UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to improve the repeatability of tests and verifications, including:

• Insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that manufacturers provide information on the method by which the initiation signal of any system intervention required by the Regulation can be objectively identified and retrieved, including specific flags, status bits, or event codes on in-vehicle networks, and that manufacturers provide clear instructions and all necessary tools for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal, with the procedure for identifying the initiation of the system intervention and corresponding data appended to the test report.

Proposal to clarify para. 5.6.4.6.8.1.(e) of UN R79 to address how different direction indicator lever mechanisms comply with manual deactivation requirements for automated lane change systems. The regulation currently does not distinguish between full-turn methods, where the lever returns to neutral position, and half-turn methods, where activation of the opposite direction indicator or stalk activation in the opposite direction constitutes deactivation. Two options are presented: either add separate provisions for each method, or note that activation of opposite direction indicator lamps may constitute deactivation of the initiating signal.

Proposal to insert a new para. 5.1.12. requiring that whenever an assessment of compliance to a requirement of this regulation is unachievable without reading internal signal(s) of an electronic system, the vehicle manufacturer shall provide instructions and tools to read signals on in-vehicle networks for the technical service to extract and interpret the signal(s), with this information appended to the test report.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions from the requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided that the functions are intended solely to assist the driver in regaining vehicle motion in limited traction conditions in off-road environments up to 5 km/h (+1 km/h tolerance), are activated following a deliberate action by the driver with the driver in the driver’s seat and safety belt fastened, and allow the driver to override or deactivate the function at any time, with the manufacturer to describe system behaviour when operating conditions are no longer met.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to extend the maximum remote control parking (RCP) operating range to a maximum of 15 m if, prior to the operation, a visual message informing the operator of their responsibility is presented to and acknowledged by the operator. The justification notes that RCP systems with ranges exceeding 6 m are already offered in large markets such as Canada and the United States of America, and that such extended-range systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal to amend GRVA/2026/34 proposing to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to modify the specified maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 10 m, with provision to extend to a maximum of 15 m if direct line of sight between the remote-control device and the vehicle is ensured. The justification notes that RCP systems with extended ranges are already offered in large markets without regulatory limits, that radio wave-based ranging requires safety margins reducing effective usable range, and that increased range would reduce blind areas behind vehicles and allow drivers to better monitor surroundings while manoeuvring, reducing risks and increasing overall safety.