This document presents changes agreed by an informal group of experts reviewing the content of Annex 6 since the 84th session of GRRF. The proposal aims to clarify the purpose of Annex 6 and ensure its suitability when used in the assessment of steering systems featuring advances in automation (i.e., ACSF).

8. The expert from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland introduced GRRF-85-01-Rev.1 proposing amendments to Annex 6. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-85-05 with amendments to GRRF-85-01-Rev.1.

9. GRRF reviewed both documents in detail and agreed on a number of amendments as reproduced in GRRF-85-01-Rev.2.

8. The expert from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland introduced GRRF-85-01-Rev.1 proposing amendments to Annex 6. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-85-05 with amendments to GRRF-85-01-Rev.1.

9. GRRF reviewed both documents in detail and agreed on a number of amendments as reproduced in GRRF-85-01-Rev.2.

10. The expert from OICA presented (GRRF-85-08) a proposal for provisions applicable to ESF (GRRF-85-03).

11. GRRF reviewed the latter document in detail and agreed to insert the definition of ESF contained in GRRF-85-02.

12. GRRF adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/27 with the amendments endorsed during this session concerning ACSF of Category C, ESF and Annex 6, as reproduced in Annex II to the session report and requested the secretariat to submit it as draft 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 to World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration and vote at their March 2018 sessions.

Updated text of provisions from the informal group on ACSF for the approval of emergency steering functions and driver-initiated automated lane changing systems.

6. The expert from Germany presented (GRRF-85-06 and GRRF-85-07) the outcome of the IWG on the draft provisions applicable for ACSF of Category C (GRRF-85-02). He explained that the IWG resolved the remaining issue on the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood. He added that, for this purpose, continuous lateral movement and lane centering provisions were added. He continued his presentation by reporting on the deliberation of the IWG on the definition of the target vehicle used for the sensor performance test proposed in Annex 8, para. 3.5.5. He added that the worst case scenario would be a sensor performance test with a motorcycle of category L₃ target coming from the rear of the subject vehicle. He noted that no standard defining a test target L₃ vehicle would exist to date and that therefore the IWG agreed on the compromise defined in Annex 8, para. 3.5.5.1. He noted that the definition of the target vehicle should be reviewed at a later stage as some experts had expressed their doubts that a L₃ vehicle without fairing and windshield would indeed be the worst case scenario for this sensor performance test. He concluded his presentation with the description of the type approval tests requirements to be included in Annex 8. GRRF agreed that using a motorcycle without fairing and windshield would be appropriate until such times that a uniform target would be agreed.

7. GRRF reviewed in detail GRRF-85-02 and agreed on a number of amendments as reproduced in GRRF-85-02-Rev.1.

10. The expert from OICA presented (GRRF-85-08) a proposal for provisions applicable to ESF (GRRF-85-03).

11. GRRF reviewed the latter document in detail and agreed to insert the definition of ESF contained in GRRF-85-02.

Proposal for the 03 series of amendments as approved by GRRF.

7. GRRF reviewed in detail GRRF-85-02 and agreed on a number of amendments as reproduced in GRRF-85-02-Rev.1.

Proposal of provisions for the approval of emergency steering functions under Regulation No. 79.

10. The expert from OICA presented (GRRF-85-08) a proposal for provisions applicable to ESF (GRRF-85-03).

11. GRRF reviewed the latter document in detail and agreed to insert the definition of ESF contained in GRRF-85-02.

Proposal to cease approvals under the 02 series of amendments from September 2020 in order to allow manufacturers adequate time to adapt to the new requirements;

• ESF, ACSF C and unexpectedly ACSF B1 (despite originally assumed to be compatible with ACSF C new requirements),
• new CEL assessment (documentation, tests…) whose scope is also extended to all non-complex electronic systems under series 03.

Regarding the application to “All Types” (e.g. for new registration), industry proposes to leave unchanged the existing vehicles on the market which are approved on the base of national of regional exemptions by Contracting Parties signatories of the UN R79 regulation, given the heavy technical impacts on ACSF C (sensor range…) which are indirectly affecting ACSF B1 systems that were initially assumed to be compatible with cat. C (e.g. 3s hands-off detection instead of 15s, lane centering prior to the lateral movement towards the marking etc.), and the add-on of requirements restricting design possibilities without clear safety benefits (e.g. the use of direction indicators to suppress the procedure).

13. GRRF noted the necessity to further develop Transitional Provisions applicable to the draft 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 (see para.12 above). GRRF reviewed the proposal tabled by the expert from OICA (GRRF-85-04), agreed on the necessity of transitional provisions (GRRF-85-04-Rev.1) and requested the Chair and the Secretary to further develop the Transitional Provisions accordingly, also taking into consideration the newly adopted Transitional Provisions applicable to the 02 series of amendments.

Transitional provisions for the implementation of requirements for ACSF Cat. C (driver-initiated automated lane-changing systems) and Emergency Steering Functions (ESF) as approved by the GRRF during its 85th session.

