert from OICA answered to the proposal (GRRF-84-21). GRRF reacted positively to the proposal and invited the experts from Germany and from OICA to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

6. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-84-03 with the Terms of Reference for the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) adopted by the members of the IWG, based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/83, Annex II.

7. GRRF supported the proposal and adopted the Terms of Reference proposed for the IWG on AEBS as reproduced in Annex II.

8. The expert from Germany presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/24 proposing provisions on automatic reactivation of AEBS. The expert from OICA answered to the proposal (GRRF-84-21). GRRF reacted positively to the proposal and invited the experts from Germany and from OICA to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

8. The expert from Germany recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/24 proposing more stringent provisions on automatic reactivation of AEBS. He presented GRRF-86-32 addressing concerns expressed at the September 2017 session on the original proposal. The expert from OICA answered to the proposal (GRRF-86-18). The experts from Nordic Countries supported OICA’s proposal as they are facing user acceptance issues on their market due to false AEBS warnings. GRRF urged the experts from Germany and from OICA to submit a revised proposal for the September 2018 session of GRRF.

6. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-83-17 (relevant for agenda item 2 as well as item 11) proposing to extend the scope of Regulation No. 131 (Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS)) to vehicles of category M1 and N1. He proposed to introduce in a new 02 series of amendments provisions regarding the performance of AEBS for vehicles of category M1 and N1 and to introduce in a new 03 series of amendments provisions addressing the performance of such systems for those vehicle categories and the detection of pedestrians. He introduced GRRF-83-18 proposing terms of reference for the Informal Working Group (IWG) on AEBS. The expert from OICA noted the challenging timeline proposed.

7. GRRF supported the proposal made by the expert from Japan and endorsed the draft Terms of Reference proposed for the IWG on AEBS as reproduced in Annex II of the session report.

64. The expert from EC introduced GRRF-83-19 reporting on the status of the review of the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations proposing a number of measures that could be implemented and for which some activities could be launched at GRRF. Given the timelines envisaged, the Chair recommended to already start addressing certain measures such as AEBS as discussed under agenda item 2.

6. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-83-17 (relevant for agenda item 2 as well as item 11) proposing to extend the scope of Regulation No. 131 (Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS)) to vehicles of category M1 and N1. He proposed to introduce in a new 02 series of amendments provisions regarding the performance of AEBS for vehicles of category M1 and N1 and to introduce in a new 03 series of amendments provisions addressing the performance of such systems for those vehicle categories and the detection of pedestrians. He introduced GRRF-83-18 proposing terms of reference for the Informal Working Group (IWG) on AEBS. The expert from OICA noted the challenging timeline proposed.

7. GRRF supported the proposal made by the expert from Japan and endorsed the draft Terms of Reference proposed for the IWG on AEBS as reproduced in Annex II of the session report.

44. The expert from EC gave a presentation (GRSP-60-21), to inform GRSP about the draft revision of the General Safety Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. GRSP noted that many of the items listed in the review of the General Safety Regulation coincide with those priorities of work administer by WP.29 under the Agreements it administers (including the 1998 Agreement). The expert from EC confirmed the importance to continue consultation with main stakeholders to ensure consistency with common work goals.

Main content of document from (D):
Purpose of this document is to describe the necessities of the braking system when using the ACSF system.

(OICA): Overriding of the driver should always be possible.
(D): Group should decide this
(Chair): At least brake apply should be always possible
(D): Target is, that a wrong intervention of the driver may not lead to a false reaction of the system
(Chair): Overriding of the system could be “made difficult” for a certain time
(OICA): IS EM1B really necessary, as EM1A and EM2 should be sufficient
(EC): EM1B-Test: Are the systems be able to perform the test without a need to hand over to the driver?
(OICA/CLEPA): Yes
(ROK): Are the three tests because of safety?
(D): Yes, to cover the complete speed range
(J): Is there experience with regard to the EM1A test
(D): Yes, but a test track of ≥ 400m is necessary

Main content of the document from (F):
Remove CAT D and CAT E from Regulation 79 and install it in a new Regulation. Longitudinal control should not be part of the Regulation 79.

(Chair): In the last WP.29-session, the Chairman of the GRRF (Bernie Frost) reported to the delegates the current work of the IWG ACSF and also, why the group has started with CAT E. It is clear, that the Regulation 79 is not the best “location” for ACSF in total, but to finalize this work in the given timeline, only this approach seem to be the most appropriate. WP.29 did not disagree with this.

(OICA): Proposes to go on with the current working strategy.
(D): All have agreed to go this way, also parking systems are needing braking functions.
(CLEPA): The current way was already confirmed by GRRF.
(see: GRRF-79-31 - (Chair) Guidance to GRs concerning Automated Driving Technology)

7. GRRF adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/18 as amended by Annex II (based on GRRF-80-30) and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal (together with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2016 sessions, as Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 131.

5. The expert from OICA, recalling his presentation at the seventy-ninth session of GRRF introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/17 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF /2015/18 proposing useful information to Contracting Parties applying Regulations Nos. 130 and 131 regarding the application of these regulations for specific categories of vehicles. GRRF received the presentation by the expert of CLEPA (GRRF-80-23).

5. The expert from OICA, recalling his presentation at the seventy-ninth session of GRRF introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/17 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF /2015/18 proposing useful information to Contracting Parties applying Regulations Nos. 130 and 131 regarding the application of these regulations for specific categories of vehicles. GRRF received the presentation by the expert of CLEPA (GRRF-80-23).

7. GRRF adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/18 as amended by Annex II (based on GRRF-80-30) and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal (together with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2016 sessions, as Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 131.

28. [The GRPE Chair] announced that the IWG on Vehicle Propulsion System Definitions (VPSD) would submit a formal proposal for a new Mutual Resolution on Vehicle Powertrain Definitions for the June 2015 session of GRPE.

29. He introduced the informal documents, which list the acronyms and abbreviations used in UN Regulations (WP.29-165-17) and highlighted the problem of using the acronym ‘RESS’ to describe both the ‘Non-original Replacement Exhaust Silencer System’ and the ‘Non-original Replacement Exhaust System and Rechargeable Energy Storage System’ (WP.29-165-16). The World Forum endorsed the content of document WP.29-165-16 and referred the choice to its subsidiary bodies. The secretariat added that the document WP.29-165-17 would be made available on the UNECE website and it would continue to be updated on a regular basis.

48. GRE took note of the WP.29 request to complement a list of acronyms/abbreviations (WP.29-165-17) with those used in lighting and light-signalling Regulations. The expert from the Netherlands volunteered to assist the secretariat in this regard. GRE also noted that acronym “REESS” and its definition in Regulation No. 10 might need correction.

36. GRSP noted WP.29-165-17, (permanently appended in its website) gathering acronyms of UN Regulations and UN GTR. GRSP invited all its members to revise the document and provide comments to the secretariat.

23. GRB noted that WP.29, at its March 2015 session, had considered a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in Regulations (WP.29-165-17) and noted that the acronym RESS “Replacement Exhaust Silencing System” is used in Regulation No. 92. However, RESS is widely used as “Rechargeable Energy Storage System”, for example, in Regulations Nos. 10, 12, 94, 95 and 100. For this reason, WP.29 had requested GRB to introduce, in the medium term, an alternative acronym for “Replacement Exhaust Silencing System” in Regulation No. 92 (WP.29-165-16). GRB invited experts and, in particular, IMMA to study this issue and decided to revert to it at the next session.

J presented LKAS-02-07 on OBD:

• The delegate from J informed that the document is a pilot project for assessing the possibility of OBD for safety systems.
• OICA had the following comments:
  • Misunderstanding in what is OBD: OBD is not necessarily an electronic interface readable by a scan-tool. This is the technical solution chosen for emission systems, where the history and background is different from safety systems. OBD is primarily a system which has the capability of detecting malfunctions and to communicate them off-board. The definition in OBD GTR clarifies what is OBD.
  • The safety systems currently in the vehicles do fulfil most of the OBD requirements (e.g. the system has the capability of detecting malfunctions and indicating their occurrence by means of an alert system…). Safety regulations have followed a different route compared to emission system regulations (e.g. fault detection and warning to driver is required “since forever” for safety systems. This approach is consolidated by the CEL Annex, which does not exists for emissions).
  • OBD is a subject wider than LKAS/ACSF, hence should be discussed at another level.
  • Do not confuse roadworthiness (safety at PTI) vs. repair and maintenance at service station.
    • e.g. the EBS contains 1100 failure codes
    • Only the effect of the faiures on the performance of the system is important for safety, not the root cause of the failure.
    • The root cause of the failure is important only to repair the vehicle.
  • OBD provisions cannot be copy/pasted from emissions as emissions are one system while safety systems are maybe 15 or 20 systems or functions, with different variants for every manufacturers… Thus the emission approcah is not relevant for safety systems. It would generate huge costs for industry, without clear benefits.
  • Data are protected by private life data protection as they own to the vehicle driver.
  • The expert warned about the danger of actuating the equipment for the sake of PTI as this can damage some safety devices.
  • Anti-tampering: when all codes and protocols are freely available, then hackers have easier access to the manufacturers internal safety systems. From this standpoint, current UNECE requirements are securing the confidentiality of vehicle manufacturers measures to protect against simple unauthorized modification (e.g. 5.5.2.1 in UN R79).
• The Chair recalled about the never ending discussions being held with OBD for emissions.
• The European Commission
  • informed that they are looking to the possibility to mandate OBDX for safety systems, in the frame of roadworthiness. The expert from the European Commission was of the opinion that there is no need to check at PTI that the vehicle systems which are optional have to correctly function (example of the wiper).
  • Was keen that OBD be discussed in depth within this informal group.
• J was keen that the driver can maintain the vehicle/system by himself, hence the need to make the data and protocols available. He found unfair that the dealer has access to the data, and not the owner. Yet the owner can buy the necessary equipment.
• OICA reminded repair and maintenance is a topic which is separate and not linked to safety or roadworthiness of the vehicle.
• The Chair cited the recitals (17) of the EU directive 2014/45. (note: recitals in EU directives are not requirements).
• NL stated that OBD should not be used for checking safety system at PTI. The tell-tale should illuminate when there is a direct danger, no need for OBD in this perspective. PTI should remain a simple check.

Conclusion:
- European Commission to provide input on this item for next meeting
- Item to remain in agenda.
- Strong reluctance from Industry.

5. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-78-30, GRRF-78-32, GRRF-78-33, GRRF-78-34, GRRF-78-35, GRRF-78-36 and GRRF-78-37. The documents presented two sets of proposals amending the introduction and scope of UN Regulations Nos. 130 and 131 exploring possibilities of exemption for specific vehicle applications (e.g. off-road vehicles).

6. Several Contracting Parties (CPs) expressed extensive concerns on these proposals. The expert from OICA expressed his intention to develop other options for consideration at the seventy-ninth GRRF session.

5. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-78-30, GRRF-78-32, GRRF-78-33, GRRF-78-34, GRRF-78-35, GRRF-78-36 and GRRF-78-37. The documents presented two sets of proposals amending the introduction and scope of UN Regulations Nos. 130 and 131 exploring possibilities of exemption for specific vehicle applications (e.g. off-road vehicles).

6. Several Contracting Parties (CPs) expressed extensive concerns on these proposals. The expert from OICA expressed his intention to develop other options for consideration at the seventy-ninth GRRF session.

5. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-78-30, GRRF-78-32, GRRF-78-33, GRRF-78-34, GRRF-78-35, GRRF-78-36 and GRRF-78-37. The documents presented two sets of proposals amending the introduction and scope of UN Regulations Nos. 130 and 131 exploring possibilities of exemption for specific vehicle applications (e.g. off-road vehicles).

6. Several Contracting Parties (CPs) expressed extensive concerns on these proposals. The expert from OICA expressed his intention to develop other options for consideration at the seventy-ninth GRRF session.

5. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-78-30, GRRF-78-32, GRRF-78-33, GRRF-78-34, GRRF-78-35, GRRF-78-36 and GRRF-78-37. The documents presented two sets of proposals amending the introduction and scope of UN Regulations Nos. 130 and 131 exploring possibilities of exemption for specific vehicle applications (e.g. off-road vehicles).

6. Several Contracting Parties (CPs) expressed extensive concerns on these proposals. The expert from OICA expressed his intention to develop other options for consideration at the seventy-ninth GRRF session.

5. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-78-30, GRRF-78-32, GRRF-78-33, GRRF-78-34, GRRF-78-35, GRRF-78-36 and GRRF-78-37. The documents presented two sets of proposals amending the introduction and scope of UN Regulations Nos. 130 and 131 exploring possibilities of exemption for specific vehicle applications (e.g. off-road vehicles).

6. Several Contracting Parties (CPs) expressed extensive concerns on these proposals. The expert from OICA expressed his intention to develop other options for consideration at the seventy-ninth GRRF session.

6. The expert from OICA, recalling its presentation at the seventy-eighth session of GRRF and the proposed alternatives proposed e.g. in GRRF-78-30 to explore possibilities of exemption for specific vehicle applications (e.g. off-road vehicles), sought for guidance on how to proceed. He explained that with the given texts of Regulations No. 130 and 131, vehicles not benefiting from Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) or Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) get individual single approvals, which is costly and time consuming. The expert from FEM explained that in their views mobile cranes vehicles should not be equipped with AEBS or LDWS.

7. GRRF preferred the proposed option to amend the introduction of Regulations Nos. 130 and 131, providing useful information to Contracting Parties applying these Regulations.

5. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-76-15, GRRF-76-16 and GRRF-76-17-Rev.1 proposing to insert a footnote in the scope of the original version of Regulation No. 131, the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 131 and Regulation No. 130, containing guidance or recommendations to the Contracting Parties applying these Regulations for potential exemptions.

6. Several Contracting Parties (CPs), felt that guidance could be useful; however others felt that it would not be appropriate to use a regulation to advise Contracting Parties on policy considerations. OICA agreed to consider other options for consideration by GRRF.

5. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-76-15, GRRF-76-16 and GRRF-76-17-Rev.1 proposing to insert a footnote in the scope of the original version of Regulation No. 131, the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 131 and Regulation No. 130, containing guidance or recommendations to the Contracting Parties applying these Regulations for potential exemptions.

6. Several Contracting Parties (CPs), felt that guidance could be useful; however others felt that it would not be appropriate to use a regulation to advise Contracting Parties on policy considerations. OICA agreed to consider other options for consideration by GRRF.

6. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRRF-75-38 proposing a minor correction of the table of content of the Regulation. GRRF requested the secretariat to take into account this correction in Revision 1 to this Regulation.

5. Following a bilateral discussion with OICA, the expert from India withdrew GRRF-75-24 and requested OICA to provide clarifications on the table in Annex 3 to UN Regulation No. 131. GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this item at its February 2014 session on the basis of a revised document.

9. The expert from OICA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13 proposing to introduce harmonized cross references to UN Regulation No. 10 into UN Regulations Nos. 13, 13-H, 79, 89, 130 and 131. GRRF adopted the document, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit the amendments to WP.29 and AC.1, as part of upcoming amendments to the corresponding UN Regulations. In this respect, the document will be kept on the agenda of GRRF, pending the submission of the adopted text to WP.29 and AC.1.

Throughout the text, for “fulfilling the technical requirements and transitional…”, read “fulfilling the technical requirements and respecting the transitional…”.

Throughout the text, for “RESS”, read “rechargeable energy storage system”.

10. The expert from the United Kingdom proposed introducing similar amendments into Regulation No. 78. The expert from IMMA offered his support to check Regulation No. 78 for the next session. GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this proposal at it next session.

9. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13, adopted during the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The document remained on the agenda of GRRF, pending the submission of the adopted text to WP.29 and AC.1 for each Regulation.

10. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13, adopted during the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The document remained on the agenda of GRRF, pending submission to WP.29 and AC.1 of the adopted text for UN Regulations Nos. 13 (Heavy vehicle braking), 13-H (Brakes of M1 and N1 vehicles), 79 (Steering equipment) and 89 (Speed limitation devices) and the new UN Regulations on Lane Keeping Assist System (LKAS) and Parking Assist System (PAS).

11. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13, adopted during the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The document remained on the agenda of GRRF, pending submission to WP.29 and AC.1 of the adopted text for Regulations Nos. 13 (Heavy vehicle braking), 13-H (Brakes of M1 and N1 vehicles), 79 (Steering equipment), 89 (Speed limitation devices), 130 (LDWS) and 131 (AEBS).

19. The expert from IMMA presented GRRF-79-16, proposing Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) requirements to be introduced in Regulation No. 78. The proposal received some comments. The expert from EC recommended to consider the existing wording applied to other vehicle categories (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13). The expert from IMMA volunteered to prepare a revised proposal for the September 2015 session of GRRF.

6. GRRF adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/17 with the amendments below, and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal (together with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2016 sessions, as Supplement 1 to Regulation No. 130.

For “Introduction (for information)” read “Introduction”
For “As from sixty km/h, the system shall automatically…” read “The system shall automatically…”

7. GRRF adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/18 as amended by Annex II (based on GRRF-80-30) and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal (together with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2016 sessions, as Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 131.

10. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13, adopted during the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The document remained on the agenda of GRRF, pending submission to WP.29 and AC.1 of the adopted text for Regulations Nos. 13 (Heavy vehicle braking), 13-H (Brakes of M1 and N1 vehicles), 79 (Steering equipment), 89 (Speed limitation devices), 130 (Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS)) and 131 (Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS)). At this stage, the proposal was incorporated in Regulation No. 13 (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/3).

8. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13, adopted during the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The document remained on the agenda of GRRF, pending submission to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) of the adopted text for Regulations Nos. 13-H (Brakes of M1 and N1 vehicles), 79 (Steering equipment) and 89 (Speed limitation devices).

8. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13, adopted during the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The document remained on the agenda of GRRF, pending submission to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) of the adopted text for Regulation No. 89 (Speed limitation devices).

11. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13, adopted during the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The document remained on the agenda of GRRF, pending submission to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) of the adopted text for Regulation No. 89 (Speed limitation devices).

11. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13, adopted during the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The document remained on the agenda of GRRF, pending submission to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) of the adopted text for Regulation No. 89 (Speed limitation devices).

11. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/13, adopted during the seventy-fifth GRRF session. The document remained on the agenda of GRRF, pending submission to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) of the adopted text for Regulation No. 89 (Speed limitation devices). Therefore, it was considered under agenda item 12(b).

3. The expert from EC, chairing the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS), reported on the progress made. He introduced GRRF-74-17 produced by the informal group and amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Japan withdrew GRRF-74-20 and GRRF-74-21. GRRF adopted the proposal from the informal group, as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their June 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. [130]. GRRF noted the completion of the work by the informal group and acknowledged the work done by its experts.

3. The expert from EC, chairing the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS), reported on the progress made. He introduced GRRF-74-17 produced by the informal group and amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Japan withdrew GRRF-74-20 and GRRF-74-21. GRRF adopted the proposal from the informal group, as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their June 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. [130]. GRRF noted the completion of the work by the informal group and acknowledged the work done by its experts.

3. The expert from EC, chairing the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS), reported on the progress made. He introduced GRRF-74-17 produced by the informal group and amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Japan withdrew GRRF-74-20 and GRRF-74-21. GRRF adopted the proposal from the informal group, as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their June 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. [130]. GRRF noted the completion of the work by the informal group and acknowledged the work done by its experts.

8. The Chair recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/11 on introducing an electro-hydraulic transmission for electrical brake systems. The expert from Germany reported on the progress made. He added that a revised proposal might be submitted for consideration at the September 2013 session of GRRF. GRRF agreed to resume the discussion at its next session, keeping the document as a reference.

9. The expert from Japan introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2013/3, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/34 and proposing clarification on the reference to Regulation No. 10 in Regulations Nos. 13 and 13-H. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-74-13, proposing a similar amendment to Regulations Nos. 13 and 13-H but also amending Regulations Nos. 79 and 89 as well as the new Regulations on Advance Emergency Braking System (AEBS) and Lane Departure Warning System (LDWS). Following the discussion, the expert from the Russian Federation withdrew GRRF-74-33. GRRF agreed to reconsider GRRF-74-13 at its next session on the basis of an official document.

10. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2012/21, proposing to remove the signature of the Type Approval Authority from the test report defined in Annex 12 of Regulation No. 13. GRRF adopted this document and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2013 sessions as part of draft Supplement 10 to the 11 series of amendments to Regulation No. 13 (see para. 5).

The Chair informed that whatever the outcome of the discussions about the warning time, the group could decide on a 2-step approach.

NL was of the opinion that, only if the informal group manages to find the criteria for the row 2, then there is a need to define the 2nd step with values.

D preferred to follow the natural process of amending the regulation.

J found the 2nd step a future work because the experts are lacking data and experience.

There is a need for the manufacturers to get experience in the field.

CLEPA pointed out the difficulty for the group to define the 1st step right now, and recommended to follow the natural approach.

NL could accept this opinion but stressed that the proposed values for the 1st step, if adopted, are a rather easy target.

F suggested adding a footnote with a commitment to find values for the 2nd step.

The Chair urged France to produce a written proposal in the course of the 19th meeting.

OICA and CLEPA found the idea of a commitment not realistic because the 1st step would be implemented in 2018 (registration date), i.e. leading GRRF to commit for 2020.

The group reviewed the proposal from France for a footnote (document AEBS/LDWS-19-06). Some debate took place about the wording of the footnote:

  – The date of 1 November is unclear as it could be interpreted as the time as from which the vehicles must be equipped with AEBS complying with the new values, or the time as from which the informal group will be revived
  – The wording “review” can mean the study of the data or the decision about new values.

Industry was keen that 3 years be given to design the vehicles in accordance with the new values.

NL found appropriate to have such a footnote for guaranteeing the revision of the values in the future.

D, J and ROK could support the wording as revised by the group.

J and NL presented their respective documents (AEBS/LDWS-19-03 and AEBS/LDWS-19-04).

OICA questioned the value of 45km/h mentioned in the second bullet of the NL document justifications. NL clarified that the value of 1,2 seconds referred to in the document addresses the TTC, which varies as long as the vehicle decelerates.

F was of the opinion that the warning time exists to permit the driver to react, hence must be adapted to the driver’s reaction time. In addition, the expert from F wondered why the reaction time is different for the light and the heavy vehicles, while the drivers are all human.

OICA pointed the equal importance of nuisance of too early warnings and the driver’s reaction. The system would become counterproductive should early warnings be too frequent. A too early warning in addition would be design restrictive.

Mr. Clasen referred to the document WP29/1091/Add.1, paragraphs 64-66, which urges the designers to avoid too early warnings.

J acknowledged this document and recalled the row 1 performance requirement (warning time). The delegate from J stressed that the current discussion addresses Row 2 vehicles, and J believed that the J proposal for 0.8s is acceptable in terms of nuisance.

Mr. Clasen recalled that the light vehicles are more agile, hence the driver’s reaction by avoidance via steering can occure later, and recalled the existence of the build-up time on hydraulic braking vehicles.

The Chair recalled that NL requested at the previous meeting some figures about the pressure build-up time for hydraulic braking systems.

CLEPA answered that the Industry experience of build-up time for these vehicles and systems is rather inexistent, the reference value would address ESP, and this would apply to 2 wheels only. The expert from CLEPA informed that a value between 0.8 and 1.5 seconds can be reasonable.

The Chair pointed out that the consequence of such pressure build up time would be that there would be not a full braking during the emergency braking phase.

Mr. Clasen informed that the temperature influences the pressure build-up time due to the transmission oil viscosity and the brake disks friction coefficient.

As a summary, the Chair pointed out that 3 Contracting Parties (J, NL and F) are asking to specify a value for the advanced warning timing, and that D had already indicated their support for the joint OICA/CLEPA proposal at the previous meeting. ROK took no position on this issue.

The Chair suggested, in an attempt to make progress, to separate in the discussions for the stationary target the cells B2 (early warning) and C2 (late warning)) and to do the same afterwards for the moving target.

In response, industry presented their proposal for flexibility for the moving target scenario (document AEBS/LDWS-19-05), indicating that they could accept a 0.8 sec value for the 1st warning provided this could done by optical means.

Moving target scenario

The Chair then suggested to discuss first the moving target scenario.

J could not accept the Industry proposal because they considered braking more important than the warning annoyance. J confirmed their support of the NL proposal.

For the moving target scenario in the Industry position, J could not accept “Optical only”.

NL could not accept optical only for the 1st warning. In the case of the moving target scenario the expert was of the opinion that the nuisance is not that critical.

F pointed out that the distance between the target and the subject vehicle with 1s TTC in the moving target scenario is 4m and proposed the 1st warning at 1.4 s and asked Industry about the driver’s acceptance with that limit (same as in Row 1).

D could support the Industry proposal.

ROK had no opinion but welcomed the flexibility of Industry.

The Chair considered that the discussions indicated some possibility of compromise about the warning timing for the moving target scenario (except from France)

F repeated their support for “optical only” but wanted 1.4 s warning time delay, with 0.8 s for the 2nd warning signal.

Mr. Clasen pointed out that long warning time would jeopardise the manufacturer’s wish to increase the speed reduction because the total time would then not be acceptable. OICA added that such warning time would question the speed reduction, in addition to the security margin and the vehicle dynamics. Also, Industry pointed out the fact that the regulation provides only the minimum values and provides freedom to the manufacturer to do better. One manufacturer gave the example of one of his production line, where 10% of the production are N2, the others are N1. The warning time at 0.8s would permit to use the N1 category AEBS system on the N2 vehicles, while forbidding this would make the AEBS too expensive.

F pointed out the EuroNCAP draft protocol of 1.2 s for driver’s reaction and could agree with this value of 1.2s.

It was stressed that EuroNCAP only addresses the M1 vehicles and that the protocol is still under discussion.

The Chair cautioned that the lack of flexibility by one Contracting Party would entail the risk that the informal group has to turn to its parent body, i.e. GRRF, for seeking guidance or even resolution on this technical matter.

F confirmed its position, and repeated to agree with 1.2 s for the 1st warning.

The Chair concluded by regretting that the informal group could not find a compromise for the warning time for the moving target scenario and announced his intention to request guidance from GRRF.

The Chair suggested to discuss the “optical only” 1st warning based on the assumption that a compromise could be later found for the value of warning time.

F confirmed the willing of 1.2s for the 1st signal.

OICA stressed that there is currently no experience of the system on these vehicles, and the need to get millions of kms with different drivers before making a decision on a possible compromise, in view of the risk to completely jeopardise the market confidence in this system.

The Chair therefore suggested asking guidance to GRRF on this issue as well.

Stationary target scenario

The group then started discussions on the stationary target scenario. The Chair recalled his proposal for a compromise for B2 and C2 cells, i.e. separating the values for the 1st warning from those for the 2nd warning.

