39. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRRF on its eighty-fourth session at the 173rd session of WP.29 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1135, paras. 39-42) and approved the report. The World Forum also approved the report on its eighty-fifth session based on the oral report of the Chair (paras. 55-58 below).

3. GRRF also adopted the running order for the session as proposed in GRRF-84-01. The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I of this report.

Working draft from the ACSF informal group to enable the approval of driver-initiated automated lane-change systems under UN R79.

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.

Objectives and rules of procedure for the informal group established to expand the scope of UN R131 to include M₁ and N₁ vehicles. The informal group proposal leaves open the option to develop AEBS requirements for these vehicles as a new UN Regulation.

6. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-84-03 with the Terms of Reference for the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) adopted by the members of the IWG, based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/83, Annex II.

7. GRRF supported the proposal and adopted the Terms of Reference proposed for the IWG on AEBS as reproduced in Annex II.

Proposal to clarify the intent and rationale behind the proposal to simplify the verification of sufficient movement on the balancer without having to take measurements underneath the trailer in a potentially unsafe position.

14. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/12 as amended by GRRF-84-04 (Justification), clarifying the verification of the sufficient movement on the balancer without having to take measurements underneath the trailer in a potentially unsecure position. GRRF adopted this proposal.

15. GRRF requested the secretariat to submit the three official documents above as draft Supplement 15 to the 11 series of amendments to Regulation No. 13 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1 at their March 2018 session.

Report of the TyreGTR informal group chair on the group’s 16th session held in Moscow.

25. The expert from the Russian Federation, chairing the IG on Tyre GTR reported (GRRF-84-05) on the work done by the IWG on Tyres on the development of draft Amendment 2 of the GTR No. 16 (Tyres). He informed on the progress made and the challenges, notably harmonization the high speed test and the need for a mandate extension of two years. GRRF supported this request and agreed to seek for AC.3 consent on this matter.

4. The secretariat introduced GRRF-84-06, announcing that the next GRRF session would take place on 11 December 2017 and recalling that the deadline for the submission of official documents would be 19 September 2017.

Highlights of the 171st (March 2017) and 172nd (June 2017) sessions of the World Forum relevant to the work of GRRF.

60. The secretariat introduced GRRF-84-07 reporting on the GRRF relevant highlights of the 171st and 172nd session of WP.29. For more information, please refer to the session report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1129 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1131).

2. GRRF considered the agenda prepared for the eighty-fourth session and adopted it (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/10) with the addition of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/25 under agenda item 7(k). The adopted agenda is reproduced in GRRF-84-08, including all informal documents received until the session’s starting date.

Category G vehicles (defined in the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3)) have specific characteristics that enable them to achieve traction on, and to traverse over, off-road terrain that would defeat and/or damage conventional road vehicles. In some situations, it would be safer for the driver to be able to manoeuvre the vehicle from outside. This proposal seeks to permit remote manoeuvring capability provided that the vehicle is designed to operate in this environment and the off-road location is confirmed throughout the whole period that the function is in use.

51. The expert from UK introduced GRRF-84-09 proposing to include provisions applicable for Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM). GRRF requested the secretariat to distribute this document with an official symbol for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

Proposal to

1. delete paragraph 3.1.15.3 as it is an unnecessary provision under self-certification systems and addresses deceleration measurement criteria referenced elsewhere in the regulation
2. clarify that the ABS tell-tale must be yellow
3. delete the prohibition on defeat devices due to the absence of objective and repeatable procedures for assess conformity necessary under self-certification.

18. The expert from Italy introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/15 with provisions aimed at aligning the text of UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 especially on tri-cycles Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS), Emergency Stop Signal and means to disable the ABS function (‘ABS switch’), prepared in collaboration with the expert from IMMA. The expert from Canada answered to the proposal (GRRF-84-10). The expert from Italy presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/16 with the report on the activities related to the amendment proposal to UN GTR No.3. The expert from India informed GRRF about regulatory activities in his Country on the obligation to install ABS on new motorcycle with an engine capacity of 125 cm3 and more.