13. GRRF noted the necessity to further develop Transitional Provisions applicable to the draft 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 (see para.12 above). GRRF reviewed the proposal tabled by the expert from OICA (GRRF-85-04), agreed on the necessity of transitional provisions (GRRF-85-04-Rev.1) and requested the Chair and the Secretary to further develop the Transitional Provisions accordingly, also taking into consideration the newly adopted Transitional Provisions applicable to the 02 series of amendments.

Japan comments on the changes agreed by the informal group of experts which reviewed the content of Annex 6 and proposed (via document GRRF-85-1/Rev.1) to clarify the purpose of Annex 6 and ensure its suitability when used in the assessment of steering systems featuring advances in automation (i.e., ACSF). The proposal

1. corrects an editorial error by inserting a missing clause in paragraph 1, and
2. deletes the phrase “at least 10%” from paragraph 4.1.1. which changes the current meaning of text with regard to assessment of “the System”
   • Japanese technical services already verify each declared function by the manufacturer under the paragraph,
   • The wording “at least 10%” may result in a decrease in the number of tests where Japan believes number of tests should be decided by the Technical service considering which tests should apply.

8. The expert from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland introduced GRRF-85-01-Rev.1 proposing amendments to Annex 6. The expert from Japan introduced GRRF-85-05 with amendments to GRRF-85-01-Rev.1.

9. GRRF reviewed both documents in detail and agreed on a number of amendments as reproduced in GRRF-85-01-Rev.2.

6. The expert from Germany presented (GRRF-85-06 and GRRF-85-07) the outcome of the IWG on the draft provisions applicable for ACSF of Category C (GRRF-85-02). He explained that the IWG resolved the remaining issue on the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood. He added that, for this purpose, continuous lateral movement and lane centering provisions were added. He continued his presentation by reporting on the deliberation of the IWG on the definition of the target vehicle used for the sensor performance test proposed in Annex 8, para. 3.5.5. He added that the worst case scenario would be a sensor performance test with a motorcycle of category L₃ target coming from the rear of the subject vehicle. He noted that no standard defining a test target L₃ vehicle would exist to date and that therefore the IWG agreed on the compromise defined in Annex 8, para. 3.5.5.1. He noted that the definition of the target vehicle should be reviewed at a later stage as some experts had expressed their doubts that a L₃ vehicle without fairing and windshield would indeed be the worst case scenario for this sensor performance test. He concluded his presentation with the description of the type approval tests requirements to be included in Annex 8. GRRF agreed that using a motorcycle without fairing and windshield would be appropriate until such times that a uniform target would be agreed.

mp4 format video from the presentation on the proposal for the 03 series of amendments.

6. The expert from Germany presented (GRRF-85-06 and GRRF-85-07) the outcome of the IWG on the draft provisions applicable for ACSF of Category C (GRRF-85-02). He explained that the IWG resolved the remaining issue on the definition of the point at which, following the beginning of the Lane Change Procedure, the driver’s reaction should be understood. He added that, for this purpose, continuous lateral movement and lane centering provisions were added. He continued his presentation by reporting on the deliberation of the IWG on the definition of the target vehicle used for the sensor performance test proposed in Annex 8, para. 3.5.5. He added that the worst case scenario would be a sensor performance test with a motorcycle of category L₃ target coming from the rear of the subject vehicle. He noted that no standard defining a test target L₃ vehicle would exist to date and that therefore the IWG agreed on the compromise defined in Annex 8, para. 3.5.5.1. He noted that the definition of the target vehicle should be reviewed at a later stage as some experts had expressed their doubts that a L₃ vehicle without fairing and windshield would indeed be the worst case scenario for this sensor performance test. He concluded his presentation with the description of the type approval tests requirements to be included in Annex 8. GRRF agreed that using a motorcycle without fairing and windshield would be appropriate until such times that a uniform target would be agreed.

Presentation concerning the introduction of provisions for emergency steering functions.

10. The expert from OICA presented (GRRF-85-08) a proposal for provisions applicable to ESF (GRRF-85-03).

11. GRRF reviewed the latter document in detail and agreed to insert the definition of ESF contained in GRRF-85-02.

Proposal to introduce provisions for driver-initiated automated lane-change systems (Category C ASCF) and for automated emergency steering functions (ESF).

5. The Chair of GRRF recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/27 proposing amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 with provisions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) of Category C, Emergency Steering Function (ESF) and clarifications to Annex 6. He mentioned that the Informal Working Group (IWG) on ACSF held two meetings and a webex conference since the September 2017 session of GRRF to review this document.

12. GRRF adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/27 with the amendments endorsed during this session concerning ACSF of Category C, ESF and Annex 6, as reproduced in Annex II to the session report and requested the secretariat to submit it as draft 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 to World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration and vote at their March 2018 sessions.