57. The GRRF chair mentioned that document ECE/TRANS/WP29/2018/35 would still contain square brackets. WP.29 agreed to remove the square brackets and to agree on transitional provision dates (as reflected in para. 92).

92. In ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/35, paragraphs 2.1.4., amend to read:

93. WP.29 noted the concern raised by the representative of OICA on the selection of an early date of application for the transitional provisions in paragraphs 12.2.3. and 12.2.4., which could create serious development difficulties, due to the introduction of new requirements compared to the very recently adopted 02 series of amendments, while vehicles are currently under development for the latter.

5. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/27 proposing amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 with provisions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) of Category C, Emergency Steering Function (ESF) and clarifications to Annex 6. He mentioned that the Informal Working Group (IWG) on ACSF held two meetings and a webex conference since the September 2017 session of GRRF to review this document.

6. The expert from Germany presented (GRRF-85-06 and GRRF-85-07) the outcome of the IWG on the draft provisions applicable for ACSF of Category C (GRRF-85-02). He explained that the IWG resolved the remaining issue on the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood. He added that, for this purpose, continuous lateral movement and lane centering provisions were added. He continued his presentation by reporting on the deliberation of the IWG on the definition of the target vehicle used for the sensor performance test proposed in Annex 8, para. 3.5.5. He added that the worst case scenario would be a sensor performance test with a motorcycle of category L₃ target coming from the rear of the subject vehicle. He noted that no standard defining a test target L₃ vehicle would exist to date and that therefore the IWG agreed on the compromise defined in Annex 8, para. 3.5.5.1. He noted that the definition of the target vehicle should be reviewed at a later stage as some experts had expressed their doubts that a L₃ vehicle without fairing and windshield would indeed be the worst case scenario for this sensor performance test. He concluded his presentation with the description of the type approval tests requirements to be included in Annex 8. GRRF agreed that using a motorcycle without fairing and windshield would be appropriate until such times that a uniform target would be agreed.

7. GRRF reviewed in detail GRRF-85-02 and agreed on a number of amendments as reproduced in GRRF-85-02-Rev.1.

10. The expert from OICA presented (GRRF-85-08) a proposal for provisions applicable to ESF (GRRF-85-03).

11. GRRF reviewed the latter document in detail and agreed to insert the definition of ESF contained in GRRF-85-02.

12. GRRF adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/27 with the amendments endorsed during this session concerning ACSF of Category C, ESF and Annex 6, as reproduced in Annex II to the session report and requested the secretariat to submit it as draft 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 to World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration and vote at their March 2018 sessions.

13. GRRF noted the necessity to further develop Transitional Provisions applicable to the draft 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 (see para.12 above). GRRF reviewed the proposal tabled by the expert from OICA (GRRF-85-04), agreed on the necessity of transitional provisions (GRRF-85-04-Rev.1) and requested the Chair and the Secretary to further develop the Transitional Provisions accordingly, also taking into consideration the newly adopted Transitional Provisions applicable to the 02 series of amendments.

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.