OICA recalled their offer for flexibility for moving target scenario, and could not be more flexible for the stationary target scenario. The expert recalled the distance of 40 m in front of the target in case of a 0.8s warning time, in particular in view that the system is currently purely theoretical. The proposal is to amend the text such that the warning time is given BEFORE the start of the emergency braking phase. OICA was cautious in accepting an “optical only” warning in this case in view of the fact that the Contracting Parties did not accept the “optical only” for the moving target scenario.

NL found that the parameter for the stationary target scenario is the sensor recognition of a stationary target. NL recalled that a TTC of 1.8 sec provides at least 30m between the subject vehicle and the target. NL could accept optical only.

D supported the Chair’s proposal.

J could support 0.8s for the timing, and could not accept “optical only”.

F could accept the Chair’s proposal.

ROK could also support the Chair’s proposal.

OICA could not accept the J position, and was willing to have a further Industry internal consultation about the Chair’s proposal.

Temporary conclusion: no conclusive decision on warning times. See also item 5.2. below.

J and NL presented their respective documents (AEBS/LDWS-19-03 and AEBS/LDWS-19-04).

OICA questioned the value of 45km/h mentioned in the second bullet of the NL document justifications. NL clarified that the value of 1,2 seconds referred to in the document addresses the TTC, which varies as long as the vehicle decelerates.

F was of the opinion that the warning time exists to permit the driver to react, hence must be adapted to the driver’s reaction time. In addition, the expert from F wondered why the reaction time is different for the light and the heavy vehicles, while the drivers are all human.

OICA pointed the equal importance of nuisance of too early warnings and the driver’s reaction. The system would become counterproductive should early warnings be too frequent. A too early warning in addition would be design restrictive.

Mr. Clasen referred to the document WP29/1091/Add.1, paragraphs 64-66, which urges the designers to avoid too early warnings.

J acknowledged this document and recalled the row 1 performance requirement (warning time). The delegate from J stressed that the current discussion addresses Row 2 vehicles, and J believed that the J proposal for 0.8s is acceptable in terms of nuisance.

Mr. Clasen recalled that the light vehicles are more agile, hence the driver’s reaction by avoidance via steering can occure later, and recalled the existence of the build-up time on hydraulic braking vehicles.

The Chair recalled that NL requested at the previous meeting some figures about the pressure build-up time for hydraulic braking systems.

CLEPA answered that the Industry experience of build-up time for these vehicles and systems is rather inexistent, the reference value would address ESP, and this would apply to 2 wheels only. The expert from CLEPA informed that a value between 0.8 and 1.5 seconds can be reasonable.

The Chair pointed out that the consequence of such pressure build up time would be that there would be not a full braking during the emergency braking phase.

Mr. Clasen informed that the temperature influences the pressure build-up time due to the transmission oil viscosity and the brake disks friction coefficient.

As a summary, the Chair pointed out that 3 Contracting Parties (J, NL and F) are asking to specify a value for the advanced warning timing, and that D had already indicated their support for the joint OICA/CLEPA proposal at the previous meeting. ROK took no position on this issue.

The Chair suggested, in an attempt to make progress, to separate in the discussions for the stationary target the cells B2 (early warning) and C2 (late warning)) and to do the same afterwards for the moving target.

In response, industry presented their proposal for flexibility for the moving target scenario (document AEBS/LDWS-19-05), indicating that they could accept a 0.8 sec value for the 1st warning provided this could done by optical means.

Moving target scenario

The Chair then suggested to discuss first the moving target scenario.

J could not accept the Industry proposal because they considered braking more important than the warning annoyance. J confirmed their support of the NL proposal.

For the moving target scenario in the Industry position, J could not accept “Optical only”.

NL could not accept optical only for the 1st warning. In the case of the moving target scenario the expert was of the opinion that the nuisance is not that critical.

F pointed out that the distance between the target and the subject vehicle with 1s TTC in the moving target scenario is 4m and proposed the 1st warning at 1.4 s and asked Industry about the driver’s acceptance with that limit (same as in Row 1).

D could support the Industry proposal.

ROK had no opinion but welcomed the flexibility of Industry.

The Chair considered that the discussions indicated some possibility of compromise about the warning timing for the moving target scenario (except from France)

F repeated their support for “optical only” but wanted 1.4 s warning time delay, with 0.8 s for the 2nd warning signal.

Mr. Clasen pointed out that long warning time would jeopardise the manufacturer’s wish to increase the speed reduction because the total time would then not be acceptable. OICA added that such warning time would question the speed reduction, in addition to the security margin and the vehicle dynamics. Also, Industry pointed out the fact that the regulation provides only the minimum values and provides freedom to the manufacturer to do better. One manufacturer gave the example of one of his production line, where 10% of the production are N2, the others are N1. The warning time at 0.8s would permit to use the N1 category AEBS system on the N2 vehicles, while forbidding this would make the AEBS too expensive.

F pointed out the EuroNCAP draft protocol of 1.2 s for driver’s reaction and could agree with this value of 1.2s.

It was stressed that EuroNCAP only addresses the M1 vehicles and that the protocol is still under discussion.

The Chair cautioned that the lack of flexibility by one Contracting Party would entail the risk that the informal group has to turn to its parent body, i.e. GRRF, for seeking guidance or even resolution on this technical matter.

F confirmed its position, and repeated to agree with 1.2 s for the 1st warning.

The Chair concluded by regretting that the informal group could not find a compromise for the warning time for the moving target scenario and announced his intention to request guidance from GRRF.

The Chair suggested to discuss the “optical only” 1st warning based on the assumption that a compromise could be later found for the value of warning time.

F confirmed the willing of 1.2s for the 1st signal.

OICA stressed that there is currently no experience of the system on these vehicles, and the need to get millions of kms with different drivers before making a decision on a possible compromise, in view of the risk to completely jeopardise the market confidence in this system.

The Chair therefore suggested asking guidance to GRRF on this issue as well.

Stationary target scenario

The group then started discussions on the stationary target scenario. The Chair recalled his proposal for a compromise for B2 and C2 cells, i.e. separating the values for the 1st warning from those for the 2nd warning.

OICA recalled their offer for flexibility for moving target scenario, and could not be more flexible for the stationary target scenario. The expert recalled the distance of 40 m in front of the target in case of a 0.8s warning time, in particular in view that the system is currently purely theoretical. The proposal is to amend the text such that the warning time is given BEFORE the start of the emergency braking phase. OICA was cautious in accepting an “optical only” warning in this case in view of the fact that the Contracting Parties did not accept the “optical only” for the moving target scenario.

NL found that the parameter for the stationary target scenario is the sensor recognition of a stationary target. NL recalled that a TTC of 1.8 sec provides at least 30m between the subject vehicle and the target. NL could accept optical only.

D supported the Chair’s proposal.

J could support 0.8s for the timing, and could not accept “optical only”.

F could accept the Chair’s proposal.

ROK could also support the Chair’s proposal.

OICA could not accept the J position, and was willing to have a further Industry internal consultation about the Chair’s proposal.

Temporary conclusion: no conclusive decision on warning times. See also item 5.2. below.

J and NL presented their respective documents (AEBS/LDWS-19-03 and AEBS/LDWS-19-04).

OICA questioned the value of 45km/h mentioned in the second bullet of the NL document justifications. NL clarified that the value of 1,2 seconds referred to in the document addresses the TTC, which varies as long as the vehicle decelerates.

F was of the opinion that the warning time exists to permit the driver to react, hence must be adapted to the driver’s reaction time. In addition, the expert from F wondered why the reaction time is different for the light and the heavy vehicles, while the drivers are all human.

OICA pointed the equal importance of nuisance of too early warnings and the driver’s reaction. The system would become counterproductive should early warnings be too frequent. A too early warning in addition would be design restrictive.

Mr. Clasen referred to the document WP29/1091/Add.1, paragraphs 64-66, which urges the designers to avoid too early warnings.

J acknowledged this document and recalled the row 1 performance requirement (warning time). The delegate from J stressed that the current discussion addresses Row 2 vehicles, and J believed that the J proposal for 0.8s is acceptable in terms of nuisance.

Mr. Clasen recalled that the light vehicles are more agile, hence the driver’s reaction by avoidance via steering can occure later, and recalled the existence of the build-up time on hydraulic braking vehicles.

The Chair recalled that NL requested at the previous meeting some figures about the pressure build-up time for hydraulic braking systems.

CLEPA answered that the Industry experience of build-up time for these vehicles and systems is rather inexistent, the reference value would address ESP, and this would apply to 2 wheels only. The expert from CLEPA informed that a value between 0.8 and 1.5 seconds can be reasonable.

The Chair pointed out that the consequence of such pressure build up time would be that there would be not a full braking during the emergency braking phase.

Mr. Clasen informed that the temperature influences the pressure build-up time due to the transmission oil viscosity and the brake disks friction coefficient.

As a summary, the Chair pointed out that 3 Contracting Parties (J, NL and F) are asking to specify a value for the advanced warning timing, and that D had already indicated their support for the joint OICA/CLEPA proposal at the previous meeting. ROK took no position on this issue.

The Chair suggested, in an attempt to make progress, to separate in the discussions for the stationary target the cells B2 (early warning) and C2 (late warning)) and to do the same afterwards for the moving target.

In response, industry presented their proposal for flexibility for the moving target scenario (document AEBS/LDWS-19-05), indicating that they could accept a 0.8 sec value for the 1st warning provided this could done by optical means.

Moving target scenario

The Chair then suggested to discuss first the moving target scenario.

J could not accept the Industry proposal because they considered braking more important than the warning annoyance. J confirmed their support of the NL proposal.

For the moving target scenario in the Industry position, J could not accept “Optical only”.

NL could not accept optical only for the 1st warning. In the case of the moving target scenario the expert was of the opinion that the nuisance is not that critical.

F pointed out that the distance between the target and the subject vehicle with 1s TTC in the moving target scenario is 4m and proposed the 1st warning at 1.4 s and asked Industry about the driver’s acceptance with that limit (same as in Row 1).

D could support the Industry proposal.

ROK had no opinion but welcomed the flexibility of Industry.

The Chair considered that the discussions indicated some possibility of compromise about the warning timing for the moving target scenario (except from France)

F repeated their support for “optical only” but wanted 1.4 s warning time delay, with 0.8 s for the 2nd warning signal.

Mr. Clasen pointed out that long warning time would jeopardise the manufacturer’s wish to increase the speed reduction because the total time would then not be acceptable. OICA added that such warning time would question the speed reduction, in addition to the security margin and the vehicle dynamics. Also, Industry pointed out the fact that the regulation provides only the minimum values and provides freedom to the manufacturer to do better. One manufacturer gave the example of one of his production line, where 10% of the production are N2, the others are N1. The warning time at 0.8s would permit to use the N1 category AEBS system on the N2 vehicles, while forbidding this would make the AEBS too expensive.

F pointed out the EuroNCAP draft protocol of 1.2 s for driver’s reaction and could agree with this value of 1.2s.

It was stressed that EuroNCAP only addresses the M1 vehicles and that the protocol is still under discussion.

The Chair cautioned that the lack of flexibility by one Contracting Party would entail the risk that the informal group has to turn to its parent body, i.e. GRRF, for seeking guidance or even resolution on this technical matter.

F confirmed its position, and repeated to agree with 1.2 s for the 1st warning.

The Chair concluded by regretting that the informal group could not find a compromise for the warning time for the moving target scenario and announced his intention to request guidance from GRRF.

The Chair suggested to discuss the “optical only” 1st warning based on the assumption that a compromise could be later found for the value of warning time.

F confirmed the willing of 1.2s for the 1st signal.

OICA stressed that there is currently no experience of the system on these vehicles, and the need to get millions of kms with different drivers before making a decision on a possible compromise, in view of the risk to completely jeopardise the market confidence in this system.

The Chair therefore suggested asking guidance to GRRF on this issue as well.

Stationary target scenario

The group then started discussions on the stationary target scenario. The Chair recalled his proposal for a compromise for B2 and C2 cells, i.e. separating the values for the 1st warning from those for the 2nd warning.

OICA recalled their offer for flexibility for moving target scenario, and could not be more flexible for the stationary target scenario. The expert recalled the distance of 40 m in front of the target in case of a 0.8s warning time, in particular in view that the system is currently purely theoretical. The proposal is to amend the text such that the warning time is given BEFORE the start of the emergency braking phase. OICA was cautious in accepting an “optical only” warning in this case in view of the fact that the Contracting Parties did not accept the “optical only” for the moving target scenario.

NL found that the parameter for the stationary target scenario is the sensor recognition of a stationary target. NL recalled that a TTC of 1.8 sec provides at least 30m between the subject vehicle and the target. NL could accept optical only.

D supported the Chair’s proposal.

J could support 0.8s for the timing, and could not accept “optical only”.

F could accept the Chair’s proposal.

ROK could also support the Chair’s proposal.

OICA could not accept the J position, and was willing to have a further Industry internal consultation about the Chair’s proposal.

Temporary conclusion: no conclusive decision on warning times. See also item 5.2. below.

The agenda was adopted with no change.

The minutes were adopted with no change.

3. The expert from EC, chairing the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS), reported on the progress made. He introduced GRRF-74-17 produced by the informal group and amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Japan withdrew GRRF-74-20 and GRRF-74-21. GRRF adopted the proposal from the informal group, as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their June 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. [130]. GRRF noted the completion of the work by the informal group and acknowledged the work done by its experts.

1st day
The Chair reminded his recollection of the previous sessions that there is consensus on the speed reduction in the case of the stationary target scenario.

NL accepted this, at least for the 1st stage.

D, J, F and ROK agreed with the 10 km/h speed reduction as well.

Conclusion: agreement about the speed reduction in the case of the stationary target scenario.

For the moving target scenario, the Chair recalled the principle of a non-impact scenario.

