Proposal, consolidating document GRRF-82-08 with the proposed test procedures, revising “option 4” as presented in the proposal introduce technical requirements for Corrective Steering Functions under UN R79 (document GRRF/2016/45). Option 4 proposes to amend the definition of corrective steering functions and to include technical requirements for LKAS as an ASCF of Category B1. The proposal includes:

• Clarification of Corrective steering function (CSF) incl. defining of new requirements;
• Establishment of new categories for automatically commanded steering function (ACSF): Categories A, B1, B2, C, D and E;
• Wording for requirements of Category A (incl. remote parking RCP), and Category B1.

Updated version of the draft amendment to introduce provisions for corrective steering and Category B1 ACSF into UN R79 based upon discussions held during the afternoon GRRF session of 21 September.

Updated version of the proposal to introduce corrective steering and B1 level ACSF provisions into UN R79 prepared pursuant to discussions held among interested parties following the afternoon GRRF session on 21 September.

Updated version of the proposal to introduce corrective steering and B1 level ACSF provisions into UN R79 as agreed by the GRRF during its September 2016 session.

During its 8th meeting (Stockholm), the ACSF informal group decided that all functions to “assist the avoidance of a collision” would be excluded from the definition of “Corrective Steering Function”. ACSF decided to establish a new definition for “Emergency Steering Functions (ESF)” with specific requirements. The intention was to draft this definition during a second phase effort through which requirements for ACSF categories beyond B1 will be established. In order to enable the approval of ESF systems critical to road safety, OICA has prepared this proposal for an ESF definition and simple requirements based upon provisions for Complex Electronics (CEL) in Annex 6. A footnote has also been added to define the specific conditions for the approval of these systems, until uniform provisions are defined by the ACSF informal group.

In order to enhance the safety of B1 corrective steering functions (by reducing the probability of driver over-reliance and misunderstanding of system limitations), OICA proposes a minimum value of 0.8 m/s² for maximum lateral acceleration in place of the draft 1 m/s² for the speed range between 100-130 km/h for M1 and N1 vehicles. OICA believes that this would ensure that a system is capable under all conditions of generating the required minimum acceleration.

Proposed changes to the draft amendments to UN R79 concerning ACSF B1 systems. The proposed new wording for the triggering condition of the warning (“any front tyre of the vehicle is crossing the lane marking”) is technically more specific than the original (“the vehicle is going to leave the lane”). The use of a haptic signal as an alternative to the acoustic signal achieves the goal pursued by Germany. This proposal is consistent with the warning strategy of AEBS specified in UN R131. In the case of M2 M3 N2 N3 vehicle categories, it is proposed to take as a base the requirements specified in UN R130 LDWS regulation, which achieves the goal.

Explanatory presentation on document GRRF-82-08.

Proposal to amend the annex on complex electronic systems, in particular, to require auditing of the methodologies used to ensure system safety at both concept and system level. Concept level specifically requires consideration of interaction with other vehicle systems.

Proposal of updated objectives and timelines for the work of the ACSF informal group.

Updated terms of reference for the automated steering informal group as agreed during the September 2016 GRRF session.

Updated proposal to correct paragraph number references due to the recent renumbering of definitions based on document GRRF/2016/33.

Revised proposal to correct the paragraph numbering pursuant to the adoption of Supplement 21 and delete a redundant note at the end of paragraph 6.1.5.3.3, based on document GRRF/2016/35.

