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.

Proposal to amend Annex 5 with regard to Improved Flexion (IF) tyres and Very high Flexion (VF) tyres.

Proposal to amend Annex 7 (based on the documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/39 and GRRF-80-16 from Slovakia) and Annex 10. This proposal would:

1. change measurement units for drum speed in Annex 7 from min-1 to km.h-1 to align the requirements with other tyre regulations;
2. correct the wording from “speed category symbol” to “speed symbol” (as defined in para. 2.33);
3. correct the wording from “load capacity index” to “load index” (as defined in para. 2.32);
4. correct a reference to para. 3.2.13. of the Regulation in Annex 7, Appendix 1;
5. correct a boundary value of load index in Annex 7, Appendix 1;
6. delete in paragraph 2.1 in Annex 7, the possibility to use the 2.0 m drum diameter to perform the endurance test.

In Annex 10, the proposal aligns the text with Annex 7 of UN R117, 02 series of amendments, Supplement 5.

Proposal to clarify provisions for 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. The proposal also corrects tables and figures for the use of lowercase letter to denote tyre dimension specifications.

Proposal to correct the text where the word “tyres” was inadvertently omitted from Paragraph 2.1.

Proposal for minor editorial corrections to the text.

Proposal for a minor editorial correction to the text. Paragraph 4.8. should read “Annex 2 to this Regulation gives an example of approval marks.” The current text refers to “examples” where there is only one provided.

Proposal to introduce technical requirements for Corrective Steering Functions (lane departure prevention, lane-keeping assistance (LKAS), steering angle correction, etc.) as defined in the regulation. The proposal offers four options to ensure appropriate approvals of LKAS and related CSF systems until such time as more precise requirements can be defined:

• Option 1 and option 2: Not to grant any type approvals for corrective steering functions until detailed technical requirements for CSF are incorporated into this Regulation.
• Option 3: Amend the definition of CSF as proposed in this document.
• Option 4: Amend the definition of corrective steering functions and to include technical requirements for LKAS as an ASCF of Category B1 as proposed in this document.

Regulation No. 106 contains standardized tyre sizes which often need to be updated in line with technical progress. In order to accelerate the update process of the Regulation and limit the number of amendments, it is proposed to establish a new Resolution on standardized sizes and to refer to this Resolution in Annex 5.

Proposal to remove the technical content in Annex 5. This content would be incorporated into a new Resolution on Tyre Sizes as proposed in document GRRF/2016/46.

Explanation of proposals from the informal working group for corrections, restructuring, and amendments to UN R55.

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.

Request for authorization to develop amendments to GTR No. 3 in order to:

1. align GTR 3 with Supplement 3 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 78 adopted at June 169/WP.29 (electromagnetic compatibility requirements for ABS, application of ABS provisions to three-wheelers, installation of emergency stop signal) and
2. clarify the possibility to install a means to disable the ABS function (‘ABS Switch’) under certain conditions.

Comments concerning failure modes in the event of a separation of the main coupling between a vehicle and a towed trailer in order to enable the trailer to be guided and/or stopped automatically.

Proposal for amendments to the draft 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 78. The draft 04 series proposes to align UN R78 with the provisions for anti-lock braking systems used in other regulations, including specific exemptions for certain off-road vehicles as incorporated in UN Regulation No. 13. The proposal clarifies the limits on the use of any temporary ABS deactivation switch and prohibition against permanent disabling of ABS if fitted on a motorcycle.

FIA comments on data privacy provisions under UN Regulations including remarks concerning the work of the informal groups on automated driving (ITS/AD), automatic emergency calls systems (AECS), and automatically commanded steering functions (ACSF). The presentation covers issues such as protection of personal data, aggregation of data to protect individual identities, protection against unauthorized access (hacking), and prohibition against data use for purposes other than those specifically intended by a regulation. FIA proposes the deletion of data storage (DSSA) provisions under the draft texts for ACSF.

Proposal to amend “option 4” as presented in the proposal introduce technical requirements for Corrective Steering Functions under UN R79 (document GRRF/2016/45). Option 4 for consideration by GRRF 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.

Proposal of amendments to the draft proposal concerning technical requirements for automated steering functions operating at speeds up to 10 km/h and for corrective steering functions under UN R79.

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 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 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 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.