All the Contracting Parties confirmed their agreement with the proposal, except France which abstained.

F found the Industry proposal of 67 km/h for the target vehicle speed not demanding enough and was keen to get a more severe performance requirement: the expert was of the opinion that the speed reduction is not related to the warning time, rather to the power of the brakes.

OICA recalled that the arguments valid for the warnings apply to the speed reductions.

The values proposed by OICA/CLEPA are based on tests performed at Jeversen (see AEBS/LDWS-18-03), and have scientific background. OICA was lacking flexibility on this.

The Chair invited the French representative be ready to present a consistent approach and arguments before the end of the 19th meeting. It would indeed be very difficult for GRRF to propose proper values to the experts group. Follow-up of this discussion can be found under item 5.5.

2nd day

The group reviewed the document proposed by the drafting group in order to simplify the number and quality of options to be presented to GRRF. The representative of NL found it essential that the issue of warning time be solved within the informal group in order to avoid increase of complexity of the options. He urged Industry to make efforts and be flexible. OICA recalled that 0.8 s would generate a warning 40 m before the target, and that for consistency in the driving information received by the driver, the criteria for the moving target scenario would have to follow the same logics.

It was recalled that the values are currently based on a 4m/s² deceleration, while the vehicles are usually able of 6 m/s². The Chair pointed out that the wording does not prevent the manufacturer to design the system such that other warning modes can be used for the 1st warning. J continued to believe that the warning is very important and could not change its position. F, D and ROK remained flexible.

OICA repeated that OICA could accept 0.8s provided that “optical only” is permitted in the stationary target scenario for the 1st warning. It was proposed that “optical only” remains in the stationary scenario for the 1st warning, but be deleted from the moving scenario.

After some further internal considerations, Industry agreed to remove the “optical only” warning for the 1st warning of the moving target scenario, with the hope that Japan could offer similar flexibility for the stationary target scenario.

J was ready to provide their position on this item on Tuesday 12 February 2013.

Conclusion: document as in Annex 1 to be updated on the 12th of February for tabling at GRRF.

Germany presented the document AEBS/LDWS-18-02. The expert from Germany explained that Germany thought about asking more severe requirements, but then aligned the proposal on the OICA/CLEPA proposal. The expert summarized the justifications and stressed that the LPTS (Last Point To Steer) is usually at the same time as the LPTB (Last Point To Brake). Japan questioned the compatibility with the Vienna Convention, which would necessitate to request [1.4] latest time to warn before the automated emergency braking phase would start. The expert from D clarified that their proposal does not forbid warning earlier. The warning should be at the LPTS because up to that time it is still be possible for the driver to avoid the obstacle by steering. J was keen that there is some time between the start of the Emergency Braking phase and the warning.

CLEPA clarified that the Vienna Convention only requests the driver to be able to override the system. OICA clarified that the wording specifies “not later than”, permitting the system to warn before AEBS is taking the control.

NL was also in favour of a warning time before the automatic emergency braking system takes the control of the vehicle. The expert recalled that D was initially keen for a 2 second delay for the HCV. In addition, the N2 > 8T with pneumatic Braking System must already fulfil the warning time of row 1. The expert from the NL in addition recalled that OICA in p 16 of its presentation AEBS/LDWS-17-02-Rev.1 request 2s.

The Chair recalled one of the main principles in the adopted AEBS regulation, as specified in paragraph 5.5.1. that the timing of the warning signals shall be such that they provide the possibility for the driver to react to the risk of collision and take control of the situation and shall also avoid nuisance for the driver by too early or too frequent warnings. This principle requires both aspects to be taken into account.

OICA clarified that Industry gained experience in the meantime and could now justify the 1s TTC.

The Chair wondered whether using this 1s for warning the driver could be considered to find a common understanding on the warning timing issue.

The agenda was approved with no change.

The experts held a debate about the interpretation of the 2-step approach suggested by the Chair at the previous session of the informal group.

As the task of informal group is to propose an informal document to the GRRF-74th session, the experts wondered whether the suggestion by the Chair for a 2-step approach addresses the process of work of the informal group for the establishment of new provisions for light vehicles, or whether it addresses the implementation of these provisions into the AEBS regulation.

J questioned the way to increase the stringency of the requirements, knowing that the Industry has no experience. The expert pointed out that the OICA/CLEPA proposed values are already difficult to achieve, and that it will be even more difficult to reach increased values.

OICA clarified that the Industry proposal is already a step in the unknown. OICA could only offer, in the frame of a 2-step approach, a date for re-negotiate the performance criteria. More stringent requirements, would be impossible to predict at this moment.

CLEPA supported this OICA position, and pointed out that the discussions of the today’s meeting will probably show how difficult it is to reach the OICA/CLEPA proposal itself. The expert from CLEPA proposed to review the concept of a 2-step approach at the end of the day.

NL was surprised at the last meeting by the suggestion by the Chair, and understood the Chair’s suggestion as defining now the values for both steps and the necessary delay perhaps now or at a later stage, according to the wish of the Contracting Parties (EU). NL however was in favour of a 1-step approach, but was flexible on this item.

F preferred to adopt both steps at the same time, accepting the OICA/CLEPA proposal for the 1st step, depending on the date to be decided for the re-negotiation of the performance requirements (2nd step).

Germany found it difficult enough to achieve the performance requirements proposed by CLEPA/OICA, such that a potential 2nd step would have to be clarified at a date to be defined.

J found better to define early both steps (support to NL), but recognized it would not be easy.

Conclusion: minutes adopted with no change.

Germany presented the document AEBS/LDWS-18-02. The expert from Germany explained that Germany thought about asking more severe requirements, but then aligned the proposal on the OICA/CLEPA proposal. The expert summarized the justifications and stressed that the LPTS (Last Point To Steer) is usually at the same time as the LPTB (Last Point To Brake). Japan questioned the compatibility with the Vienna Convention, which would necessitate to request [1.4] latest time to warn before the automated emergency braking phase would start. The expert from D clarified that their proposal does not forbid warning earlier. The warning should be at the LPTS because up to that time it is still be possible for the driver to avoid the obstacle by steering. J was keen that there is some time between the start of the Emergency Braking phase and the warning.

CLEPA clarified that the Vienna Convention only requests the driver to be able to override the system. OICA clarified that the wording specifies “not later than”, permitting the system to warn before AEBS is taking the control.

NL was also in favour of a warning time before the automatic emergency braking system takes the control of the vehicle. The expert recalled that D was initially keen for a 2 second delay for the HCV. In addition, the N2 > 8T with pneumatic Braking System must already fulfil the warning time of row 1. The expert from the NL in addition recalled that OICA in p 16 of its presentation AEBS/LDWS-17-02-Rev.1 request 2s.

The Chair recalled one of the main principles in the adopted AEBS regulation, as specified in paragraph 5.5.1. that the timing of the warning signals shall be such that they provide the possibility for the driver to react to the risk of collision and take control of the situation and shall also avoid nuisance for the driver by too early or too frequent warnings. This principle requires both aspects to be taken into account.

OICA clarified that Industry gained experience in the meantime and could now justify the 1s TTC.

The Chair wondered whether using this 1s for warning the driver could be considered to find a common understanding on the warning timing issue.

The informal document WP.29-158-12 was withdrawn by Russia.

The proposed regulatory text still includes bracketed text that was presented for review and guidance by the Contracting Parties. These passages were addressed in the 155th WP.29 session and resolved in paragraph 39 of the session report (document WP.29/1093). The request is for the Secretariat to make these changes prior to submitting the text to the UN Office of Legal Affairs for approval following the expected vote of the Forum to adopt the new regulation.

Proposal as stipulated above unanimously adopted.

See agenda item 4.13.2 above.

Proposal unanimously adopted.

The group had an exchange of view on the proposal from the CLEPA/OICA per AEBS/LDWS-17-02-Rev.1 (see also Annex 1). The main concerns which emerged from the first comments were as follows:

• 1. Warning time lowest value (both moving and stationary scenario)
• 2. Target speed in the moving target scenario

There was a suggestion to divide the work in steps:

• 1. Stationary target, then
• 2. Moving target

Netherlands questioned the kind of speed for row 1 vs. row 2 vehicles (curves of slide 8)

OICA clarified that the data are extrapolated from computers. The expert considered it possible to provide speed data at the next meeting.

The Chair proposed a 2-step approach, using the criteria as proposed by OICA/CLEPA for the 1st step, and to increase these criteria for the 2nd step, i.e. a more ambitious speed reduction value for the subject vehicle in the stationary target test and a lower value for the speed of the target vehicle in the moving target scenario.

Japan supported CLEPA/OICA proposal

France and India had no view to date on the subject

Sweden could support CLEPA/OICA’s proposal.

The 2-step approach was supported by some Contracting Parties.

Netherlands on the one hand had a preference for a 1-step approach but on the other hand did not like immature systems on the road. The delegate finally agreed with a 2-step approach.

Germany considered it possible, when looking the figures, to achieve agreement on a 1-step
approach.

The expert from CLEPA informed that a new, corrected simulation tool was available.

Conclusion:

General support for the 2-step approach, i.e.:

• 1. Collision mitigation in stationary target scenario and collision avoidance in the moving target scenario, based on the values for speed reduction (10 km/h) and target vehicle speed (67 +/- 2 km/h) as proposed by OICA/CLEPA then
• 2. increased value of the speed reduction in the stationary target scenario and collision avoidance in moving target scenario with increased stringency, i.e. a substantially lower value of the target speed.

Secretary to post the revised simulation tool on the UNECE website (done as document AEBS/LDWS-17-03).

3. The expert from the EC reported on the progress made by the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). He presented an amendment to the Terms of Reference (AEBS-LDWS-01-07-Rev.3) necessary for completing the second step of work by the Informal Group. GRRF endorsed this amendment as reproduced in Annex II to this report. He reminded the Working Party that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2012 session of WP.29. He expected that the European Union would be in position to vote at that session.

4. GRRF noted that the informal group resumed its work on technical requirements on AEBS for vehicles of the category N2 below eight tons as well as the category M2. OICA presented their review of the issues associated with applying the technology to these vehicle classes noting the lack of real world experience (AEBS-LDWS-17-02-Rev.1). The expert from the EC reminded GRRF about the tight time line and the necessity to produce an informal document before the next session of GRRF to finish the work on time. GRRF noted the intention of the informal group to convene again in Paris on 7 December 2012 and in Geneva on 18 February 2013.

The group had an exchange of view on the proposal from the CLEPA/OICA per AEBS/LDWS-17-02-Rev.1 (see also Annex 1). The main concerns which emerged from the first comments were as follows:

• 1. Warning time lowest value (both moving and stationary scenario)
• 2. Target speed in the moving target scenario

There was a suggestion to divide the work in steps:

• 1. Stationary target, then
• 2. Moving target

Netherlands questioned the kind of speed for row 1 vs. row 2 vehicles (curves of slide 8)

OICA clarified that the data are extrapolated from computers. The expert considered it possible to provide speed data at the next meeting.

The Chair proposed a 2-step approach, using the criteria as proposed by OICA/CLEPA for the 1st step, and to increase these criteria for the 2nd step, i.e. a more ambitious speed reduction value for the subject vehicle in the stationary target test and a lower value for the speed of the target vehicle in the moving target scenario.

Japan supported CLEPA/OICA proposal

France and India had no view to date on the subject

Sweden could support CLEPA/OICA’s proposal.

The 2-step approach was supported by some Contracting Parties.

Netherlands on the one hand had a preference for a 1-step approach but on the other hand did not like immature systems on the road. The delegate finally agreed with a 2-step approach.

Germany considered it possible, when looking the figures, to achieve agreement on a 1-step
approach.

The expert from CLEPA informed that a new, corrected simulation tool was available.

Conclusion:

General support for the 2-step approach, i.e.:

• 1. Collision mitigation in stationary target scenario and collision avoidance in the moving target scenario, based on the values for speed reduction (10 km/h) and target vehicle speed (67 +/- 2 km/h) as proposed by OICA/CLEPA then
• 2. increased value of the speed reduction in the stationary target scenario and collision avoidance in moving target scenario with increased stringency, i.e. a substantially lower value of the target speed.

Secretary to post the revised simulation tool on the UNECE website (done as document AEBS/LDWS-17-03).

3. The expert from EC, chairing the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS), reported on the progress made. He introduced GRRF-74-17 produced by the informal group and amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Japan withdrew GRRF-74-20 and GRRF-74-21. GRRF adopted the proposal from the informal group, as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration at their June 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. [130]. GRRF noted the completion of the work by the informal group and acknowledged the work done by its experts.

Germany presented the document AEBS/LDWS-18-02. The expert from Germany explained that Germany thought about asking more severe requirements, but then aligned the proposal on the OICA/CLEPA proposal. The expert summarized the justifications and stressed that the LPTS (Last Point To Steer) is usually at the same time as the LPTB (Last Point To Brake). Japan questioned the compatibility with the Vienna Convention, which would necessitate to request [1.4] latest time to warn before the automated emergency braking phase would start. The expert from D clarified that their proposal does not forbid warning earlier. The warning should be at the LPTS because up to that time it is still be possible for the driver to avoid the obstacle by steering. J was keen that there is some time between the start of the Emergency Braking phase and the warning.

CLEPA clarified that the Vienna Convention only requests the driver to be able to override the system. OICA clarified that the wording specifies “not later than”, permitting the system to warn before AEBS is taking the control.

NL was also in favour of a warning time before the automatic emergency braking system takes the control of the vehicle. The expert recalled that D was initially keen for a 2 second delay for the HCV. In addition, the N2 > 8T with pneumatic Braking System must already fulfil the warning time of row 1. The expert from the NL in addition recalled that OICA in p 16 of its presentation AEBS/LDWS-17-02-Rev.1 request 2s.