19. GRRF recommended the expert from Italy to keep the draft amendment to GTR No. 3 as harmonized as possible with UN Regulation No. 78 especially with regard to the ABS switch to avoid subsequent amendments to UN Regulation No. 78.

20. The expert from Italy agreed to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

Proposal to develop additional provisions under GTR No. 16 to allow for its alignment with Chinese tyre regulations.

26. The expert from China introduced GRRF-84-11 and GRRF-84-12 highlighting the discrepancies between Tyre UN GTR No.16 and China’s tyre regulations. GRRF welcomed both the engagement of China in the work on UN GTR No. 16 and the remarkable amount of work done to identify divergences between the current version of UN GTR No. 16 and China’s tyre regulation.

Marked up version of GTR 16 identifying different requirements between the GTR and China’s tyre regulations.

26. The expert from China introduced GRRF-84-11 and GRRF-84-12 highlighting the discrepancies between Tyre UN GTR No.16 and China’s tyre regulations. GRRF welcomed both the engagement of China in the work on UN GTR No. 16 and the remarkable amount of work done to identify divergences between the current version of UN GTR No. 16 and China’s tyre regulation.

Proposal of amendments to clarify the original text as proposed in GRRF/2017/14.

21. The expert from IMMA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/14 as amended GRRF-84-13 with provisions allowing additional conditions for the activation of the stop lamp. The expert from Canada recommended addressing this question within GTR No. 3. The Chair noted that ETRTO would not be allowed to propose amendments to GTR No. 3 and asked whether a Contracting Party to the 1998 Agreement could sponsor this amendment. GRRF raised the question why the author of the proposal selected provisions from Regulation No. 13 and not from Regulation No. 13-H. The expert from IMMA agreed to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

Information document submitted by the informal group on Complex Electronic Systems concerning work on clarifying Annex 6 of UN R79, especially with regard to the assessment of automated steering systems. A revision to paper, based upon a further meeting of the informal group, will be provided to GRRF-84. Please note that the phrase “Amend paragraph 5.1.10., to read:” should read “Amend paragraph 5.1.11”.

54. The expert from UK introduced GRRF-84-14 proposing amendments to the requirements in Annex 6 (Complex Electric control systems). GRRF reviewed in detail the proposal and requested the secretariat to include the amended proposal in the consolidated document GRRF-84-36 and ECE/TRANS/WP.19/GRRF/2017/27.

Proposal to correct erroneous cross-references in the original proposal GRRF/2017/17.

27. The expert from ETRTO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/17 as amended by GRRF-84-15 with editorial corrections. GRRF adopted the proposal as amended by Annex III as draft Supplement 19 to Regulation No. 30 and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2018 sessions.

Proposal of additional footnotes to clarify terminology differences between the US and Europe to aid in the application of the regulation.

28. The expert from ETRTO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/18 as amended by GRRF-84-16 with editorial correction and a number of imperial tyre sizes updated in Annex 5.

29. GRRF agreed to adopt the proposed amendment to paragraph 3.4. (based on GRRF‑84-34) as reproduced below:

Paragraph 3.4., amend to read:

Proposal for new tables covering shallow-tread drive wheel tyres for agricultural tractors – normal section sizes and for additional specifications for high flotation tyre dimensions.

32. The expert from ETRTO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/18 as complemented by GRRF-84-17 proposing the addition of a number of tyre sizes. The expert from ETRTO volunteered to prepare a revised proposal addressing the comments received for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

Proposal to add a tyre example regarding approval numbering in order to account for requirements under certain tyre regulations where the number of digits of some sections in the approval number may be amended.

57. The secretariat introduced the ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/54, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/55 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/109. The expert from ETRTO introduced GRRF-84-18 on schedule 4 of Revision 3 to the 1958 Agreement. GRRF raised concerns, in particular, on the defined approval number format prescribed in Schedule 4.

