3.1 Proposal for Class q and r (CUNA Couplings) (Doc. TFAC-03-04)

The slightly modified proposal was accepted. Modifications are indicated in red in document TFAC 03-04 Rev 1. The allocation tractor coupling/trailer coupling should be inserted in Annex 2.

There is a common agreement to reduce the number of different coupling devices at a later stage.

3.2 Proposal for Class I (Documents TFAC-03-08 and TFAC-03-07)

The slightly modified proposal was accepted. Modifications are indicated in red in document TFAC-03-08 Rev 1.

3.3 Proposal to transfer Class j to Class a and Class k to Class b (Document TFAC-03-10)

The proposal was accepted.

3.4 Proposal for the definition of tractor drawbars and their hitch rings in an own Class (Documents TFAC-03-08 and TFAC-03-07)

See 3.2. above.

3.5 Comparison of proposals Va and V (Documents TFAC-02-08 and TFAC-03-06)

The majority of the participants are in favor to keep the current formulas for D and Dc values.

It was agreed to establish a small group (Mr. Inverardi, Mr. Afflerbach, Mr. Conrads, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Stokreff) to make a common proposal based on document TFAC-03-06 for the next meeting.

3.6 Vehicle approval according to Chapter 5 possible?

A vehicle approval for category T vehicle is possible. As R and S categories are not yet defined in R.E.3, vehicle approvals are currently not possible. As soon as those definitions are adopted, the scope of R 55 shall be extended accordingly. Mr Schauer will add the requirement for the mounting height of couplings on tractors to chapter 5 (already done, see TFAC-03-14).

3.7 IT-Proposals for Annex 4 (Document TFAC-03-05)

The slightly modified proposal was accepted. Modifications are indicated in red in document TFAC-03-05/Rev 1.

3.8 Proposal for Chapter 6 of Annex 5 (Document TFAC-03-10)

The slightly modified proposal was accepted. Modifications are indicated in red in document TFAC-03-10/Rev1. Mr Westphäling will review 6.1 and will make a proposal for the next meeting.

3.9 Annex 6, Chapter 3.6.2 proposals for amendment necessary?

This topic will be addressed in the small group (see 3.5 above).

3.10 arguments to keep current EU legislation (static test) (Document TFAC-03-03)

The group could not reach a consensus on this topic. It was voted on the following four options:

1. Static test optional only for Classes i and q and a maximum speed not exceeding
   40 km/h: 1 in favor.
2. No inclusion of the static test but allow to grant approvals based on static tests in a transitional period up to 01.01.20XY (tbd): 2 in favor.
3. Static test optional for all Classes and a maximum speed not exceeding 40 km/h: 10 in favor.
4. Static test optional only for “simple constructions” but without speed limit: 5 in favor.

It was agreed to report this result in GRRF and leave the decision up to GRRF.