Revised proposal, based on document GRRF/2016/38, to:
a) Align definitions and contents of paragraphs with the other tyre regulations (UN R30, R54, R117, etc.);
b) Include a definition of “Manufacturer” extracted from the resolution “R.E.3”;
c) Adopt a common definition and use of the terms “Manufacturer’s name”," Brand name", “Trademark”, “Trade description” and “Commercial name” and their links;
d) Clarify which markings shall be moulded on both sidewalls of the tyre; and those which shall be moulded on one sidewall only;
e) Add information in the certificate to clarify the relationship with the certified products;
f) Align definitions with Regulation EU 167/2013 which defines vehicles in category S as “interchangeable towed equipment” and includes tread patterns for ‘implement traction tyres’ that consist of blocks rather than lugs or cleats;
g) Eliminate redundant marking requirements;
h) Clarify the inflation pressure to be used for measurements and tests and related tyre markings;
i) Align the current rules for calculating the dimensional limits in accordance with ISO, all major tyre standards, and as proposed for UN R30, R54, and R75.

Revised proposal, based on document GRRF/2016/38 and revising GRRF-82-24, to:
a) Align definitions and contents of paragraphs with the other tyre regulations (UN R30, R54, R117, etc.);
b) Include a definition of “Manufacturer” extracted from the resolution “R.E.3”;
c) Adopt a common definition and use of the terms “Manufacturer’s name”," Brand name", “Trademark”, “Trade description” and “Commercial name” and their links;
d) Clarify which markings shall be moulded on both sidewalls of the tyre; and those which shall be moulded on one sidewall only;
e) Add information in the certificate to clarify the relationship with the certified products;
f) Align definitions with Regulation EU 167/2013 which defines vehicles in category S as “interchangeable towed equipment” and includes tread patterns for ‘implement traction tyres’ that consist of blocks rather than lugs or cleats;
g) Eliminate redundant marking requirements;
h) Clarify the inflation pressure to be used for measurements and tests and related tyre markings;
i) Align the current rules for calculating the dimensional limits in accordance with ISO, all major tyre standards, and as proposed for UN R30, R54, and R75.

Proposal to amend the consolidated draft amendment to UN R79 to introduce technical requirements for Corrective Steering Functions and Level B1 ACSF under UN R79 (document GRRF/2016/45).

Corrections to the proposal by the informal working group on Regulation No. 55 concerning vehicle combination applications to introduce:
(a) An amendment for the separation of requirement calculation procedures from the procedure of setting and certifying performance values.
(b) An amendment that adds procedures for requirement calculation for vehicle combinations that have hitherto not been accounted for in the Regulation.

Revised proposal superseding document GRRF/2016/31. Proposals in GRRF/2016/31 to regulate the articulation angles of couplings as installed have been removed. The informal group on UN R55 could not reach agreement on this subject. As a result, this revised proposal by the informal working group on Regulation No. 55:
a) Corrects an error in Annex 5, figures 12 and 17; and
b) Introduces an amendment concerning identification of worst cases for design assessment.

Presentation concerning the inability to test O₃ recreation vehicle trailers equipped with electric braking systems for type approval certification under UN R13.

Amendment to the proposal from the UN R55 informal group to allow the fitment of a secondary coupling and/or a brake away cable for un-braked O1 trailers or inertia braked trailers up to 3.5t which are equipped with class B coupling heads and class S drawbar eyes (38 mm, 40 mm, and others) and for the related use of integrated towing brackets.

Presentation on trial runs of the proposed test procedures for evaluating automated steering systems under UN R79.

Overview of special interest group discussions on replacement brake discs and drums, as well as on replacement brake pads and calipers (especially remanufactured).

The proposal is aimed at ensuring that the English and Russian texts are equivalent. In the English text, which is the original, in paragraph 2.2.27 of Annex 12 the word “travel” is used. The corresponding word in Russian language should be “ход”. The original text was mistranslated into Russian.

Proposal to clarify paragraph 8.1.2. The paragraph aimed to verify that the compensator can accept a difference of the travel when one brake operates in forward direction and the other in rearward direction with a margin of twenty per cent.

UN R13 allows for the exemption of certain vehicles from the requirement for electronic stability controls. This proposal seeks to clarify the scope of the exemptions to include any special purpose vehicle with a non-standard chassis. The change was prompted by a modified vehicle where use of ESC was not feasible, but where the current UN R13 language left doubt as to whether the ESC requirement was applicable. This revised proposal takes into account comments received during the February 2016 GRRF session.