Proposal for extend the current mandate of the informal group until September 2018.

52. GRRF reviewed the update proposal for the Terms of Reference of the IWG on ACSF tabled by the expert from Germany (GRRF-84-19). GRRF considered this document bearing in mind WP.29-172-08 under agenda item 8.

53. GRRF agreed to recommend to WP.29 the extension of the Terms of Reference of the IWG on ACSF [as reproduced in Annex VI of the GRRF session report] and to work in parallel on provisions related to ACSF of Category E, SAE Level 3 and 4, taking into account the future recommendations of the IWG on ITS/AD Task Force on the testing of automated/autonomous vehicles.

43. The expert from Germany introduced GRRF-84-20 on the possibility to develop snow tyre provisions for all tyres and vehicles categories as it is already existing for snow tyres of category C1, C2 and C3 for vehicles categories M and N by amending the scope of Regulation No. 117. GRRF discussed the possible options as well as the necessity of the creation of an informal working group to work on this matter. GRRF supported in principle the establishment of an informal working group and invited the expert from Germany and other interested experts to prepare draft terms of reference for the group to be reviewed by GRRF in February 2018.

OICA/CLEPA comments on the proposal to restrict manual deactivation of AEB systems to speeds under 30 km/h, noting cases where, given the current state of the technology, manual deactivation (regardless of speed) is warranted.

8. The expert from Germany presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/24 proposing provisions on automatic reactivation of AEBS. The expert from OICA answered to the proposal (GRRF-84-21). GRRF reacted positively to the proposal and invited the experts from Germany and from OICA to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

This proposal supplements proposal GRRF/2017/23 which amends UN R13, R13H and R140, to allow the use of the ESC tell-tale to indicate the intervention on the steering angle of one or more wheels for the purpose of vehicle stability. The intention allow design options that avoid two optical warning signals (ESC flashing + constant CSF) during an ESC intervention.

48. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/23 as amended by GRRF-84-22 with provisions to be included in UN Regulations Nos. 13, 13-H, 79 and 140 related to the stability control warning activation by Corrective Steering Functions and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions. The proposal received some comments. GRRF amended the proposal as reflected in GRRF-84-39.

49. GRRF agreed with the proposal as amended by Annex V of the GRRF session report and requested the secretariat to submit it [together with GRRF-84-22] as draft supplements to Regulations Nos. 13, 13-H, 79 and 140 to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2018 sessions.

Draft proposal to enable the approval of automated emergency steering systems intended to avoid or mitigate collisions. The proposal based on document ACSF-14-07 submitted by OICA and CLEPA which was discussed during the 14th meeting of the ACSF informal group. The square brackets indicates paragraphs which are still under discussion in the informal group.

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.

Comments submitted to GRRF through the secretariat proposing amendments to the draft text on automated lane-change systems.

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.

Presentation on remanufactured brake calipers as part of the discussion on whether such products should be subject to a new UN Regulation separate from UN R90. CLEPA does not believe these products require a new regulation.

22. The expert from Spain recalled the purpose of the Special Interest Group of Experts on Regulation No. 90 (i) willing to review the application of Regulation No. 90, (ii) willing to consider the necessity of a scope extension and (iii) willing to come up with recommendation on remanufactured brake parts.

23. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRRF-84-25 addressing the question raised at the eighty second session of GRRF on the necessity of potential regulatory activities related to Replacement brake callipers.

24. GRRF agreed with the proposal of the expert from Spain to circulate a questionnaire to the delegates.

Correction of a reference used in the original proposal for a new UN Regulation on agricultural vehicle couplings. In Annex 6, paragraph 1.7., 3.3.6. and 3.7.1.: The Term F_s is not needed and misleading. The vertical component of the test force is named F_v. This term should be used throughout the whole document concerning the vertical component of the test forces.