The Chair recalled one of the main principles in the adopted AEBS regulation, as specified in paragraph 5.5.1. that the timing of the warning signals shall be such that they provide the possibility for the driver to react to the risk of collision and take control of the situation and shall also avoid nuisance for the driver by too early or too frequent warnings. This principle requires both aspects to be taken into account.

OICA clarified that Industry gained experience in the meantime and could now justify the 1s TTC.

The Chair wondered whether using this 1s for warning the driver could be considered to find a common understanding on the warning timing issue.

3. The expert from the EC reported on the progress made by the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). He presented an amendment to the Terms of Reference (AEBS-LDWS-01-07-Rev.3) necessary for completing the second step of work by the Informal Group. GRRF endorsed this amendment as reproduced in Annex II to this report. He reminded the Working Party that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2012 session of WP.29. He expected that the European Union would be in position to vote at that session.

4. GRRF noted that the informal group resumed its work on technical requirements on AEBS for vehicles of the category N2 below eight tons as well as the category M2. OICA presented their review of the issues associated with applying the technology to these vehicle classes noting the lack of real world experience (AEBS-LDWS-17-02-Rev.1). The expert from the EC reminded GRRF about the tight time line and the necessity to produce an informal document before the next session of GRRF to finish the work on time. GRRF noted the intention of the informal group to convene again in Paris on 7 December 2012 and in Geneva on 18 February 2013.

The experts agreed the changes proposed per document AEBS/LDWS-01-07-Rev.3.

3. GRRF welcomed a presentation (GRRF-72-14) by the expert from Japan on their national enforcement of Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). GRRF noted that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29 and its decision that the proposed text in square brackets of paragraph 12.2. be added as a footnote (see report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1093, para. 39).

4. GRRF noted the preference of WP.29 not to accept the alternative text relating to voluntary approval and to remove the text in square brackets of the alternative text proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1. The GRRF Chair reported that the work on a revised table of Annex 3 (defining performance requirements for vehicles of categories M2 and N2 ≤ 8 tonnes) would resume with the informal working group on AEBS.

3. GRRF welcomed a presentation (GRRF-72-14) by the expert from Japan on their national enforcement of Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). GRRF noted that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29 and its decision that the proposed text in square brackets of paragraph 12.2. be added as a footnote (see report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1093, para. 39).

4. GRRF noted the preference of WP.29 not to accept the alternative text relating to voluntary approval and to remove the text in square brackets of the alternative text proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1. The GRRF Chair reported that the work on a revised table of Annex 3 (defining performance requirements for vehicles of categories M2 and N2 ≤ 8 tonnes) would resume with the informal working group on AEBS.

[Deferred to the June session of WP.29.]

See agenda item 4.13.2 above.

Proposal unanimously adopted.

3. The expert from the EC reported on the progress made by the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). He presented an amendment to the Terms of Reference (AEBS-LDWS-01-07-Rev.3) necessary for completing the second step of work by the Informal Group. GRRF endorsed this amendment as reproduced in Annex II to this report. He reminded the Working Party that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2012 session of WP.29. He expected that the European Union would be in position to vote at that session.

4. GRRF noted that the informal group resumed its work on technical requirements on AEBS for vehicles of the category N2 below eight tons as well as the category M2. OICA presented their review of the issues associated with applying the technology to these vehicle classes noting the lack of real world experience (AEBS-LDWS-17-02-Rev.1). The expert from the EC reminded GRRF about the tight time line and the necessity to produce an informal document before the next session of GRRF to finish the work on time. GRRF noted the intention of the informal group to convene again in Paris on 7 December 2012 and in Geneva on 18 February 2013.

The experts were informed that WP29 at its 158th session of November 2012 adopted the four documents creating the new regulation on AEBS and its 1st series of amendments. This information can be found in p 26 of the official report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1099:

The Chair was of the opinion that some clarification of the text adopted at WP29-158, p 3 of document WP29/2011/93/Amend.1, last sentence of the row 2, was necessary because an interpretation could be that the M3 vehicles with hydraulic braking would not have to fulfil the requirements of row 1 before the 2016 date mentioned in row 2. The authors of the text in cells B-H/2 indeed aimed the vehicles mentioned in cell A/2, but omitted to precise whether the vehicles addressed by the footnote 1 (Vehicles of category M3 with hydraulic braking system) would be subject to the same provisions.

OICA was of the opinion that the vehicles in footnote 1 are part of row2. Then the 1st date would be in Nov 2016. But the expert acknowledged that the wording is such that these vehicles could be approved already as from 2013.

CLEPA did not share the interpretation of OICA, and proposed to discuss this at a later stage.

The question of the true date of the Nov 2013 WP29 session was also raised, leading to the question whether the values should be adopted already at the June session of WP29.

The European Commission representative clarified that the intention is that, once the AEBS and LDWS UN Regulations have entered into force and the EU has acceded to them, UN regulations approvals would be accepted as an alternative to the EU approvals, taking into account that the EU legislation provides for a number of exemptions from the AEBS/LDWS carriage requirements. The representative of the European Commission informed that the European Commission Services were about to send a letter to the UN Secretariat to clarify the way how the EU intends to apply the new UN regulations, in response to the request of the WP.29 Secretariat to CPs to provide information on the application of the 01 series of the AEBS regulation (done, see Annex 1 attached).

Conclusion: items to be addressed at a later stage, to be added in the agenda for next meeting.

3. GRRF welcomed a presentation (GRRF-72-14) by the expert from Japan on their national enforcement of Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). GRRF noted that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29 and its decision that the proposed text in square brackets of paragraph 12.2. be added as a footnote (see report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1093, para. 39).

4. GRRF noted the preference of WP.29 not to accept the alternative text relating to voluntary approval and to remove the text in square brackets of the alternative text proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1. The GRRF Chair reported that the work on a revised table of Annex 3 (defining performance requirements for vehicles of categories M2 and N2 ≤ 8 tonnes) would resume with the informal working group on AEBS.

[This regulation proposal is complete and the EU intends to develop companion regulations for AEBS for lighter vehicles to be put forward in the future. Nonetheless, as is the case for lane departure warning systems, work remains to be completed towards establishing the legal basis for adoption of AEBS, including its potential conflict with the current interpretation of the 1968 Vienna Convention which requires a driver to be in complete control of a vehicle at all times. Therefore, the vote on this regulation is remanded to the June WP.29 session and likely will not be voted upon until the November 2012 WP.29 session.

Japan will introduce AEBS legislation into its national law from April 2012.]

As noted in paragraph 53 under agenda item 4.12 above, the World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item to its next session. The EU has not yet completed its internal review of the proposed regulation, but strongly suspects it will be positioned for a positive vote in November.

The informal document WP.29-158-12 was withdrawn by Russia.

The proposed regulatory text still includes bracketed text that was presented for review and guidance by the Contracting Parties. These passages were addressed in the 155th WP.29 session and resolved in paragraph 39 of the session report (document WP.29/1093). The request is for the Secretariat to make these changes prior to submitting the text to the UN Office of Legal Affairs for approval following the expected vote of the Forum to adopt the new regulation.

Proposal as stipulated above unanimously adopted.

3. The expert from the EC reported on the progress made by the informal group on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). He presented an amendment to the Terms of Reference (AEBS-LDWS-01-07-Rev.3) necessary for completing the second step of work by the Informal Group. GRRF endorsed this amendment as reproduced in Annex II to this report. He reminded the Working Party that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2012 session of WP.29. He expected that the European Union would be in position to vote at that session.

4. GRRF noted that the informal group resumed its work on technical requirements on AEBS for vehicles of the category N2 below eight tons as well as the category M2. OICA presented their review of the issues associated with applying the technology to these vehicle classes noting the lack of real world experience (AEBS-LDWS-17-02-Rev.1). The expert from the EC reminded GRRF about the tight time line and the necessity to produce an informal document before the next session of GRRF to finish the work on time. GRRF noted the intention of the informal group to convene again in Paris on 7 December 2012 and in Geneva on 18 February 2013.

The experts were informed that WP29 at its 158th session of November 2012 adopted the four documents creating the new regulation on AEBS and its 1st series of amendments. This information can be found in p 26 of the official report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1099:

The Chair was of the opinion that some clarification of the text adopted at WP29-158, p 3 of document WP29/2011/93/Amend.1, last sentence of the row 2, was necessary because an interpretation could be that the M3 vehicles with hydraulic braking would not have to fulfil the requirements of row 1 before the 2016 date mentioned in row 2. The authors of the text in cells B-H/2 indeed aimed the vehicles mentioned in cell A/2, but omitted to precise whether the vehicles addressed by the footnote 1 (Vehicles of category M3 with hydraulic braking system) would be subject to the same provisions.

OICA was of the opinion that the vehicles in footnote 1 are part of row2. Then the 1st date would be in Nov 2016. But the expert acknowledged that the wording is such that these vehicles could be approved already as from 2013.

CLEPA did not share the interpretation of OICA, and proposed to discuss this at a later stage.

The question of the true date of the Nov 2013 WP29 session was also raised, leading to the question whether the values should be adopted already at the June session of WP29.

The European Commission representative clarified that the intention is that, once the AEBS and LDWS UN Regulations have entered into force and the EU has acceded to them, UN regulations approvals would be accepted as an alternative to the EU approvals, taking into account that the EU legislation provides for a number of exemptions from the AEBS/LDWS carriage requirements. The representative of the European Commission informed that the European Commission Services were about to send a letter to the UN Secretariat to clarify the way how the EU intends to apply the new UN regulations, in response to the request of the WP.29 Secretariat to CPs to provide information on the application of the 01 series of the AEBS regulation (done, see Annex 1 attached).

Conclusion: items to be addressed at a later stage, to be added in the agenda for next meeting.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

3. GRRF welcomed a presentation (GRRF-72-14) by the expert from Japan on their national enforcement of Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). GRRF noted that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29 and its decision that the proposed text in square brackets of paragraph 12.2. be added as a footnote (see report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1093, para. 39).

4. GRRF noted the preference of WP.29 not to accept the alternative text relating to voluntary approval and to remove the text in square brackets of the alternative text proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1. The GRRF Chair reported that the work on a revised table of Annex 3 (defining performance requirements for vehicles of categories M2 and N2 ≤ 8 tonnes) would resume with the informal working group on AEBS.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

UK presented the document AEBS/LDWS-16-02 and OICA presented the document GRRF/2011/39.

The Chair expressed concern that the OICA proposal could be understood as a means to exclude some vehicles from the scope. However OICA clarified that these vehicles with nonpneumatic rear axle suspension may be approved.

CLEPA questioned which authority could verify the meaning of the “available on the market” and “validated”. OICA clarified that this was precisely the reason why such wording had been elaborated.

J was keen to have a visibility of the future.

S supported the OICA position on this topic.

The Chair, as representative of the European Commission, considered this OICA document as being proposals for amendments to the working document GRRF submitted to WP.29. The European Commission considered that the Preamble should be just a guidance and should therefore not entail any restriction of the freedom for the Contracting Parties to mandate AEBS, and therefore should not be introducing a legal uncertainty. UK suggested replacing the proposed date by the 01 Series of amendments. Japan was keen that a Contracting Party can mandate the AEBS on these vehicles BEFORE the date of the 01 Series of amendments.

D found such additional paragraph in the preamble as proposed by OICA not necessary.

NL acknowledged the problems with the rigid suspension, and could support the UK proposal as more flexible.

F supported the addition of a new paragraph, but requested to add the reason why such further development is needed.

RUS proposed to meet the request from J with the addition of a sentence addressing the parameters that should be taken into account when approving these vehicles.

S clarified that the text in the Introduction is not such important, rather the text in paragraph 5.

OICA provided further technical clarifications about the difficulty for the vehicles with rigid rear axle suspension to comply with the text requirements and be simultaneously robust and reliable.

The Chair pointed out that the UK proposal only addresses the Introduction, and pointed out that the OICA proposal for the Preamble is linked with the proposed changes to paragraph 5.1.1.

OICA clarified for the experts that J does not face such problem of pitch angle as the vehicles are not of the same types, and hence does not need particular technology for addressing the large pitch angle problem.

The new wording for the additional paragraph in the Introduction was then developed per document GRRF-71-27.

CLEPA, UK, RUS and D could accept the proposal for compromise of the new text.

J had still concerns and had a reservation toward the new proposal. In addition they were keen to come back to this item after consideration of paragraph. 5.1.1.

S proposed to replace the wording “sensor technology” by “system”. This provoked a further debate which again improved the wording.

NL and F could support the new wording as well.

OICA also could support the compromise.

Conclusion: additional paragraph adopted in the Introduction to be proposed per document GRRF-71-27.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

3. GRRF welcomed a presentation (GRRF-72-14) by the expert from Japan on their national enforcement of Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). GRRF noted that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93/Amend.1 were listed on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29 and its decision that the proposed text in square brackets of paragraph 12.2. be added as a footnote (see report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1093, para. 39).

4. GRRF noted the preference of WP.29 not to accept the alternative text relating to voluntary approval and to remove the text in square brackets of the alternative text proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92/Amend.1. The GRRF Chair reported that the work on a revised table of Annex 3 (defining performance requirements for vehicles of categories M2 and N2 ≤ 8 tonnes) would resume with the informal working group on AEBS.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

OICA presented document GRRF-71-16. The background is that some Contracting Party may not sign the 01 series, hence the transitional provisions are relevant only for the Contracting Parties signing the 01 series.

