Item 7 (Secondary coupling)( R55_07_20)
UTAC had prepared a proposal documented in the document R55_07_20. This Item had been overseen at previous meetings. Now UTAC brought it back for consideration. It was noted that not too long ago the Annex 7 §1.2.3 had been added to handle any unpredictable behavior of a center axle trailer broken loose. The proposal in document R55_07_20 is to safeguard the immediate braking of a trailer broken loose. The proposal was agreed. Mr. Lescail accepted the task to put this proposal in the format of a working document for the GRRF 82. That document shall be sent to the secretary.

Item 11.1 (Remote indication in instrument cluster)
This item was shortly discussed. The urgency of the item was agreed. There was no proposal how to handle the issue. It was agreed to initiate a standardization work to establish a common signal interface for the signals from the remote indication. The secretary took on the task to initiate such work.

Item 20 (Heavy transports) (R55_02­­_13, R55_04­­_08, R55_04­­_12, R55_05_01, R55_05_06, R55_05_20, R55_05_21, R55_05_22, R55_07_18, R55-08-13, R55_09_06, R55_10_08; R55_10_09; R55_10_13; R55_13_07; R55_13_08)
Since last meeting Mr. Svensson had augmented the proposal to include a lower limit for reduction. This limit had two components. The reduction is proposed to be linear from 80 km/h to 36 km/h ending at a maximum requirement reduction of 33%. On top of that a requirement on D-value corresponding to startability in 15% ascent. In general the concept got good acceptance. Some comments stressed the importance that the proposal does not apply in off-road applications. Mr Svensson pointed to the option to do away with the upper limit on speed. While the reference speed is still 80 km/h an increase in allowable maximum speed to let say 90 km/h would result in an increase in the requirements. There were some comments on application to exceptional transports only. That of course is a given as this is under the heading “Special operations”. The agreement reached was that all manufactures of coupling shall evaluate the proposal towards exemption certificates for heavy transports that they had issued hitherto. These evaluations shall be reported to Mr. Svensson who will compile the results. The compilation will be on the form xx% of the exemptions would have been safely handled through the proposed formalism. On the basis of this compilation a mail vote would judge whether to take this proposal as a working document to GRRF-82 or not.

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55_04­­_11, R55_05_05, R55_06_09, R55_07_06, R55_07_14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55_09_04, R55_09_05, R55_09_11, R55_09_ 13, R55_10_03: R55_10_04; R55_10_05; R55_10_06; R55_10_07; R55_10_08; R55_10_15, R55_11_ 12; R55_11_13; R55_11_15; R55_12_03; R55_12_10; R55_12_20; R55_12_28; R55_13_07; R55_13_08 )
This proposal had been endorsed at the GRRF-81. A small change was made to the proposal in that the definition of a dolly was aligned to the definition agreed in the IWG-MVC. The definition was challenged by Mr. Westphäling saying that the word “dolly” was originating from Germany and meaning a rear axle group of extreme long cargo transports. After some discussion it was agreed to investigate the use of converter dolly instead of just dolly. Several experts were skeptic. [Since the meeting the secretary has made some investigations to find out the risk for misinterpretation. That risk was found to be very low. Hence he proposes to go forward with the word dolly without any word “converter”. ] One further minor change was made to Annex 6 §3.6.1 to align that paragraph with the changes made in the definition part of the regulation. With these changes it was agreed to go forward with this proposal as a working document for GRRF 82.

Item 22(Interpolation formula) (R55-02-11; R55-03-23; R55-03-14; R55-04-03; R55-05-04; R55_06_06; R55_07_06; R55_07_13; R55_10_08; R55_10_14; R55_12_05; R55_12_19; R55_13_03)
This proposal was endorsed at the GRRF 81. It was agreed to submit this proposal as working document to the GRRF 82.

Item 25 (Articulation angles as installed) (R55-02-05; R55-05-13; R55_07_10; R55_09_21; R55_12_06; R55_12_07; R55_13_09; R55_13_10; R55_13_17; R55_13_19¸ R55_13_20; R55_13_21; R55_13_29; R55_13_30)
Mr. Stokreef had elaborated the proposal from our January meeting R55_13_09 and R55_13_10. This proposal was discussed. The change annex 7 proposed for a drawbar coupling was agreed. The change to annex 7 for fifth wheel coupling was not agreed. For fifth wheel couplings Mr. Alguëra during the meeting worked out a proposal to make a change to annex 5. Mr. Svensson had got comments from one OEM that 3,5° towards the front and 4,5° towards the rear would be what can be achieved on a general base as installed on a vehicle. The general opinion at the meeting was that in annex 5 the focus is on the component and not the installation. The large variability in the installation and combination with different trailers has to be accounted for by the OEM. It is believed that interference between trailer and tractor will cause damage but not result in lost trailers. The proposal from Mr. Alguëra was summarized in document R55_13_30. This was agreed. [In retrospect the secretary found the R55_13_30 not to be unambiguous. Hence he has challenged the experts with a reformulated proposal. This is done through a separate mail.]

Item 29 (Drawbar a separate technical unit) (R55_04_04, R55_05_02, R55_09_08; R55_10_xx; R55_11_03; R55_11_08; R55_13_05)
Since last meeting Mr. Svensson had investigated the different options to make the definition of a drawbar stricter in order to distinguish a separate technical unit. Such efforts have been made before. This was a last effort. To be very consistent it is necessary to have clear criteria how to make the judgement. This try was not successful. To summarize the situation Mr. Westphäling concluded that this is a difficult task. The best but not good enough attempt has been based on the function of a chassis and of a drawbar.

Item 30 (Simple designs) (R55_02­­_09, R55_03_06, R55_05_09, R55_07_07, R55_09_08; R55_11_03; R55_11_08; R55_13_05)
This item was also in the scope of the investigation reported under Item 29. The important issue with the discussion on “simple designs” is whether calculation based approval according the Annex 6 §1.1. is applicable or not. This procedure is very ambiguous as no statement is given about how to perform such calculations. There is however a clear statement in annex 6 §1.1. that the result of the calculations shall be the same as if the design had been tested. It has not been possible to find a generally acceptable recommendation how to calculate. One guidance/alternative may be the validation procedure set out in the directive 2007/46/EC annex XVI. No agreement could be reached on recommending only to use validated procedures. On the basis of the discussion and the investigations done, the items 29 and 30 were dropped. Mr. Gunneriusson commented that the failure to reach an agreement on those two items leaves the regulations with two major shortcomings. He announced that he would comment on this in the GRRF 82.

Minor editorial changes as in the document R55_13_05 was agreed.