The revised text adds ISO 21448, GB/T 34590 Road vehicles-Functional safety, and GB/T 43267 Road vehicles – Safety of the intended functionality to the original reference standards ISO 26262-2/8:2028 and ISO 9001 2015. GB/T 34590 is an important reference for functional safety in China and ISO 21448 and GB/T 43267 are important references for SOTIF.

Proposal to update the explanation on reportable occurrences in Annex 1 (GTR) and 3 (UNR). The revision refines language in the requirement describing the manufacturer’s Safety Management System by removing “expected” to avoid implying obligation and clarifying the link between occurrence monitoring, reporting, analysis, system updates, improvements, and continuous improvement processes.

Proposal to clarify EDR provision in Annex on thresholds. For vehicle categories M₂, M₃, N₂, and N₃, the revised text clarifies that UN Regulation No. 169 does not include a representative delta V threshold. The manufacturer could determine their own delta-V trigger for a critical occurrence, including one based on a subset of EDR triggers, with no obligation to do so.

Proposal to clarify MRC for ADSF-2 in para. 6.1.5.4.1. The revised text corrects the assertion that ADSF-2 features can meet a lower standard for MRC because of fallback user presence in ADSF-1. It clarifies that ADSF-2 features do not include an ADS fallback response requiring a fallback user, though such features may be present in vehicles with human users. Both ADSF-1 and ADSF-2 features must aim to bring the ADS vehicle to a stop in a safe location complying with traffic rules following ODD exit.

Proposal to revise Annex 3, item 2 regarding “ADS failure to achieve a mitigated risk condition when necessary.” The revised text maintains the four bullet points describing when such occurrence is expected to be reported when an MRC is required. The rationale states the regulatory text does not require reporting when an MRC is achieved but in an unsafe stop location, which is not defined in the regulation, nor when an MRC is achieved but conflicts occur during the MRC.

Proposal to insert provisions clarifying that when assessing manufacturer’s testing activities under paras. 8.3.2.1.1, 8.3.2.1.2, 8.3.2.2.2, and 8.3.2.2.3, the approval authority or designated technical service may identify situations or scenarios not included in manufacturer’s test evidence, convey that information to the manufacturer, and request additional test evidence covering those situations or scenarios under agreed upon protocols, with the assessor able to determine the need for variations to tested scenarios or conditions to verify that the manufacturer’s evidence is representative and able to support the safety case, where variations may include adjustments to initial conditions, parameter ranges, or environmental assumptions within the bounds or at the boundaries of the declared ODD but may also consider behaviour at ODD exit or outside the ODD, with such variations expected to be reasonable and compatible with the limitations and abilities of the toolchains and allow comparison with initial results provided by the manufacturer or be assessable against the expected behaviour of the system.

Proposal to amend para. 6.1.2.5 (UNR)/4.1.2.5 (GTR) to clarify that the ADS is always responsible for detecting and responding to priority vehicles, and to delete the examples of non-ADS strategies involving remote intervention.

The change request seeks to amend the road-safety agent Instructions explanation to indicate that examples regarding road safety agent instructions to the ADS vehicle are territory-based. The revision adds the phrase “which depending on the country of operation” to both the list of example instructions and the statement regarding communication methods, clarifying that instructions from road safety agents vary from country to country.

Proposal to delete from the interpretation of failures to meet ADS requirements under para. 6 in Annex 3 the items “Collisions” and “Deviation from Remote Interaction/Intervention as described in the Safety case,” as these are not ADS requirements under para. 6, and collisions are otherwise reportable under the critical occurrences criterion.

This change request proposes to amend the explanatory text for para. 6.1.2.11. (UNR)/4.1.2.11. (GTR) by modifying the phrase “the ADS is always responsible for detecting them” to “the ADS is always responsible for detecting and responding to them” and by deleting two “remote intervention” examples of non-ADS strategies. The rationale states that the ADS is responsible for both detection and response to instructions from road safety agents, and that remote intervention examples should be avoided at the current stage as this topic is already under discussion in Phase Two.

This proposal for ADS Regulation version 2 addresses remote support for automated driving systems. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2026/137 contains 19 instances of remote references across definitions, requirements, and annexes, with only remote termination defined. The proposal requests UNECE GRVA to introduce and define different types of remote support, clarify terminology distinctions between remote monitoring, remote assistance, and remote intervention, and articulate which aspects of remote support the regulation covers. The submitter offers to provide definitions developed with ISO 26361 for consideration at the July 2026 ADS IWG meeting.

Proposal to amend ADS-20-12 (consolidated guidance document). The terms faults, malfunctions, and abnormalities lack distinct meanings in requirement 6.1.4.2. The revised explanation clarifies that “faults, malfunctions, and abnormalities” do not have specific distinct meanings and cover any failure in the ADS’ capability to perform the DDT within the ODD. The three kinds of issues encompassed are warning signals from other systems, faults without warning signals a driver would perceive, and faults within the ADS itself.