17. The Chair of the IWG on the Agricultural Coupling Devices and Components reported on the activities of the group (GRRF-84-27) and presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/13 as amended by GRRF-84-26 with a draft regulation on the Agricultural Coupling. GRRF discussed the texts of para. 4.5. contained in square brackets and requested the group to consider working protection laws. The expert from Sweden proposed to clarify the provisions for remote coupling and remote indication. GRRF agreed that the remote indication should be located where the remote operation takes place. The Chair of the IWG volunteered to submit a revised proposal at the February 2018 session of GRRF.

17. The Chair of the IWG on the Agricultural Coupling Devices and Components reported on the activities of the group (GRRF-84-27) and presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/13 as amended by GRRF-84-26 with a draft regulation on the Agricultural Coupling. GRRF discussed the texts of para. 4.5. contained in square brackets and requested the group to consider working protection laws. The expert from Sweden proposed to clarify the provisions for remote coupling and remote indication. GRRF agreed that the remote indication should be located where the remote operation takes place. The Chair of the IWG volunteered to submit a revised proposal at the February 2018 session of GRRF.

Proposal to allow adaptation of speed and distance calculations in accordance with national speed limits since some nations enforce maximum speed limits below the 130 km/h used as the basis for the proposals on automated lane-change systems. Japan expects to refine the proposal in order to address mutual recognition concerns inherent in such recourse to national requirements. Japan further proposes clarification of the approaching vehicle (motorcycle) test target pending development of uniform test target specifications.

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.

Diagram illustrating the phases of a lane-change maneuver as envisioned by the Category C¹ ACSF amendment to UN R79.

Set of diagrams illustrating the phases and timing of the test procedure for an automated lane-change maneuver as envisioned by the draft amendment to introduce Category C¹ ACSF into UN R79. These figures include the vehicle under test and approaching motorcycle speeds and distances under the lane-change phases, including timing and duration of each phase.

47. The Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) and GRRF held a joint session to exchange information on the activities of common interest. The event this time was focused on the topics of “secondary activities” and cybersecurity. The participants agreed that these joint sessions are constructive and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the driver in highly and fully automated vehicles. Both chairs agreed to explore possibilities at ITC session in 2018 for holding additional joint sessions in the future.

Vehicle manufacturer perspectives on the permissibility of non-driving activities by the operator of a highly automated vehicle. This presentation relates to discussions between traffic regulators (represented by UN Working Party 1) and vehicle regulators (represented by UN Working Party 29) on responses under traffic laws and vehicle regulations to the advent of automated driving systems.

47. The Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) and GRRF held a joint session to exchange information on the activities of common interest. The event this time was focused on the topics of “secondary activities” and cybersecurity. The participants agreed that these joint sessions are constructive and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the driver in highly and fully automated vehicles. Both chairs agreed to explore possibilities at ITC session in 2018 for holding additional joint sessions in the future.

OICA presentation on a field study undertaken to collect data on tyre pressures of vehicles in use towards assessing the effectiveness of direct and indirect tyre-pressure monitoring systems on the maintenance of correct inflation levels.

41. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-84-33, presenting the results of a study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems in general and especially indirect and direct systems by comparing the actual tyre inflation pressures with the individual recommended pressures. The expert offered to share the details of the study on request. The expert from ETRTO offered to review the study.

42. No information was presented on existing regulations and laws on the mandatory use of TPMS.

Proposal to correct the paragraph numbering of the original proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 54 contained in document GRRF/2017/18. The introduction of new paragraphs by Supplement 21 and the separation of paragraph 3.1. into subparagraphs 3.1.1. and 3.1.2. result in the proposed paragraph 3.1.12. being renumbered as 3.1.13.

28. The expert from ETRTO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/18 as amended by GRRF-84-16 with editorial correction and a number of imperial tyre sizes updated in Annex 5.

29. GRRF agreed to adopt the proposed amendment to paragraph 3.4. (based on GRRF‑84-34) as reproduced below:

Paragraph 3.4., amend to read:

Proposal as approved by GRRF during its 84th session to correct references to paragraphs in Regulations Nos. 30 and 54 which need updating pursuant to renumbering in the source regulations.

