Report of the expert group on agricultural coupling devices and components on the development of a new UN Regulation.

17. The Chair of the IWG on the Agricultural Coupling Devices and Components reported on the activities of the group (GRRF-86-06) and presented GRRF-86-02, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/4 with a draft Regulation on the Agricultural Coupling. GRRF received information on the texts of para. 4.5.

18. GRRF agreed that the stress weld limit should be qualified as absolute. It adopted the document and requested the secretariat make the necessary change and to submit the proposal as new draft UN Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of mechanical coupling components of combinations of agricultural vehicles to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2018 sessions.

Presentation addressing

• 2 Step Initiation (by two deliberate actions)
• Monitoring to the rear and to the side
• Restriction to a designated infrastructure
• Hands On during lane change manouevre

Presentation of concerns and possible responses through GRB regarding vehicle noise, especially related to system tampering and vehicle modifications.

Proposal to pursue harmonization of reversing alarm requirements through the establishment of a new UN Regulation in order to promote safety and address noise concerns.

3. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea and Turkey outlined the present situation with reversing alarms at the national level, identified the existing problems in this field and proposed solutions (GRB-65-06, GRB-65-07-Rev.1, GRB-65-13, GRB-65-14 and GRB-65-19). The expert from the Netherlands suggested using white noise alarms that, according to him, have advantages over the traditional tonal noise alarms that beep (GRB-65-17).

4. GRB agreed that, rather than amending Regulation No. 28, a new Regulation on reversing alarm should be prepared. GRB noted that the main issues of the future Regulation would be its scope (categories of vehicles), the possible existence of a pause switch and the alarm sound composition (sound levels and frequencies). GRB agreed that there was no need to establish a new informal working group and that the initial drafting would be carried out by a small group (task force) of interested parties. The expert from Germany volunteered to steer the work of the task force with the assistance of OICA. The experts from Japan and Turkey pointed out that, if need be, they could also act as sponsors.

Germany reviews problems with applying UN specifications for the marking of winter tyres, covering disparities in definitions and performance requirements across the tyre regulations (UN R30, R54, R75, R106, R108, R109 and R117). Therefore, Germany proposes that GRRF work to resolve these disparities and offers two possible solutions: 1) Introduce the definition of "Snow tyre for use in severe snow conditions” and the related performance and marking requirements established under UN R109 and R117 into UN R30, R54, R75, R108, and (possibly) R106; 2) Amending UN R117 to extend the scope of its snow performance criteria to additional tyre classes and categories, such as special tyres (POR, MPT), all terrain (AT) tyres, and retreaded tyres for passenger cars.

48. The expert from Germany introduced GRRF-83-05 looking for guidance on the possibility to develop snow tyre provisions for all tyres and vehicles categories as it was already existing for snow tyres of category C1, C2 and C3 for vehicles categories M and N by amending all relevant Regulations or by amending the scope of Regulation No. 117. The expert from Japan and the Russian Federation volunteered to contribute to the work item proposed by Germany. GRRF requested to add an agenda item dedicated to snow tyres on the agenda.

Presentation supporting changes proposed by Germany in document ACSF-06-05.

Presentation on paragraph 5.6.1.4 of the draft amendment to UN R79 intended to enable the approval of automatically controlled steering functions at speeds above 10 km/h. This paragraph concerns transitions between the human driver and the automated steering system.

Presentation proposing a requirement for defensive braking on vehicles equipped with ACSF because automated steering may result in driver inattention and therefore require compensating environment monitoring and automatic braking. This type of “protective braking” is viewed as a different order of braking than AEBS given that the principle involves maintaining of distances and avoiding accidents at speed rather than as an emergency or abrupt braking.

Main content of document from (D):
Purpose of this document is to describe the necessities of the braking system when using the ACSF system.

(OICA): Overriding of the driver should always be possible.
(D): Group should decide this
(Chair): At least brake apply should be always possible
(D): Target is, that a wrong intervention of the driver may not lead to a false reaction of the system
(Chair): Overriding of the system could be “made difficult” for a certain time
(OICA): IS EM1B really necessary, as EM1A and EM2 should be sufficient
(EC): EM1B-Test: Are the systems be able to perform the test without a need to hand over to the driver?
(OICA/CLEPA): Yes
(ROK): Are the three tests because of safety?
(D): Yes, to cover the complete speed range
(J): Is there experience with regard to the EM1A test
(D): Yes, but a test track of ≥ 400m is necessary

Main content of document from (D):
In this document, (D) summarized their expectations about the performance requirements of the ACSF system of detecting other road users around the vehicle when the ACSF-system is active.

(CLEPA): 176m is very challenging for the systems
(D): if necessary, the vehicle speed should be adapted to the sensor performance
(NL): The sensor requirements should be reflected in the text
(OICA): would favor to include the requirements in the test specification
(J): Speed of the vehicle must be considered

Main content of document from (D):
Purpose of this document is to describe a lane change test for ACSF systems

(OICA/CLEPA): Isn’t it better to make a static test, as explained in ACSF-03-05?
(D): The aim was to make the tests as simple as possible, but , a dynamic test is more realistic and so more appropriate.
(J): Isn’t it better to use the “national” max. speed
(D): Vehicles may be also exported to countries, where the speed limit is higher, so the functionality should be tested according with the proposed speed Δ.
(J-Chair): Confirms, also the higher speeds should be tested in Japan.

Homework: OICA to review this document.

Task List:

Presentation on the concept of a minimum risk maneuver boundaries to define acceptable parameters for system-to-driver transition demands and system responses in cases of where the driver does not react.