This document presents the status of the Guidance and Interpretation document for UN Regulation and GTR ADS, submitted by the OPI on ISMR provisions. It outlines closed topics including clarification on EDR trigger for critical occurrence, confidentiality and publication of information, and guidance on short-term, periodic templates and SPIs. Ongoing work addresses guidance on occurrences with examples of situations and metrics for ADS operation outside its ODD, and guidance for development of scenarios derived from ISMR activities.

Proposal to amend para. 8.1.5.1. (ADS UNR) of the audit of the safety policy guidance: Change “may state” to “states,” “may address” to “addresses,” and “may therefore describe” to “therefore describes.” The rationale states that using “may” in the interpretation paragraphs seems inappropriate for explaining regulatory intention, and present tense better suits these requirements.

Proposal to delete example “collision” under “Failure to meet the ADS requirements under paragraph 6 of this Regulation” in Annex 1 (GTR) and 3 (UNR) List of reportable occurrences by reporting type. The rationale states that not all collisions involving ADS vehicles constitute failure to meet ADS requirements, as some collisions are not caused by ADS or the ADS vehicle, and some collisions are not avoidable, such as suddenly appearing obstructing road users.

The 20th ADS informal working group session and 17th GRVA Workshop on Automated Driving Systems will meet during 27 April-1 May 2026. The session will address proposals to amend the draft Guidance and Interpretation Document covering definitions, performance of the DDT, scope, application for approval, general requirements, interactions between the ADS and its user(s), safety management systems, post-deployment safety, test environments, and certificate of compliance. Additional agenda items include further development of the GTR and UNR and consideration of next steps and future meetings.

Proposal to correct a paragraph number error in para. 5.3.2.15 of the GTR and para. 7.3.2.15 of the UNR by renumbering them as 5.3.2.14 and 7.3.2.14 respectively. The safety concept shall describe the manufacturer’s approach to scenario selection to cover the reasonably foreseeable situations and conditions that the ADS will encounter including how the following aspects are covered, aligned with WP.29/2026/139 (GTR) and WP.29/2026/137 (UNR).

Proposal to amend paragraph 5.3.1.3 (GTR) / 7.3.1.3 (UNR) in Safety Case. The revised text adds “attributes and their respective values” to replace “parameters” in the sentence about links/dependencies between ODD parameters, to ensure consistent terminology and reflect that dependencies exist not only between attributes but also between their values.

Proposal to clarify section 6.1.2.1 regarding crash causation. During approval process, when collisions involve the ADS during the manufacturer’s real-world or confirmatory testing, a root cause analysis is required and an explanation provided. Where the ADS is determined to have played a role in causation, the manufacturer will provide evidence of how related causal factors have been addressed in the final ADS prior to approval. Post-deployment collisions are covered by the ISMR process taking into account the applicable law of the country in which the collision occurred.

Proposal to remove explanation for para. 7.3.1.14. The document suggests differences in how ADSF-1 and ADSF-2 vehicles would handle fallbacks to a mitigated risk conditions that have not been fully explored by the ADS informal group. Rather than speculate, the preparatory discussions among IWG experts resulted in a recommendation to omit this explanation pending the next phase of work on the regulations.

Proposal to amend para. 6.2.2.3.8.1 (b) to change “a driving task relevant area” to “the driving task relevant area” and to expand the accompanying GID text to define the driving task relevant area as consisting of different zones including inside mirror, left outside mirror, right outside mirror, left window, right window, windscreen, and instrument cluster or instrument display, and to clarify that depending on the type of ADS feature and driving situation the user could be suitable to have looked at just one zone or more than one zone.

Proposal to explain para. 8.3.3.1. of the draft UN Regulation. The proposal addresses residual comments concerning wording used to derive scenarios for confirmatory testing by removing terminology not used in the regulation to avoid mis-interpretations. Confirmatory testing scenarios depend on the ADS feature, its ODD, and safety case scenarios. When selecting scenarios, the assessor may consider the ADS system description and its safety concept, and the safety claims presented in the safety case. Confirmatory testing may be undertaken using virtual testing, expected to be within the scope and capability of the toolchain being used, and can be within, at the boundary of or outside the ODD.

Proposal to explain para. 7.3.2.14. The revised text simplifies the definition of ‘sufficient’ to refer to the scope of tests performed on the fall-back response. With respect to scenarios, the manufacturer is encouraged to describe reasoning behind scenario choice and justification for the overall number chosen, acknowledging that scenario diversity depends on intended use case and operational design domain. References to user numbers and statistical methods for sample size assessment have been removed.

Proposal to explain paragraph 8.3.2.1.2. The revision clarifies that coverage can be evaluated based on the following items and their interdependencies: Operational Environment, Behavioural competency, Scenario-type/category, and Rules of road compliance. A footnote acknowledges that no single item alone can robustly document coverage.

Proposal to explain para. 8.3.3.1.1. The revised text clarifies that relevant standards supporting the assessment of laboratories could include ISO/IEC 17025 Testing and calibration laboratories, which sets requirements for competence, impartiality, and consistent operation. Applied to ADS testing, it ensures measurements are traceable, validated, and reproducible so results are technically reliable and defensible for approval/certification purposes. However, there is no obligation for the manufacturer or third-party organization involved in the testing to be accredited according to ISO/IEC 17025.