Draft amendment to UN R79, including provisions for emergency steering functions (ESF), Category C[1] ACSF for lane-change maneuvers, and updating of Complex Electronic Systems (CEL) Annex 6 provisions. This document was prepared during the 84th GRRF session for consideration during the special 85th GRRF scheduled to finalize a proposal for automated lane-change systems.

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.

54. The expert from UK introduced GRRF-84-14 proposing amendments to the requirements in Annex 6 (Complex Electric control systems). GRRF reviewed in detail the proposal and requested the secretariat to include the amended proposal in the consolidated document GRRF-84-36 and ECE/TRANS/WP.19/GRRF/2017/27.

Speadsheet tool designed to calculate time and distance requirements based upon speeds of vehicle under test and test target motorcycle under the proposed procedures for evaluating Category C[1] ACSF automated lane-change systems.

Presentation by the WP.1 chairperson of traffic regulator perspectives on automated driving, cybersecurity, and related subjects.

47. The Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) and GRRF held a joint session to exchange information on the activities of common interest. The event this time was focused on the topics of “secondary activities” and cybersecurity. The participants agreed that these joint sessions are constructive and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the driver in highly and fully automated vehicles. Both chairs agreed to explore possibilities at ITC session in 2018 for holding additional joint sessions in the future.

Revised proposal, as approved during the 84th GRRF session, to enable activation of the ESC optical symbol in cases of a corrective steering function intervention when the CSF intervention is activated under the control of an ESC system. The aim is to avoid separate requirements for brake-actuated and steering-actuated vehicle stability functions (VSF) that would lead to two optical warnings where only one is necessary. This would enable use of the ESC intervention tell-tale for CSF steering intervention.

48. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/23 as amended by GRRF-84-22 with provisions to be included in UN Regulations Nos. 13, 13-H, 79 and 140 related to the stability control warning activation by Corrective Steering Functions and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions. The proposal received some comments. GRRF amended the proposal as reflected in GRRF-84-39.

49. GRRF agreed with the proposal as amended by Annex V of the GRRF session report and requested the secretariat to submit it [together with GRRF-84-22] as draft supplements to Regulations Nos. 13, 13-H, 79 and 140 to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2018 sessions.

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.

45. The expert from ETRTO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2016/44 proposing editorial corrections to the Regulations.

46. GRRF agreed with the corrections and requested the secretariat to keep the document on the agenda of the next session.

38. The Chair recalled that GRRF already supported ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2016/44 with editorial corrections and that this document was kept on the agenda, awaiting substantive proposals to be considered at the coming session.

40. GRRF requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2016/44 as well as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/21 amended as draft Supplement 1 to Regulation No. 142, for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1 at their March 2018 sessions.

2. GRRF considered the agenda prepared for the eighty-fourth session and adopted it (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/10) with the addition of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/25 under agenda item 7(k). The adopted agenda is reproduced in GRRF-84-08, including all informal documents received until the session’s starting date.

UN R13 allows for the exemption of certain vehicles from the requirement for electronic stability controls (footnote 12). This proposal (following proposals GRRF/2016/27 as amended by GRRF-82-03 and proposal GRRF-83-31) 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.

13. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/11 with a clarification of Footnote 12. GRRF adopted this proposal.

15. GRRF requested the secretariat to submit the three official documents above as draft Supplement 15 to the 11 series of amendments to Regulation No. 13 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1 at their March 2018 session.

Proposal to simplify the verification of the sufficient movement on the balancer without having to take measurements underneath the trailer in a potentially unsafe position.

14. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/12 as amended by GRRF-84-04 (Justification), clarifying the verification of the sufficient movement on the balancer without having to take measurements underneath the trailer in a potentially unsecure position. GRRF adopted this proposal.

15. GRRF requested the secretariat to submit the three official documents above as draft Supplement 15 to the 11 series of amendments to Regulation No. 13 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1 at their March 2018 session.

