Input provided by experts from the GRE TF S/R concerning market surveillance needs for LED replacement light sources. LED replacement light sources enable technology transition from incandescent to LED for vehicles in operation, offering longer lifetime, higher vibration resistance, and lower power consumption. Type-approval framework for LEDr has been established through national approvals and UN R37 approvals. Market surveillance must be improved to ensure only safe, compliant LEDr with type approval are used on public roads. Products without type approval should be offered with correct consumer information and clear restriction for off-road use only. Authorities should remove non-compliant products without type approval if used on public roads.
The Task Force on LED Substitutes and Retrofits reports on establishing a type-approval framework for LED replacements to enable safe technology transition from incandescent to LED lighting for cars-in-use. Step 1 completion has resulted in growing LED replacement category sheets in RE5, with national and UN approvals enabled. Step 2 requires improved market surveillance, as unsafe non-approved products reach roads and some R37-approved products show non-compliance. The task force proposes waiting for front fog cycle completion and applying lessons learnt before enforcing the high beam package, addressing keying deficiencies and inadequate warnings on unapproved products. Market surveillance control points span approval, import, point of sales, PTI, and roadside enforcement.
Agenda for the 22nd session of the ADS informal working group and the 20th GRVA Workshop on ADS, to be held 6-9 October 2026 in Sydney. The session will address adoption of the agenda and previous session report, status of work on GTR 26, UN R185, and the GID, highlights from the 26th GRVA session, Interpretation H4 on electromagnetic compatibility, ADS Phase 2 context and programme, refinement and allocation of Phase 2 work items, integration into 2026-2029 strategy, ADS2 schedule and coordination with other groups, and various change requests to GTR, UNR, and GID.
Document identifies open questions regarding MRC definition, risk assessment, feature deactivation, and post-MRC obligations. Discusses reasons for MRC including collisions, faults, remote termination, ODD exits, and fallback user transition failures. Addresses post-MRC reporting and data recording under DSSAD and ISMR. Examines feature deactivation following MRC and ODD exit scenarios, with three possible solutions for ADSF-2 post-ODD exit recording.
Document presents initial considerations for approving Automated Driving Systems as Separate Technical Units under UN R185. It explains how component and STU approvals divide responsibility between suppliers and vehicle manufacturers, provides examples from other regulations such as lighting, tyres, glazing, and fuel systems, and discusses potential benefits and challenges specific to UN R185 application. Benefits include independent audits and avoiding repeated assessments for different vehicle types. Challenges include difficulty splitting requirements, potential information withholding, and unclear legal responsibility. Proposes flexible approaches with shared Safety Management System requirements and validation in vehicles.
Proposal to clarify that the ADS must respond to user requests to deactivate, require multimodal signals at the start of and during deactivation procedures that continue until completion or termination, require escalation of warnings for system-initiated deactivations if the user is not re-engaging as expected, require gradual reduction of ADS control action during deactivation while maintaining safe vehicle control, allow the ADS to retake full control if the vehicle is not being controlled safely, terminate the deactivation procedure if the user is not suitably engaged and the time available to transition has expired, replace the requirement for contact with the steering wheel with being in a physical position to operate the driving controls, suspend non-driving related activities at the start of the deactivation procedure, and modify the DDT section to require fallback to an MRC instead of a deactivation procedure if there is insufficient time for transition.
Proposal to modify para. 4.2.2.3.8.1 to add a requirement that a user be in a physical position to operate the driving controls, to allow gaze to be directed to multiple driving task-relevant areas rather than a single area, and to add a requirement that the user have demonstrated an appropriate response to transition of control.
Analysis of terminology related to remote support for automated driving systems, grouping terms into four categories: remote termination, remote fleet management, remote assistance, and remote driving. Remote termination disables ADS features until rescinded. Remote fleet management involves observation without performing the dynamic driving task. Remote assistance provides information while ADS continues the dynamic driving task. Remote driving involves a remote user performing the dynamic driving task. Document proposes agreeing on categories, determining definitions, developing a supplement without new requirements, and potentially developing proposals for new requirements covering ADS performance when expected remote support is not provided and further consideration of remote assistance.