OICA presented the OICA input amending GRRF-78-11. This document was amended by the group as follows (changes can be found in document LKAS-02-04):

Paragraph 5.1.6.2.:

• The European Commission challenged a reference to paragraph 5.1.1., as unnecessary as paragraph 5.1.1. should anyway be fulfilled. The expert nevertheless found the original text clearer than the OICA proposal.
• A debate took place on the wording “fade out in a progressive manner”:
  • Redundant hence confusing statement (repetition of paragraph 5.1.1.)
  • No time or moment figure available from Industry
  • As the technology is still rather immature for being regulated, J found that general requirements should be preferred to precise figures
  • Yet the OICA proposal refers to figures currently existing in UN R79
  • The system is not designed to work in tight curves, rather in “highway conditions”.
• J could support the proposal from OICA; yet the expert wanted to ensure whether the Technical Services could assess the system under such wording.

Conclusion paragraph 5.1.6.2.: the group agreed on a final wording (see LKAS-02-04 sent to the group as ECE-TRANS-WP29-GRRF-2015-XXe (LKAS adhoc group) R79 draft LKAS V1).

55. The Chair of GRRF recalled the activities done by the IWG on ACSF and proposed to postpone the discussion on LKAS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2 and GRRF-79-04) to make sure that the findings of the informal group could be reflected when working the technical provisions for LKAS. The expert from France agreed to present GRRF-80-08 at the February 2016 session of GRRF. GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this item at its nest session.

49. The Chair of GRRF recalled the activities done by the IWG on ACSF and proposed to postpone the discussion on LKAS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2 and GRRF-79-04) to make sure that the findings of the informal group could be reflected when working the technical provisions for LKAS. The expert from France recalled that the work on LKAS had a high priority and invited GRRF to reflect on whether a discussion on the submitted documentation should take place at this session. The experts from Germany and OICA agreed that the proposal produced by the SIG on LKAS was of a high quality but noted that some definitions should be aligned with those of ACSF. Therefore, GRRF agreed to defer the discussion to the September 2016 session. GRRF noted that LKAS were considered as discontinuous corrective steering, while ACSF would cover systems similar to LKAS but performing continuously. GRRF agreed that the boundaries of these systems needed clarification. GRRF requested the IWG on ACSF to work on the boundary definitions. GRRF agreed to resume consideration of this item at its nest session.

52. This agenda item was discussed together with the following agenda item. The secretariat noted the decision of their authors and GRRF to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/2, GRRF-79-04, GRRF-80-08 and GRRF-81-14 from the agenda, as the progress done under the following agenda item would cover the subjects covered by those documents.