50. The expert from Germany on behalf of the Co-Chair of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) presented GRRF-84-02 with draft provisions for ACSF of Category [C1]. GRRF discussed values in square brackets in the document related to the scenario considered for the purpose of testing the performance of ACSF of C1 category. In particular, the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood did not achieve consensus and created difficulties to agree on what is referred to as reaction time in draft para. 5.6.4.8.1. The expert from Japan presented GRRF-84-28 proposing derogations in case the maximum speed allowed in the territory of a Contracting Party would be lower than 130 km/h. GRRF agreed to defer GRRF-84-28 to the IWG on ACSF. GRRF considered the note from the secretariat (GRRF-84-24) reproducing comments received from Tesla Inc. GRRF also discussed GRRF-84-23 tabled by the experts from OICA and CLEPA on Emergency Steering Functions. GRRF requested the secretariat to consolidate the proposals as reflecting the current position and guidance of GRRF (GRRF-84-36) and to add this consolidation to the provisional agenda of the next session of GRRF (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/26). GRRF also requested the IWG on ACSF to review this document until the next GRRF session.

50. The expert from Germany on behalf of the Co-Chair of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) presented GRRF-84-02 with draft provisions for ACSF of Category [C1]. GRRF discussed values in square brackets in the document related to the scenario considered for the purpose of testing the performance of ACSF of C1 category. In particular, the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood did not achieve consensus and created difficulties to agree on what is referred to as reaction time in draft para. 5.6.4.8.1. The expert from Japan presented GRRF-84-28 proposing derogations in case the maximum speed allowed in the territory of a Contracting Party would be lower than 130 km/h. GRRF agreed to defer GRRF-84-28 to the IWG on ACSF. GRRF considered the note from the secretariat (GRRF-84-24) reproducing comments received from Tesla Inc. GRRF also discussed GRRF-84-23 tabled by the experts from OICA and CLEPA on Emergency Steering Functions. GRRF requested the secretariat to consolidate the proposals as reflecting the current position and guidance of GRRF (GRRF-84-36) and to add this consolidation to the provisional agenda of the next session of GRRF (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/26). GRRF also requested the IWG on ACSF to review this document until the next GRRF session.

50. The expert from Germany on behalf of the Co-Chair of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) presented GRRF-84-02 with draft provisions for ACSF of Category [C1]. GRRF discussed values in square brackets in the document related to the scenario considered for the purpose of testing the performance of ACSF of C1 category. In particular, the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood did not achieve consensus and created difficulties to agree on what is referred to as reaction time in draft para. 5.6.4.8.1. The expert from Japan presented GRRF-84-28 proposing derogations in case the maximum speed allowed in the territory of a Contracting Party would be lower than 130 km/h. GRRF agreed to defer GRRF-84-28 to the IWG on ACSF. GRRF considered the note from the secretariat (GRRF-84-24) reproducing comments received from Tesla Inc. GRRF also discussed GRRF-84-23 tabled by the experts from OICA and CLEPA on Emergency Steering Functions. GRRF requested the secretariat to consolidate the proposals as reflecting the current position and guidance of GRRF (GRRF-84-36) and to add this consolidation to the provisional agenda of the next session of GRRF (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/26). GRRF also requested the IWG on ACSF to review this document until the next GRRF session.

50. The expert from Germany on behalf of the Co-Chair of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) presented GRRF-84-02 with draft provisions for ACSF of Category [C1]. GRRF discussed values in square brackets in the document related to the scenario considered for the purpose of testing the performance of ACSF of C1 category. In particular, the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood did not achieve consensus and created difficulties to agree on what is referred to as reaction time in draft para. 5.6.4.8.1. The expert from Japan presented GRRF-84-28 proposing derogations in case the maximum speed allowed in the territory of a Contracting Party would be lower than 130 km/h. GRRF agreed to defer GRRF-84-28 to the IWG on ACSF. GRRF considered the note from the secretariat (GRRF-84-24) reproducing comments received from Tesla Inc. GRRF also discussed GRRF-84-23 tabled by the experts from OICA and CLEPA on Emergency Steering Functions. GRRF requested the secretariat to consolidate the proposals as reflecting the current position and guidance of GRRF (GRRF-84-36) and to add this consolidation to the provisional agenda of the next session of GRRF (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/26). GRRF also requested the IWG on ACSF to review this document until the next GRRF session.

54. The expert from UK introduced GRRF-84-14 proposing amendments to the requirements in Annex 6 (Complex Electric control systems). GRRF reviewed in detail the proposal and requested the secretariat to include the amended proposal in the consolidated document GRRF-84-36 and ECE/TRANS/WP.19/GRRF/2017/27.