Proposal from the informal working group on Agricultural Couplings.

17. The Chair of the IWG on the Agricultural Coupling Devices and Components reported on the activities of the group (GRRF-84-27) and presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/13 as amended by GRRF-84-26 with a draft regulation on the Agricultural Coupling. GRRF discussed the texts of para. 4.5. contained in square brackets and requested the group to consider working protection laws. The expert from Sweden proposed to clarify the provisions for remote coupling and remote indication. GRRF agreed that the remote indication should be located where the remote operation takes place. The Chair of the IWG volunteered to submit a revised proposal at the February 2018 session of GRRF.

Regulation No. 53 currently allows for the activation of the stop lamp by application of the brakes only. As already presented at a session of the Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signalling (GRE) (see ECE/TRANS/WP29/GRE/2015/42), IMMA is proposing to introduce the activation of stop lamps under more conditions than the application of the service brake only, e.g. also by regenerative braking. As noted in the report of seventy-fourth session of GRE, see ECE/TRANS/WP29/GRE/74, para. 30: “the proposal might need to be accompanied by a modification of Regulation No. 78 under GRRF.” Therefore, IMMA has prepared this proposal for Regulation No. 78. A revised corresponding proposal on Regulation No. 53 will also be submitted to the October 2017 session of GRE.

21. The expert from IMMA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/14 as amended GRRF-84-13 with provisions allowing additional conditions for the activation of the stop lamp. The expert from Canada recommended addressing this question within GTR No. 3. The Chair noted that ETRTO would not be allowed to propose amendments to GTR No. 3 and asked whether a Contracting Party to the 1998 Agreement could sponsor this amendment. GRRF raised the question why the author of the proposal selected provisions from Regulation No. 13 and not from Regulation No. 13-H. The expert from IMMA agreed to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

Proposal to align GTR No. 3 with technical progress, addressing among others: electromagnetic compatibility/immunity of ABS-systems, ABS performance requirements for category 3-5 vehicles (three-wheelers), uniform requirements for equipment such Emergency Stop Signal and the means to disable the ABS, if equipped. This amendment aims to harmonize GTR with recent amendments made to UN Regulation No. 78 while addressing its use under self-certification compliance systems.

18. The expert from Italy introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/15 with provisions aimed at aligning the text of UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 especially on tri-cycles Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS), Emergency Stop Signal and means to disable the ABS function (‘ABS switch’), prepared in collaboration with the expert from IMMA. The expert from Canada answered to the proposal (GRRF-84-10). The expert from Italy presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/16 with the report on the activities related to the amendment proposal to UN GTR No.3. The expert from India informed GRRF about regulatory activities in his Country on the obligation to install ABS on new motorcycle with an engine capacity of 125 cm3 and more.

19. GRRF recommended the expert from Italy to keep the draft amendment to GTR No. 3 as harmonized as possible with UN Regulation No. 78 especially with regard to the ABS switch to avoid subsequent amendments to UN Regulation No. 78.

20. The expert from Italy agreed to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

Technical report to accompany the proposal for amendment 3 (concerning mainly ABS issues) to GTR 3.

18. The expert from Italy introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/15 with provisions aimed at aligning the text of UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 especially on tri-cycles Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS), Emergency Stop Signal and means to disable the ABS function (‘ABS switch’), prepared in collaboration with the expert from IMMA. The expert from Canada answered to the proposal (GRRF-84-10). The expert from Italy presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/16 with the report on the activities related to the amendment proposal to UN GTR No.3. The expert from India informed GRRF about regulatory activities in his Country on the obligation to install ABS on new motorcycle with an engine capacity of 125 cm3 and more.

19. GRRF recommended the expert from Italy to keep the draft amendment to GTR No. 3 as harmonized as possible with UN Regulation No. 78 especially with regard to the ABS switch to avoid subsequent amendments to UN Regulation No. 78.