The European Commission explained document GRRF-71-23:
— Paragraph 12.1.: the expert recalled there was an agreement between the Contracting Parties, earlier in the AEBS discussions within the informal group, to delete this paragraph. He added that with such text, J would not be permitted not to grant approval, even if they do not want it.

— Paragraph 12.2.: the Chair acknowledged the problem of OICA. But a Contracting Party could notify not to accept the 01 series of amendments hence not be bound by the 01 series. In addition, the European Commission is of the opinion that there is no need to wait up to 2016 for such a low level of requirements.

— Paragraph 12.3.: this text would have the consequence that some Contracting Parties would be prohibited to continue to provide approvals to the 00 series.

Some debate took place on the interpretation of the 58 Agreement.

J clarified their position, willing to accept normal 01 series vehicles. J is planning to undertake research about 01 series vehicle acceptance. According to the results, J will propose amendments to the 01 Series for granting approvals.

NL: recalled the position of J in May 2011 (GRRF-70) that they would sign the 01 series of amendments to the regulation in 2016. The expert pointed out that, in addition, the 58 Agreement requests the Contracting Party to have the capabilities to grant approval.

OICA pointed out that the Contracting Parties not signing the 01 series are not bound by the 00 Series, hence the paragraph V1 of document WP29/1044 does not apply to them.

The Chair pointed out that the standard transitional provisions V1 addresses “Contracting Parties applying the regulation”, rather than the ones applying only the 01 series of amendments. V2 would prohibit a Contracting Party to mandate the 01 series before the date indicated in the paragraph. The European Commission considers V2 not appropriate for the AEBS situation where 2 levels of the same regulation apply simultaneously. The Chair acknowledged that V2 may be contradictory to the 58 Agreement.

Conclusion: the informal group could not reach agreement about the transitional provisions.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

OICA presented document GRRF-71-16. The background is that some Contracting Party may not sign the 01 series, hence the transitional provisions are relevant only for the Contracting Parties signing the 01 series.

The European Commission explained document GRRF-71-23:
— Paragraph 12.1.: the expert recalled there was an agreement between the Contracting Parties, earlier in the AEBS discussions within the informal group, to delete this paragraph. He added that with such text, J would not be permitted not to grant approval, even if they do not want it.

— Paragraph 12.2.: the Chair acknowledged the problem of OICA. But a Contracting Party could notify not to accept the 01 series of amendments hence not be bound by the 01 series. In addition, the European Commission is of the opinion that there is no need to wait up to 2016 for such a low level of requirements.

— Paragraph 12.3.: this text would have the consequence that some Contracting Parties would be prohibited to continue to provide approvals to the 00 series.

Some debate took place on the interpretation of the 58 Agreement.

J clarified their position, willing to accept normal 01 series vehicles. J is planning to undertake research about 01 series vehicle acceptance. According to the results, J will propose amendments to the 01 Series for granting approvals.

NL: recalled the position of J in May 2011 (GRRF-70) that they would sign the 01 series of amendments to the regulation in 2016. The expert pointed out that, in addition, the 58 Agreement requests the Contracting Party to have the capabilities to grant approval.

OICA pointed out that the Contracting Parties not signing the 01 series are not bound by the 00 Series, hence the paragraph V1 of document WP29/1044 does not apply to them.

The Chair pointed out that the standard transitional provisions V1 addresses “Contracting Parties applying the regulation”, rather than the ones applying only the 01 series of amendments. V2 would prohibit a Contracting Party to mandate the 01 series before the date indicated in the paragraph. The European Commission considers V2 not appropriate for the AEBS situation where 2 levels of the same regulation apply simultaneously. The Chair acknowledged that V2 may be contradictory to the 58 Agreement.

Conclusion: the informal group could not reach agreement about the transitional provisions.

See below.

UK presented the document AEBS/LDWS-16-02 and OICA presented the document GRRF/2011/39.

The Chair expressed concern that the OICA proposal could be understood as a means to exclude some vehicles from the scope. However OICA clarified that these vehicles with nonpneumatic rear axle suspension may be approved.

CLEPA questioned which authority could verify the meaning of the “available on the market” and “validated”. OICA clarified that this was precisely the reason why such wording had been elaborated.

J was keen to have a visibility of the future.

S supported the OICA position on this topic.

The Chair, as representative of the European Commission, considered this OICA document as being proposals for amendments to the working document GRRF submitted to WP.29. The European Commission considered that the Preamble should be just a guidance and should therefore not entail any restriction of the freedom for the Contracting Parties to mandate AEBS, and therefore should not be introducing a legal uncertainty. UK suggested replacing the proposed date by the 01 Series of amendments. Japan was keen that a Contracting Party can mandate the AEBS on these vehicles BEFORE the date of the 01 Series of amendments.

D found such additional paragraph in the preamble as proposed by OICA not necessary.

NL acknowledged the problems with the rigid suspension, and could support the UK proposal as more flexible.

F supported the addition of a new paragraph, but requested to add the reason why such further development is needed.

RUS proposed to meet the request from J with the addition of a sentence addressing the parameters that should be taken into account when approving these vehicles.

S clarified that the text in the Introduction is not such important, rather the text in paragraph 5.

OICA provided further technical clarifications about the difficulty for the vehicles with rigid rear axle suspension to comply with the text requirements and be simultaneously robust and reliable.

The Chair pointed out that the UK proposal only addresses the Introduction, and pointed out that the OICA proposal for the Preamble is linked with the proposed changes to paragraph 5.1.1.

OICA clarified for the experts that J does not face such problem of pitch angle as the vehicles are not of the same types, and hence does not need particular technology for addressing the large pitch angle problem.

The new wording for the additional paragraph in the Introduction was then developed per document GRRF-71-27.

CLEPA, UK, RUS and D could accept the proposal for compromise of the new text.

J had still concerns and had a reservation toward the new proposal. In addition they were keen to come back to this item after consideration of paragraph. 5.1.1.

S proposed to replace the wording “sensor technology” by “system”. This provoked a further debate which again improved the wording.

NL and F could support the new wording as well.

OICA also could support the compromise.

Conclusion: additional paragraph adopted in the Introduction to be proposed per document GRRF-71-27.

The agenda was agreed with no change.

The experts were reminded the list of documents:

• AEBS/LDWS-16-01 (Chair) Draft agenda
• AEBS/LDWS-16-02 (UK) proposal to address vehicles with rigid suspension in the Introduction of the AEBS regulation.
• AEBS/LDWS-16-03 (J) presentation about possible concerns with regard to moving target durability.

OICA requested the group to consider the following documents:

• GRRF/2011/39 about Preamble and scope
• GRRF-71-16 about the rigid suspension vehicles.

The Chair, as representative of the European Commission, drew the attention of the participants to
the informal document GRRF-71-26, as a reaction to the OICA document GRRF-71-16.

J announced a presentation about durability of the moving targets (document AEBS/LDWE-16-XXX)

The experts were then invited to present their contribution.

The UK presented document AEBS/LDWS-16-02 as a document to be considered together with the OICA document GRRF/2011/39, and aiming to permit the Contracting Parties who want to approve vehicles equipped with a rigid rear axle suspension to do so, without making this mandatory.

OICA presented firstly document GRRF-71-16, limited to transitional provisions and to be discussed under point 4.4., and then the document GRRF/2011/39 addressing the Preamble (Introduction). It was suggested to introduce these points during the agenda 4.3.1.(d)

The European Commission also introduced the informal document GRRF-71-23 for item 4.4.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

See below.

See below.

RUS assumed that the 01 series of amendments will probably be enforced later than the 00 series.

IND informed that the definition 2.3. was missing from document WP29/2011/92.

[This regulation proposal is complete and the EU intends to develop companion regulations for AEBS for lighter vehicles to be put forward in the future. Nonetheless, as is the case for lane departure warning systems, work remains to be completed towards establishing the legal basis for adoption of AEBS, including its potential conflict with the current interpretation of the 1968 Vienna Convention which requires a driver to be in complete control of a vehicle at all times. Therefore, the vote on this regulation is remanded to the June WP.29 session and likely will not be voted upon until the November 2012 WP.29 session.

Japan will introduce AEBS legislation into its national law from April 2012.]

As noted in paragraph 53 under agenda item 4.12 above, the World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item to its next session. The EU has not yet completed its internal review of the proposed regulation, but strongly suspects it will be positioned for a positive vote in November.

The informal document WP.29-158-12 was withdrawn by Russia.

The proposed regulatory text still includes bracketed text that was presented for review and guidance by the Contracting Parties. These passages were addressed in the 155th WP.29 session and resolved in paragraph 39 of the session report (document WP.29/1093). The request is for the Secretariat to make these changes prior to submitting the text to the UN Office of Legal Affairs for approval following the expected vote of the Forum to adopt the new regulation.

Proposal as stipulated above unanimously adopted.

The experts were informed that WP29 at its 158th session of November 2012 adopted the four documents creating the new regulation on AEBS and its 1st series of amendments. This information can be found in p 26 of the official report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1099:

The Chair was of the opinion that some clarification of the text adopted at WP29-158, p 3 of document WP29/2011/93/Amend.1, last sentence of the row 2, was necessary because an interpretation could be that the M3 vehicles with hydraulic braking would not have to fulfil the requirements of row 1 before the 2016 date mentioned in row 2. The authors of the text in cells B-H/2 indeed aimed the vehicles mentioned in cell A/2, but omitted to precise whether the vehicles addressed by the footnote 1 (Vehicles of category M3 with hydraulic braking system) would be subject to the same provisions.

OICA was of the opinion that the vehicles in footnote 1 are part of row2. Then the 1st date would be in Nov 2016. But the expert acknowledged that the wording is such that these vehicles could be approved already as from 2013.

CLEPA did not share the interpretation of OICA, and proposed to discuss this at a later stage.

The question of the true date of the Nov 2013 WP29 session was also raised, leading to the question whether the values should be adopted already at the June session of WP29.

The European Commission representative clarified that the intention is that, once the AEBS and LDWS UN Regulations have entered into force and the EU has acceded to them, UN regulations approvals would be accepted as an alternative to the EU approvals, taking into account that the EU legislation provides for a number of exemptions from the AEBS/LDWS carriage requirements. The representative of the European Commission informed that the European Commission Services were about to send a letter to the UN Secretariat to clarify the way how the EU intends to apply the new UN regulations, in response to the request of the WP.29 Secretariat to CPs to provide information on the application of the 01 series of the AEBS regulation (done, see Annex 1 attached).

Conclusion: items to be addressed at a later stage, to be added in the agenda for next meeting.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

See below.

See below.

[Deferred to the June session of WP.29.]

See agenda item 4.13.2 above.

Proposal unanimously adopted.

The experts were informed that WP29 at its 158th session of November 2012 adopted the four documents creating the new regulation on AEBS and its 1st series of amendments. This information can be found in p 26 of the official report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1099:

The Chair was of the opinion that some clarification of the text adopted at WP29-158, p 3 of document WP29/2011/93/Amend.1, last sentence of the row 2, was necessary because an interpretation could be that the M3 vehicles with hydraulic braking would not have to fulfil the requirements of row 1 before the 2016 date mentioned in row 2. The authors of the text in cells B-H/2 indeed aimed the vehicles mentioned in cell A/2, but omitted to precise whether the vehicles addressed by the footnote 1 (Vehicles of category M3 with hydraulic braking system) would be subject to the same provisions.

OICA was of the opinion that the vehicles in footnote 1 are part of row2. Then the 1st date would be in Nov 2016. But the expert acknowledged that the wording is such that these vehicles could be approved already as from 2013.

CLEPA did not share the interpretation of OICA, and proposed to discuss this at a later stage.

The question of the true date of the Nov 2013 WP29 session was also raised, leading to the question whether the values should be adopted already at the June session of WP29.

The European Commission representative clarified that the intention is that, once the AEBS and LDWS UN Regulations have entered into force and the EU has acceded to them, UN regulations approvals would be accepted as an alternative to the EU approvals, taking into account that the EU legislation provides for a number of exemptions from the AEBS/LDWS carriage requirements. The representative of the European Commission informed that the European Commission Services were about to send a letter to the UN Secretariat to clarify the way how the EU intends to apply the new UN regulations, in response to the request of the WP.29 Secretariat to CPs to provide information on the application of the 01 series of the AEBS regulation (done, see Annex 1 attached).

Conclusion: items to be addressed at a later stage, to be added in the agenda for next meeting.

3. GRRF focused its work on the text in square brackets in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 (Step 1– original version of the Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 (Step 2–01 series of amendments to the Regulation), both on the agenda of the November 2011 session of WP.29: Requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic rear-axle suspension, requirements for N2 and M2 vehicles, requirements for vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking and transitional provisions between step 1 and step 2.

4. The Chair of the informal group on Automatic Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning Systems (AEBS/LDWS) reported on the progress made by the informal group from the last GRRF session to the meeting held on 12 September 2011 in conjunction with the proper session of GRRF. He introduced GRRF-71-25 as the outcome of the discussion of the informal group. In particular, it was proposed to tackle, in the preamble of the Regulation, vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to add in paragraph 5.1. the possibility for an “optional” type-approval for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension. The expert from Germany supported this proposal. The secretariat and the expert from EC were of the opinion that these vehicles were already tackled in the preamble (see above) and that the wording for paragraph 5.1. was confusing because by definition a UNECE Regulation was optional. Furthermore, it was not clear for the secretariat which requirements would apply to these vehicles. GRRF could not reach a final decision on this OICA proposal and agreed to let the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) decide whether an “optional” type-approval in paragraph 5.1. was appropriate for vehicles not equipped with a pneumatic rear-axle suspension.

