Japan introduced document LKAS-01-05 as a skeleton paper providing the basic requirements and their justifications for a legal document concerning LKAS.

After revision of document LKAS-01-05 by the group, the Chair clarified that his intention was to consider the option of no regulation, and taking account of the LKAS, perhaps per adaptation of UN R79. The Chair stated that the exercise of assessing document LKAS-01-05 with regard to R79 coverage would permit the group to have a view on whether the discussions should take the direction of guidelines, new regulation, amendments to R79 or other. Should the group
decide not to stop discussions, then some further investigation would be needed.

The Netherlands found guidelines inappropriate because ISO standards can already be considered as guidelines. The delegate from the Netherlands added that guidelines would not bring safety benefits, and UNECE would not be the good platform for this type of document. He said that should Contracting Parties want to mandate a system which brings safety improvement, then a regulation would be the right choice. But as long as LKAS is considered a comfort system, then UN R79 adaptation would solve all the issues. The European Commission fully supported the Netherlands.

The Republic of Korea also found that UN R79, perhaps adapted with a new annex dedicated to LKAS, could provide an appropriate basis for addressing LKAS, in particular Annex 6 which provides a concept wide enough for integrating the safety
aspects of a new technology.

Japan found that amendments to UN R79 would be better than guidelines.

Germany mostly agreed with the Netherlands that a new regulation is not a good solution for the
moment. The delegate from Germany added that Germany currently does not want to judge about guidelines vs amendment to UN R79 as the right way to proceed and found that further discussions seem to be needed.

Sweden found amendments to UN R79 as the best way forward.

OICA found necessary that some further investigation is conducted on this. Regarding amending UN R79, it could depend on the added requirements. OICA committed to review all this at the forthcoming GERF meeting.

The Chair concluded that it is too early to consider performance limits. With regard to comfort vs safety, the Chair found that LKAS could be regarded as both, depending on the situation.

Japan presented document LKAS-01-05. The expert from J clarified that in general, the option numbering is from the most severe (1) to the most relax (4).

The Chair found it necessary to study in depth the documents because it shows that, even if the LKAS is covered by different texts, their interpretation is such that the level of performance can differ very much (even be opposite).

Japan was also keen to discuss the document in depth, then decide the way to proceed.

It was suggested to add a column in document LKAS-01-05 showing how UN R79 addresses each item. Conclusion: the group agreed to add a column, for assessing whether the items are covered by R79. The aim was that, at the end of the exercise, the group should decide the way to proceed, i.e. amending UN R79, elaborate new guidelines, or any other option. The Secretariat then created the document LKAS-01-05-Rev.1