20. The expert from Italy agreed to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

Proposal to update a cross-reference in paragraph 3.4. to read “3.1.2” pursuant to the earlier division of paragraph 3.1 into separate paragraphs 3.1.1. and 3.1.2.

27. The expert from ETRTO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/17 as amended by GRRF-84-15 with editorial corrections. GRRF adopted the proposal as amended by Annex III as draft Supplement 19 to Regulation No. 30 and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2018 sessions.

Proposal to

1. correct the references to paragraph 3.17 in paragraph 3.1.12. to refer to 3.20
2. update a cross-reference in paragraph 3.4 to read “3.1.2.” pursuant to the earlier division of paragraph 3.1 into paragraphs 3.1.1. and 3.1.2. (consistent with UN R30)
3. delete the superfluous reference to paragraph 2.19 in paragraph. 4.1.1. (consistent with UN R30)
4. delete the word “existing” from paras. 6.1.1.2. and 6.1.2.2. (consistent with all the other tyre UN Regulations)
5. amend paragraph 6.1.4.2. to take into account the requirements for size designations in Annex 5
6. add a footnote to Annex 5, Part II, Table B to introduce the appropriate formulae in the Regulation (instead of Annex 5)
7. add a size in Annex 5, Part II, Table C for an old size that does not follow the guidelines/formulae applicable for high flotation tyres.

28. The expert from ETRTO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/18 as amended by GRRF-84-16 with editorial correction and a number of imperial tyre sizes updated in Annex 5.

29. GRRF agreed to adopt the proposed amendment to paragraph 3.4. (based on GRRF‑84-34) as reproduced below:

Paragraph 3.4., amend to read:

Proposal to

1. amend para 6.1.2. to align the wording to the headers in Annex 5 and to correct the reference to the footnote
2. amend para 6.2.1. to restore corrent references after renumbering made during recent Supplements
3. amend Annex 5, Table 5 to add the value for the Overall diameter (D) in column (*) that applies to tyres marked with classification code “I-3”.
4. amend Annex 5, Table 6, Note 1 to clarify use of the ‘IMP’ and ‘IND’ suffixes for agricultural implements and construction vehicles, respectively.
5. add a footnote to Annex 5, Table 7 is the to introduce the appropriate formulae in the Regulation (instead of via Annex 5)
6. correct cross-references in Annex 7 following the introduction of three new paragraphs in Supplement 15
7. amend Annex 7, Part A to conform with Tire and Rim Association (TRA) specifications for code designated diagonal tyres with speed symbol A8.

32. The expert from ETRTO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/18 as complemented by GRRF-84-17 proposing the addition of a number of tyre sizes. The expert from ETRTO volunteered to prepare a revised proposal addressing the comments received for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

In order to have a Regulation on the retreaded tyres with definitions and provisions structured in the same way of those previously introduced in amendments of “new tyres” Regulations, this amendment:

1. indicates that for the purpose of this Regulation “tyres” means “pneumatic tyres” (all text amended accordingly)
2. introduces definitions of:
   • “retreader” copy based on that “manufacturer” in the tyres regulations
   • Brand name", “Trademark”, “Trade description” and “Commercial name” as defined in the tyre regulations
   • Material manufacturer / material supplier
3. takes into account the rounding rules (already approved in the other tyre regulations) for the calculation of width and diameter of the tyres
4. aligns the title and the provisions of the para. 12 related to the names and addresses of Technical Services, Approved Laboratories and administrative Department with their equivalent in the tyres regulations
5. 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
6. introduces:
   • In para. 6.4.4.1., the possibility for the material manufacturer or supplier of the pre-cured tread pattern to provide directly to the Type Approval Authority (or Technical Service) all the documents needed to demonstrate the retreaded tyres produced with this pre-cured tread pattern fulfil the requirements of paragraph 7.2. in order to be classified as a “snow tyre for use in severe snow conditions”
   • In para. 7.1.4.2. a new table of tolerances with the objective to properly take into account the requirements for size designations in Annex 5 in addition to what already expressed. The maximum overall width has been taken from the international Tyre Standard ETRTO and Tire and Rim Association.

