35. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/9 based on GRRF-86-13 proposing clarifications of the Annex 8 testing provisions. The proposal received some comments from Japan, France, Germany and OICA. The expert from France agreed with the suggestion of GRVA to submit a revised proposal with more data for consideration at the September 2019 session. The experts from Japan, Germany and OICA were invited to share with GRVA their test data, supporting their positions.

37. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-02-24 (based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/2), proposing to insert in the Regulation some provisions for ACSF of Category C with a two-step Human Machine Interface (HMI) approach. The expert from the Netherlands disagreed with the proposed seven seconds as the time during which the second deliberate action by the driver should take place while this time for the one-step HMI approach (latest time by which an automatic initiation should occur), already in force, is limited to five seconds. The expert from France supported the proposal and showed flexibility on the seven seconds value to reach consensus among CPs. The expert from Germany asked whether this proposal would allow one single vehicle to be equipped with both a one-step HMI and a two-step HMI and how the combination of both would work. GRVA invited OICA to consider the issues raised by the experts and requested the secretariat to distribute the proposal with an official symbol for review at its September 2019 session.

29. The expert from OICA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/2, as amended by GRVA-01-22 introducing provisions for ACSF systems of Category C with a so called 2-steps human machine interface for the lane change activation. The expert from France supported the proposal. The expert from the European Commission welcomed this proposal. The proposal received some comments from the experts from Germany, Korea, Netherlands, and Sweden namely on the deletion of some provisions, the proposed amendment to extend the time by which a lane change manoeuvre shall begin and the proposed Annex 9. GRVA invited interested experts to prepare a revised proposal addressing the comments received.

53. The expert from France introduced GRVA-01-38 (based on GRRF-86-13) addressing the accuracy of interpretation of data produced during system assessment. The expert from Germany welcomed the document and proposed to consider the filtering provisions together with the tolerances. Other experts welcomed the document and agreed to study it until the next session. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its January 2019 session.

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.

48. The expert from Germany presented GRRF-86-13 tabled by the experts from Germany and from the Republic of Korea with a proposal for amendments to the ACSF testing provisions in Annex 8 of UN Regulation No. 79, based on the first experience gathered since the 02 series of amendments of UN Regulation No. 79 entered into force. GRRF welcomed the proposal and provided comments. The experts from Germany and the Republic of Korea volunteered to prepare a revised proposal aimed to avoid prescriptive requirements on the measurement instruments and providing more detailed justification e.g. on the sample rate and the filtering of the lateral acceleration data.

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.

8. The expert from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland introduced GRRF-85-01-Rev.1 proposing amendments to Annex 6. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-85-05 with amendments to GRRF-85-01-Rev.1.

9. GRRF reviewed both documents in detail and agreed on a number of amendments as reproduced in GRRF-85-01-Rev.2.

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.

55. The expert from the European Commission introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/8 proposing clarifications in Annex 6, dealing with the Complex Electronic provisions. The proposal received written comments (GRRF-83-20 and GRRF-83-24) from the experts from the Netherlands and from OICA. GRRF combined the comments received as reproduced in GRRF-83-29.

56. GRRF agreed with the Chair’s proposal to convene an informal meeting to further develop the document on the basis of the comments received. The expert from UK volunteered to convene a meeting end of April or beginning of May.