Proposal from the UN R55 informal group to allow the fitment of a secondary coupling and/or a brake away cable for un-braked O1 trailers or inertia braked trailers up to 3.5t which are equipped with class B coupling heads and class S drawbar eyes (38 mm, 40 mm, and others) and for the related use of integrated towing brackets.

Proposal by the informal working group on Regulation No. 55 concerning vehicle combination applications to introduce:
(a) An amendment for the separation of requirement calculation procedures from the procedure of setting and certifying performance values.
(b) An amendment that adds procedures for requirement calculation for vehicle combinations that have hitherto not been accounted for in the Regulation.

Proposal by the informal working group on Regulation No. 55 and introduces a procedure to identify allowable combinations of performance values DC and V for drawbar coupling equipment.

Proposal by the informal working group on Regulation No. 55 to introduce:
a) Correction of an error in Annex 5, figures 12 and 17;
b) An amendment that concerns identification of worst cases for design assessment;
c) Clarifications on minimum articulation angles.

Proposal to restrict component type-approval for mechanical coupling devices dedicated to category M1 vehicles to use only on such M1 vehicles as are designed to tow trailers.

Proposal to correct paragraph number references due to the recent renumbering of definitions.

Proposal to allow for the case of a tyre designed for a special application that also fulfills the requirements for a snow tyre such that the tyre, at the manufacturers initiative, shall be marked with the inscription M+S or M.S or M&S while remaining in the category of use “special use tyre”. The proposal further adds “test laboratories” in the headline of paragraph 12. as quoted in subparagraph 12.1. in document WP.29/2016/51 as adopted during the June WP.29 session with the aim of harmonizing the tyre regulations.

Correction of the paragraph numbering pursuant to the adoption of Supplement 21 and deletion of a redundant note at the end of paragraph 6.1.5.3.3.

Proposal to clarify the minimum heights for markings for tyres with nominal rim diameter codes ≥ 20 and nominal section width ≤ 235 and for tyres with nominal rim diameter codes < 20 and nominal section width > 235. In addition, the proposal corrects the use of uppercase letters to denote dimensions where lowercase letters had been inserted.

Proposal to:
a) Align some definitions and some contents of paragraphs with the other tyre regulations (Regulations Nos. 30, 54, 117, etc.);
b) Include a definition of “manufacturer” extracted from the resolution “R.E.3”;
c) Adopt a common definition and use of the terms “Manufacturer’s name”," Brand
name", “Trademark”, “Trade description” and “Commercial name” and their links;
d) Clarify the designation of the categories of use;
e) Remove the word “normal” in the definition of “Reinforced” tyre to avoid confusion
with the category of use “normal”;
f) Add some information in the certificate to the attention of the Type Approval
Authorities for making easier the relationship between this one and the products.

Proposal to:
a) Align definitions and contents of paragraphs with the other tyre regulations (UN R30, R54, R117, etc.);
b) Include a definition of “Manufacturer” extracted from the resolution “R.E.3”;
c) Adopt a common definition and use of the terms “Manufacturer’s name”," Brand name", “Trademark”, “Trade description” and “Commercial name” and their links;
d) Clarify which markings shall be moulded on both sidewalls of the tyre; and those which shall be moulded on one sidewall only;
e) Add information in the certificate to clarify the relationship with the certified products;
f) Align definitions with Regulation EU 167/2013 which defines vehicles in category S as “interchangeable towed equipment” and includes tread patterns for ‘implement traction tyres’ that consist of blocks rather than lugs or cleats;
g) Eliminate redundant marking requirements;
h) Clarify the inflation pressure to be used for measurements and tests and related tyre markings;
i) Align the current rules for calculating the dimensional limits in accordance with ISO, all major tyre standards, and as proposed for UN R30, R54, and R75.