33. The expert from France presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/20, aimed at harmonizing the definitions and provisions in Regulation No. 109 with those introduced in Regulations Nos. 30, 54 and 117. Following the intervention of the expert from BIPAVER and the expert from Spain, GRRF agreed that the text proposed in para. 6.4.4. could be clarified. The expert from France volunteered to prepare a revised proposal together with the expert from Spain and from BIPAVER.

Proposal to correct references to paragraphs in Regulations Nos. 30 and 54 which have to be updated pursuant to renumbering in the source regulations.

39. The expert from ETRTO presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/21 proposing corrections to paragraph references due to amendments to Regulation No. 30. GRRF agreed with the proposal as reproduced in Annex IV of the session report.

40. GRRF requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2016/44 as well as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/21 amended as draft Supplement 1 to Regulation No. 142, for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1 at their March 2018 sessions.

Proposal to

1. exempt cases where the driver has temporarily deactivated the speed limiter from the warning requirement for excess speed in in order to reduce driver distraction
2. introduce throttle control via adjustment of the accelerator pedal position
3. to correct an editorial error in paras. 5.2.5.4.2. and 21.2.5.4.2.

61. The export from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/22 with provisions on the warning activation condition in case of the system deactivation by the driver as well as a verification simplification of the throttle control action during testing. The proposal received some comments. The expert from OICA agreed to prepare a revised proposal and additional information for the February 2018.

Revised proposal pursuant to GRRF discussions to enable activation of the ESC optical symbol in cases of a corrective steering function intervention when the CSF intervention is activated under the control of an ESC system. The aim is to avoid separate requirements for brake-actuated and steering-actuated vehicle stability functions (VSF) that would lead to two optical warnings where only one is necessary. This would enable use of the ESC intervention tell-tale for CSF steering intervention.

48. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/23 as amended by GRRF-84-22 with provisions to be included in UN Regulations Nos. 13, 13-H, 79 and 140 related to the stability control warning activation by Corrective Steering Functions and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions. The proposal received some comments. GRRF amended the proposal as reflected in GRRF-84-39.

49. GRRF agreed with the proposal as amended by Annex V of the GRRF session report and requested the secretariat to submit it [together with GRRF-84-22] as draft supplements to Regulations Nos. 13, 13-H, 79 and 140 to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2018 sessions.

Proposal to restrict manual deactivation of AEB systems to speeds under 30 km/h. The proposal would require automatic reactivation of the AEBS when the vehicle speed exceeds 30 km/h.

8. The expert from Germany presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/24 proposing provisions on automatic reactivation of AEBS. The expert from OICA answered to the proposal (GRRF-84-21). GRRF reacted positively to the proposal and invited the experts from Germany and from OICA to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

8. The expert from Germany recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/24 proposing more stringent provisions on automatic reactivation of AEBS. He presented GRRF-86-32 addressing concerns expressed at the September 2017 session on the original proposal. The expert from OICA answered to the proposal (GRRF-86-18). The experts from Nordic Countries supported OICA’s proposal as they are facing user acceptance issues on their market due to false AEBS warnings. GRRF urged the experts from Germany and from OICA to submit a revised proposal for the September 2018 session of GRRF.

Proposal to align the Russian text with the original English text. In the English versions, the title of Annex 1 (Communication concerning the approval or extension or refusal or withdrawal of approval or production definitely discontinued of a retreading production unit pursuant to Regulation No. 108) is essentially identical to that use for Annex 1 of UN R109. Therefore, this proposal amends the title of Annex 1 in the Russian version of UN R108 to coincide with that of the Russian version of Annex 1 in UN R109.

44. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/25 proposing a Corrigendum in Russian only of Regulation No. 108. GRRF adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it as draft Corrigendum to Regulation No. 108 to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2018 session.