5. The expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 replacing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/39 to exclude from the scope of the original version of the AEBS Regulation: N2 vehicles below 8 tons, M2 vehicles and vehicles not equipped with pneumatic braking. After discussion GRRF supported this proposal.

6. For the 01 series, the expert from OICA proposed in GRRF-71-24 to include all N2 and M2 vehicles in the scope of the Regulation. However, for N2 vehicles below 8 tons and M2 vehicles, it was proposed to set the limit values in Annex 3 at a later stage (before 1 November 2016), in order to give more time to GRRF to develop special requirements for these vehicles. GRRF supported this proposal but with the alternative wording proposed by the expert from EC in GRRF-71-26. GRRF committed itself to develop these requirements in the proposed timeframe.

7. With regard to the timing of the first warning mode for a moving target for collision avoidance requirements (i.e. cells E1 and E2 of the table in GRRF-70-06), GRRF recalled the preference by the expert from Germany, for 2 seconds specifically for legal reasons. However, since a majority of experts favoured 1.4 second, GRRF proposed to remove the square brackets from 1.4 seconds in the table in Annex 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93. Since the requirements of rows 1 and 2 of ECE/TRANS/ WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93 became identical, GRRF agreed to merge the two rows of the table.

8. GRRF considered GRRF-71-16 (OICA) and GRRF-71-23 (EC) amending the transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments. Since GRRF could not reach a final decision, GRRF requested the secretariat to draft the transitional provisions according to the objectives fixed in GRRF-71-30. After discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-30-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex II. One paragraph reproducing the text of the 1958 Agreement was left in square brackets for final decision by WP.29 at its November 2011 session.

9. In concluding the discussion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-27-Rev.1 as reproduced in Annex II and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) as amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/92 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/93, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

UK presented the document AEBS/LDWS-16-02 and OICA presented the document GRRF/2011/39.

The Chair expressed concern that the OICA proposal could be understood as a means to exclude some vehicles from the scope. However OICA clarified that these vehicles with nonpneumatic rear axle suspension may be approved.

CLEPA questioned which authority could verify the meaning of the “available on the market” and “validated”. OICA clarified that this was precisely the reason why such wording had been elaborated.

J was keen to have a visibility of the future.

S supported the OICA position on this topic.

The Chair, as representative of the European Commission, considered this OICA document as being proposals for amendments to the working document GRRF submitted to WP.29. The European Commission considered that the Preamble should be just a guidance and should therefore not entail any restriction of the freedom for the Contracting Parties to mandate AEBS, and therefore should not be introducing a legal uncertainty. UK suggested replacing the proposed date by the 01 Series of amendments. Japan was keen that a Contracting Party can mandate the AEBS on these vehicles BEFORE the date of the 01 Series of amendments.

D found such additional paragraph in the preamble as proposed by OICA not necessary.

NL acknowledged the problems with the rigid suspension, and could support the UK proposal as more flexible.

F supported the addition of a new paragraph, but requested to add the reason why such further development is needed.

RUS proposed to meet the request from J with the addition of a sentence addressing the parameters that should be taken into account when approving these vehicles.

S clarified that the text in the Introduction is not such important, rather the text in paragraph 5.

OICA provided further technical clarifications about the difficulty for the vehicles with rigid rear axle suspension to comply with the text requirements and be simultaneously robust and reliable.

The Chair pointed out that the UK proposal only addresses the Introduction, and pointed out that the OICA proposal for the Preamble is linked with the proposed changes to paragraph 5.1.1.

OICA clarified for the experts that J does not face such problem of pitch angle as the vehicles are not of the same types, and hence does not need particular technology for addressing the large pitch angle problem.

The new wording for the additional paragraph in the Introduction was then developed per document GRRF-71-27.

CLEPA, UK, RUS and D could accept the proposal for compromise of the new text.

J had still concerns and had a reservation toward the new proposal. In addition they were keen to come back to this item after consideration of paragraph. 5.1.1.

S proposed to replace the wording “sensor technology” by “system”. This provoked a further debate which again improved the wording.

NL and F could support the new wording as well.

OICA also could support the compromise.

Conclusion: additional paragraph adopted in the Introduction to be proposed per document GRRF-71-27.

The group firstly discussed the Footnote 1 and its reference in row 1:

• RUS proposed to delete the reference to footnote N°1
• J suggested to delete row 2 and introduce the reference to N2>8t into cell A1.
• NL supported to delete footnote 1
  OICA, UK accepted this.

OICA presented (document GRRF/2011/39) and the reason why deleting row 3, as it is a base for discussing scope, row 3 and footnote 2: AEBS is a system braking the vehicle. However, leaving the row blank would be misleading as the AEBS would not brake. The Technical Services would not know what to do as there would be no performance requirement. The expert from OICA stressed that it would be cleaner and clearer to have a regulation with a defined scope and clear performance requirements for these vehicles within the scope. He hence considered better to delete the row than keeping it blank.

• D suggested to keep the row 3, blank, and to fill it in when technology will be available.
• NL found the OICA proposal the most “straightforward” as it is impossible to have in the scope vehicles with no requirement, at least for the 00 Series of amendments. Some requirement could be added for the 01 series.
• UK supported NL.
• F supported OICA, i.e. deleting the row 3 for the 00 and 01 Series of amendments.
• J stated that the 1st priority is the heavier vehicles. But the technical requirements for lighter vehicles would be accepted by J. J however was keen to follow the majority.
• RUS was ready to support OICA from a logical standpoint for the 00 Series. But the expert was of the opinion that for the 01 series of amendments all vehicles should be included.

The Chair then asked OICA whether their proposal would indeed imply no harmonization. OICA clarified that the regulatory process in Geneva is such that harmonization exists.

The Chair then concluded that, according to the OICA proposal, Contracting Parties are not bound by the AEBS Regulation for the vehicles outside the scope of the Regulation and could therefore impose the requirements they would consider appropriate. Hence the European Commission would not have to take into account the discussions held at the UNECE platform about these excluded vehicles for mandating AEBS in the context of the GSR.

OICA clarified that as from the time there is no existing vehicle of these categories with AEBS, it would be premature to discuss precise requirements for the 01 series. The expert added that, of course, a regulation is always open to any amendment.

The Chair suggested then introducing the current 00 series requirements in the 01 series of amendments, assuming that AEBS technology for these vehicles would exist at the time of the application date for 01 series of amendments.

• NL supported this compromise.
• RUS suggested to delay the adoption of the 01 series of amendments as the situation for the 01 series is unclear (e.g. up to March 2012 WP29 session). The Chair however considered this an entirely new approach because all the proceedings so far have been based on the adoption of 00 + 01 series of amendments as a package. The Chair however committed to present this new idea to GRRF-71 as an additional option.
• UK had a reservation about the proposal of having blank row 3 in the 01 series.
• The European Commission recalled their position was clearly based on the objective that both 00 and 01 series should have all vehicles covered. But the European Commission could accept such compromise for the sake of safeguardingharmonisation. Simply excluding these vehicles from the scope of the 00 and 01 Series would delete any incentive to see AEBS introduced in the market for those vehicles.
• OICA concern about RUS to discuss 01 later: need for Industry to keep the current visibility for the vehicles already agreed. As Dr. Zastrow, the OICA spokesman found the Chair’s proposal interesting, and needed internal inquiry with OICA members about it.
• CLEPA clarified that the row 3 should be deleted or filled in with the wording currently proposed (and coming from CLEPA). CLEPA also could accept e.g. blank cells with a reference to a footnote stating that relevant requirements must still be developed. The fear was that a Contracting Party decides to mandate requirements which cannot be economically viable.

The Chair tried to summarize the options on the table as follows:

1. Keeping row 3 (D) and full scope + footnote about further development for 01 Series.
2. Excluding these vehicles by deleting row 3 (original OICA proposal)
3. Exclusion for the 00 Series but inclusion in the 01 series.(UK + EC)
4. Delaying adoption of 01 series to the time when some satisfying performance requirements will be ready (RUS).
5. Keeping row 3 blank, with some commitment that GRRF would come to definition of requirements before application of 01 Series of amendments (Chair’s compromise)

The Chair suggested to simply reporting back to GRRF the 5 options, assuming some clear input from OICA at GRRF-71. The group then decided to provide time to members for internal discussions.

OICA then agreed to follow the proposal from the Chair where, in the 01 series, a note would explain some commitment that performance requirements will have to be developed.

UK could not support the RUS proposal delaying adoption of 01 series to the time when some satisfying performance requirements will be ready. UK could support deletion of row 3 from 00 series, with some requirements in row 3 at the 01 series. These requirements would be the result of some discussion with Industry.

• NL, F, RUS, CLEPA and S could support this approach.
• F had no strong opinion about the requirements in the 01 series for these vehicles.
• D could support the approach, subject to further consideration.
• J wanted further consideration.
• OICA then committed to develop relevant text for row 3 in the 01 series of amendments for further consideration and discussion at the 71st session of GRRF.

Conclusion: compromise approach agreed, subject to further advice from the UNECE Secretariat and discussion in GRRF71.

Concerning the Footnote 4, OICA proposed to delete it according to their proposal (GRRF/2011/39).

J pointed out that some Contracting Parties want to mandate AEBS on non-pneumatic rear suspension vehicles, Hence J could accept the proposal from OICA (GRRF/2011/39 in paragraph 5.1.1.) as it provides this flexibility.

OICA confirmed the interpretation of the document GRRF/2011/39 that a Contracting Party wishing to do so can mandate AEBS on rigid suspension vehicles.

The Chair however recalled document WP29/2011/48 stating that the wording proposed by OICA can provoke legal uncertainty. In this view, the European Commission was hesitant in supporting the proposed text in 1.§ 5.1.1 .

The Chair proposed to seek advice from the UNECE Secretariat about this item at GRRF-71.

• J supported this proposal.
• D found the OICA proposal quite clear and could support it.
• NL was of the opinion that the guidance provided in the Introduction would be sufficient. In this view, the proposal from OICA to mention rear-axle suspension vehicles could be deleted as well.
• UK had a reservation about whether the mention in the Introduction would be sufficient guidance to the Contracting Parties.

Conclusion: the informal group agreed to request guidance to UNECE Secretariat. At GRRF-71.

16. The GRRF Chair thanked CLEPA for the live demonstration on AEBS held during this GRRF session. The background of this presentation may be found in GRRF-70-07. A video on this demonstration as well as a press release may be found on the following website: http://live.unece.org/transwelcome/areas-of-work/vehicle-regulations/events/unece-live-demonstration-of-advanced-emergency-braking-systems-aebs.html. The chair also thanked OICA for the static demonstration showing special purpose and offroad vehicles where it could difficult to fit AEBS.

17. GRRF noted that Italy and the Russian Federation had submitted their national lane markings (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/91 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/89) to be used in the draft New Regulation on Lane Departure Warning systems.

34. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRRF, given during the 154th session (ECE/TRANS)WP.29/2011/1091, paras. 33–34) and approved the report.

The Chair orally recalled the results of the last sessions of GRRF and the informal group:

• - Concerning the exemptions, still to be considered
• - The issue of the regulatory approach was solved.
• - No consensus was reached about vehicles equipped with rigid rear axle suspension
• - Pass/fail values were also discussed, with results for N2>8tons, at the exception of the value for the 1st warning, but there was no decision for N2≤8tons and M2. There was also a commitment from OICA for submitting to GRRF71 a proposal for these vehicles.
• - Transitional provisions were also outstanding and GRRF70 considered this should be discussed at WP29 level.

The experts agreed with this summary of the situation after GRRF-70.

The Chair recalled that the mandate of the 15th meeting of the informal group was limited to addressing the outstanding issues related to the vehicles with rear axle suspension other than pneumatic and the pass/fail values for vehicles of category N2≤8tons and category M2. He pointed out that there was no real progress made at the 15th IG meeting, but nonetheless some action points were decided.

Mr. Jennison (CLEPA Spokesman) was keen to clarify the paragraph 1 in the draft minutes of the 15th IG meeting about the CLEPA position for the 2-step approach: the CLEPA position is such that the 1st step is of such a low level that the regulation could go straight to the level of step 2.

CLEPA committed to provide a corrected text to the Secretary for correcting the draft minutes. The Secretary was tasked to edit a Revision 1 of the draft report of the 15th meeting.

The experts had no further comment to the draft minutes of the previous meeting.

The Chair orally recalled the results of the last sessions of GRRF and the informal group:

• - Concerning the exemptions, still to be considered
• - The issue of the regulatory approach was solved.
• - No consensus was reached about vehicles equipped with rigid rear axle suspension
• - Pass/fail values were also discussed, with results for N2>8tons, at the exception of the value for the 1st warning, but there was no decision for N2≤8tons and M2. There was also a commitment from OICA for submitting to GRRF71 a proposal for these vehicles.
• - Transitional provisions were also outstanding and GRRF70 considered this should be discussed at WP29 level.

The experts agreed with this summary of the situation after GRRF-70.

The Chair recalled that the mandate of the 15th meeting of the informal group was limited to addressing the outstanding issues related to the vehicles with rear axle suspension other than pneumatic and the pass/fail values for vehicles of category N2≤8tons and category M2. He pointed out that there was no real progress made at the 15th IG meeting, but nonetheless some action points were decided.

Mr. Jennison (CLEPA Spokesman) was keen to clarify the paragraph 1 in the draft minutes of the 15th IG meeting about the CLEPA position for the 2-step approach: the CLEPA position is such that the 1st step is of such a low level that the regulation could go straight to the level of step 2.

