Document provided by the GRVA secretariat pursuant to discussions during the 14th session.

Proposal from the GRVA secretariat to update informal group deliverables for 2023-2024 under the Framework Document on Automated Vehicles.

Guidance from GRVA regarding the review of WP.29 regulations for applicability to vehicles equipped with driving automation systems.

Proposal to update the text with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2493-20 standard reference test tyre.

Proposal to increase the potential speed reduction during the collision warning phase and clarify the interpretation of “engine start/run cycle” pursuant to GRVA discussions during the 14th session.

Chair’s notes provided in lieu of the session report.

Proposal to equip four-axle commercial vehicles over 25 tons with vehicle stability function due to their specific use.

Proposal from the EDR/DSSAD informal group to clarify that the occurrence flag to be stored according to paragraph 8.2.1. (n) are linked to the abortion of the lane change manoeuvre rather than to the procedure and to make related clarifications for consistency.

Proposal to clarify the mitigation provision to address threats of spoofing of messages (e.g. 802.11p V2X during platooning, GNSS messages, etc.) by impersonation.

Proposal to introduce amendments to references to ISO/SAE 21434:2021 and ISO PAS 5112 and clarify the interpretation of the requirement in the first line of Table B1 in Annex 5 in UN R155 regarding the authentication of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) messages.

Proposal to align UN R152 with recent amendments to UN R131.

Proposal to align UN R152 with recent amendments to UN R131.

Proposal to align UN R152 with recent amendments to UN R131.

Proposal from the AEBS-HDV informal group to align provisions with corresponding provisions of UN R152 and to clarify the interpretation of the provisions on system robustness when applied to heavy duty vehicles.

Proposal from the AEBS-HDV informal group to increase the potential speed reduction during the collision warning phase.

Proposal for a new UN Regulation for the type approval of automatic emergency braking systems designed to protect vulnerable road users from collisions with heavy vehicles travelling at low speeds. The purpose is to enable a cross-reference in the new UN Regulation on commercial vehicle direct vision to allow for alternative solutions and performance criteria for vehicles equipped with this “urban emergency braking system” capability.

Proposal to ensure the continuity of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method E1337 for the measurement of the Peak Braking Coefficient (PBC) in UN Regulation No. 140, by introducing a reference to the new ASTM Standard Reference Test Tyre F2493.

Proposal to improve UN R78 alignment with UN R13-H provisions concerning the stop lamp signal.

Proposal to require a vehicle stability function on vehicles with four axles commercial vehicles over 25 tons in light of their specific use.

Proposal to introduce provisions for electric regenerative braking systems.

Proposal to introduce new requirements for Complex Electronic Control Systems, in line with the corresponding provisions for passenger cars in UN Regulation No. 13-H

Proposal to introduce an explanation clarifying the possibility for Approval Authorities to recognise Certificates of Compliance for Cyber Security Management Systems (CSMS) issued by the Approval Authority of another Contracting Party.

Proposal to clarify the logical cascade of actions relative to ACSF B1 and ACSF C systems:

When the same means is used by the driver to simultaneously activate the Automatically Commanded Steering Function of Category B1 (ACSF B1) and of category C (ACSF C), both functions switch to standby mode when the vehicle enters an ACSF C eligible road. But if the road is non-eligible to ACSF C, then only the ACSF B1 is activated.

With the current text of the regulation, once the vehicle moves to an ACSF C eligible road, the driver must operate again the means to activate the ACSF C. This second deliberate action is confusing for the driver since it makes the manipulation more complex. The current wording actually discourages most drivers from using this assistance function.

The proposed wording permits the following, logical, cascade of actions:

1. The driver has done a deliberate action to activate ACSF B1 and ACSF C (on a non-eligible road); then
2. He drives into an eligible road, and is clearly informed thereof; then
3. He initiates a lane change procedure by activating e.g. the direction indicator.