CLEPA committed to provide a corrected text to the Secretary for correcting the draft minutes. The Secretary was tasked to edit a Revision 1 of the draft report of the 15th meeting.

The experts had no further comment to the draft minutes of the previous meeting.

J presented the document AEBS/LDWS-15-07 and explained the lack of consistency of requiring the performance of row 1 for vehicles below 8 tons equipped with pneumatic braking system, but requiring the performance of row 3 for the same vehicles equipped with hydraulic/AOH braking system. By document AEBS/LDWS-15-07, J proposed to apply the requirement of row 3 to all vehicles below 8 tons, whatever their braking system.

The Chair found premature to provide a position on this.

CLEPA pointed out that the N2 vehicles equipped with AOH and pneumatic braking system are of low production volume, and that changing their performance requirements as proposed by J would be difficult to manage on series production.

The Chair recalled that this item was not part of the mandate of the informal group from GRRF-70, and suggested that the interested parties provide a written contribution for the GRRF session of September 2011 (71st session).

J stated that they withdrew their reservation per footnotes 4 (document AEBS/LDWS-15-01) & 5 (AEBS/LDWS-15-02).

Conclusion:
- footnotes 4 & 5 (reservation from Japan toward light M2/N2 vehicles) withdrawn.
- If still interested, Japan is urged to table a relevant document to GRRF-71 in order to generate a debate about the consistency of the requirements for light vehicles

- OICA to present a consistent proposal for non-pneumatic suspension vehicles
- No progress achieved by AEBS/LDWS-15 towards vehicles of categories M2, N2 < 8 tons
- D to decide whether presenting a proposal along the lines of document AEBS/LDWS-15-04 (“deceleration phase”)
- J to decide whether presenting a proposal along the lines of document AEBS/LDWS-15-07

The Chair introduced document AEBS/LDWS-15-03 proposing that, in the 1st implementation step (00 series of amendments) vehicles of category M3, N3, and N2 > 8 tons, which are not equipped with pneumatic rear axle suspension, comply with the collision detection and warning requirements (CWS), but not with the emergency braking requirement.

D introduced document AEBS/LDWS-15-04 and pointed out that the proposal would make footnotes of the table superfluous.

OICA introduced document AEBS/LDWS-15-05 concerning paragraph 5.1.1. on rear axle suspension.

OICA clarified that some development time is necessary for the vehicles equipped with non-pneumatic rear axle suspension.

The Chair introduced the document AEBS/LDWS-15-06 (DK position that vehicles without air suspension should not be excluded from the demand for AEBS).

The expert from CLEPA clarified that the warning is the critical part of the system: the driver is a better sensor than the radar, and he could be irritated by false alarms, then switch the system off. Low cost CWS would provide no safety benefits but high cost CWS would be too expensive. The expert hence found no benefits in CWS.

J was of the opinion that AEBS sensor technology can apply to all kind of suspension; hence J was keen to have the same requirements for vehicles with any type of suspension. However J was agreeing to exclude the steel suspension vehicles from the scope for the EU countries. As a consequence, J preferred the OICA proposal to the D proposal, and let the decision of including the relevant types of vehicle up to the convenience of the Contracting Parties. But the expert from J insisted that nevertheless the possibility of approving these vehicles should remain in the regulation. As a conclusion, J favoured to keep some flexibility at the UNECE platform. The expert informed that the experience of the Japanese market with vehicles of category 3 is such that there is no need for any restriction on the pitch angle, but acknowledged that however current experience in Japan is limited to rigid trucks. The expert from J concluded that to his opinion the best solution would be regulating at UNECE, but if this is impossible then J would be flexible on the presence of these vehicles in the regulation.

OICA recalled the difference between the Japanese and the European rigid suspension vehicles:

Japanese N3 vehicles have long wheel base and low pitch angle. CLEPA did not share this OICA vision, but considered that J vehicles have a longer rear overhang, making the situation worse in Japan.

OICA clarified that in J the vehicles equipped with AEBS and rigid rear axle suspension have long wheelbases.

Concerning the technology, CLEPA recalled the document presented at the 70th GRRF providing clarification of the sensor availability (document GRRF-70-XXX). The expert was of the opinion that the technology would not be implemented without making it mandatory.

OICA clarified that when the pitch angle is small enough then OICA is ready to implement the technology.

UK found reasonable that these vehicles be included in the UNECE regulation, but did not yet consider a “may” as proposed by OICA and D. UK then had a reservation in order to study this new possibility.

The Chair found no reason to make such distinction, clarified that the document AEBS/LDWS-15-03 is a proposal from Chair of the informal group as an attempt to find an acceptable compromise on the rear axle suspension issue. In view of the lack of support, the Chair withdrew his proposal AEBS/LDWS-15- 03. The European Commission believed that the wording proposed by OICA in the 2nd paragraph of 5.1.1. is contradictory to the objective of international harmonization and is not in line with the guidelines from the UNECE secretariat on how the scope of application for a UNECE Regulation should be specified .

The Chair summarised the discussions by concluding that he would report to GRRF-71 that the informal group could not meet the mandate given by GRRF to find a solution to the outstanding rear axle suspension issue.

OICA announced later during the meeting that OICA was ready to reach some performance requirements for rigid suspension vehicles by 2016 under certain conditions: if proper systems are available in 2013 then OICA can commit to AEBS performance requirements for rigid suspension vehicles starting 2016 (New Types). This of course would depend on the good cooperation with the AEBS suppliers. The target for performance requirements would be the same as for the pneumatic suspension. The expert informed that the vehicle manufacturers need two years for validating the systems provided by the suppliers and fitted on the vehicles.

CLEPA recalled that the proper sensors (fitted with integrated levelling system) are currently available, but that these need the logic signal input to control the internal levelling system, and that this input must be provided by the vehicle itself. CLEPA could not start development for such systems for one manufacturer only, but would start development programs if there is wide order from the 7 main vehicle manufacturers.

D recalled that all safety systems to date were firstly introduced by the market, and then made mandatory. The delegate however declared that the process with AEBS seems to be the inverse: firstly mandating, and then defining the system. In conclusion, D could not support the OICA proposal.

The Chair recalled the famous song of Bob Dylan: “Times They Are A-changing”.

OICA suggested to add the OICA commitment into the Preamble.

UK had a reservation.

F also had reservation.

J could support the OICA proposal but could also follow the majority.

The Chair requested OICA to put their proposal on paper well in advance before the September GRRF to permit consideration by a maximum of Contracting Parties.

Conclusion:
- OICA to provide official input, as committed, for GRRF-71
- Input consisting of
o paragraph 5.1.1. as proposed in document AEBS/LDWS-15-05;
o relevant wording for footnote 3 to document AEBS/LDWS-15-02 (“applicable only to vehicles with pneumatic rear axle suspension”);
o proper performance requirements and application dates for the vehicles equipped with rigid rear axle suspension.
- Complete document to be prepared and tabled by OICA for GRRF-71 (September 2011).

The Chair recalled the interpretation of the UNECE Secretariat that should the cells of Row 3 be blank, the vehicles in stake would be excluded from the performance requirements of the regulation.

OICA informed that some Technical Services interpretation was that in the case of blank cells, the vehicle presented for Type Approval would have to comply with the general performance requirements of paragraph 5. The Chair concluded that in view of this different opinion that there was currently no clear interpretation of the situation.

The informal group started the revision of the document AEBS/LDWS-15-01 (00 series of amendments).

OICA presented the document AEBS/LDWS-15-05 proposing to simply delete the row 3 due to the fact that a Collision Warning System (CWS) cannot be considered by the vehicle manufacturers as an AEBS corresponding to the definition currently existing in the text of the draft regulation. The expert from
OICA recalled that the vehicle manufacturers have today no experience nor knowledge about the
behaviour and consequences of the fitment of such system in wide scale on the vehicles. OICA stated
that the vehicle manufacturers are ready to start the analysis of such technology in the context of a
rulemaking in the frame of UNECE, if the Contracting Parties would wish to do so. Concerning AEBS
itself, the vehicle manufacturers could only provide technical expertise for existing technology or
technology currently under development, but would not be ready to provide advice to non-existing
technology as this would not be credible. The logical consequence of such situation would then be to simply delete the proposed row 3 of the table of documents AEBS/LDWS-15-01 & 02 for the time the technology is being developed. In this context, the scope of the regulation should be limited to the proposal as in document AEBS/LDWS-15-05.

CLEPA recalled that the best they could offer was the proposed performance requirements tabled in document AEBS/LDWS-14-09, but stated that CLEPA could support the “no requirement” approach proposed by OICA OR some clear requirements. UK had concerns about the “no requirement” route, because it would be contradictory to harmonization.

The expert from the UK informed about their proposal (applying to Step 1 only):
- M2 toward stationary target (cells B3, B4, B5): blank cells
- N2<8t toward stationary target (cell B5): no requirement
- M2 toward moving target (cells E3, E4, E5): flexible willing
- N2<8t toward moving target (cell E5): to be discussed.

Japan recalled that the GSR demands requirements for the vehicles of category M2 and N2, also for those with GVW below 8 tons. J was keen that the requirements of all categories be discussed at UNECE rather than EU level, hence requested that technical requirements be discussed for all categories M2/N2/M3/N3 in the context of UNECE and that the mandatory fitment be discussed at the level of each Contracting Party. The expert from J informed about their sympathy for the UK approach. F informed being present mainly for listening the technical arguments of the different parties, hence could not provide any position nor take any decision.

The Chair recalled that the informal group in this context (five Contracting Parties present, of which two could not provide positions) could anyway not make any decision, but was requested by GRRF-70 to explore and propose possible solutions for the outstanding issues.

CLEPA could accept the deletion of their proposal for stationary target test (see document AEBS/LDWS-14-10). The expert from CLEPA however was of the opinion that these cells should not be blank as this would open the requirements to anything wished by any Contracting Party, preventing the manufacturers from a clear vision of the requirements worldwide.

The Chair requested clarification about the OICA proposal of document AEBS/LDWS-15-05:

1) OICA proposal seems to go out of the mandate of the informal group as it does not propose pass/fail criteria, rather except some vehicles from the scope of the regulation.

OICA clarified that the vehicle manufacturers currently have some clue of the technical feasibility for heavy vehicles, and as a consequence could accept requirements applying to these vehicles. For the vehicles where there is no development today, the expert made clear that OICA cannot describe in detail the requirements for a further step. OICA informed to be ready to develop some systems, but could not define them in advance. For CWS indeed, OICA insisted on the need to collect some experience.

2) What would OICA recommend as performance requirements if the regulation does only reproduce the state of the art?

OICA informed that for the vehicles in Row 3 (N2≦8 t and M2), the development would still to be started. OICA would favour to bring some vehicles on the market first, but could not commit on some figures or technical requirements for the time being.

The Chair then questioned how the informal group could meet the terms of reference and how to explain this situation to GRRF. OICA pointed out the difference between the legal system at UNECE level, demanding requirement description, which is not possible for future technology, and the legal system at EU level, not demanding requirement description.

The Chair, as representative of the European Commission, informed that the EC cannot accept a scope not including all vehicles covered by the General Safety Regulation. In this case, the European Commission could not propose the Member States to sign up such Regulation, and as a consequence would not be bound by the UNECE AEBS Regulation. This IG meeting is the last possibility for the Commission services to show flexibility, as there is not yet a draft implementing measure on AEBS under the GSR tabled. He added that the European Commission would have some sympathy for the UK proposal.

OICA clarified that, with regard to the UK proposal, they could not accept a CWS. In the case of an emergency braking system proper, the AEBS for vehicles with hydraulic braking system is not currently under development.

D recalled that the UNECE context provides possibility to promote optional requirements for vehicles where the technology is being developed.

The Chair concluded that there appeared to be no room for progress unless parties would be ready to show some willingness to change their position.

The group then started the revision of document AEBS/LDWS-15-02 (01 series of amendments)

OICA presented the document AEBS/LDWS-15-05: OICA informed having currently no knowledge for those vehicles in row 3 (N2≦8 t and M2), suggested to keep them out of the scope of the regulation during the time of their development, but was ready to change the regulation in the future for introducing some additional categories into the regulation.

D reminded that knowledge about those vehicles is lacking and suggested optional requirements.

CLEPA stated that, if there are long term phases between the two series of amendments, there is no reason for avoiding accurate requirements. The expert informed that CLEPA would accept no requirement at all for these vehicles in the early stage, but would not support undetermined requirements in the 2nd stage. If there is short term between the stages, CLEPA would support the OICA position.

Japan requested clarification about a possible conflict about the deletion of row 3 between 2013 and 2016 with the European GSR, and hence confirmed their position as in step 1.

D was keen that all vehicles be included in the scope of the regulation, and solving the non-existing technology by the way of footnotes committing to further development. The expert in consequence promoted a blank row 3.

The European Commission clarified their position that if there would be no significant difference in stringency of the requirements between the 2 series of amendments, then there would be no need for a 01 series.

Conclusion:
- New 3rd option from OICA, for the 1st step, per document AEBS/LDWS-15-05,
- No clear support from the other parties for this 3rd option.
- No progress made by the informal group towards reaching consensus on this item

The Chair introduced document AEBS/LDWS-15-03 proposing that, in the 1st implementation step (00 series of amendments) vehicles of category M3, N3, and N2 > 8 tons, which are not equipped with pneumatic rear axle suspension, comply with the collision detection and warning requirements (CWS), but not with the emergency braking requirement.

D introduced document AEBS/LDWS-15-04 and pointed out that the proposal would make footnotes of the table superfluous.

OICA introduced document AEBS/LDWS-15-05 concerning paragraph 5.1.1. on rear axle suspension.