Proposal to correct editorial errors and to insert the word “tolerance” in para. 2.3.3.4.1. The editorial errors originated with documents WP29/2016/58 (relating to GRRF-80-37), GRRF/2015/22 and GRRF-81-04-Rev.1.

Proposal to ensure consistency between GTR 3 and UN R78 in light of the proposed amendments to GTR 3 (GRVA/2019/23). Paragraph 5.1.17 aims to clarify with an explicit article that the rider is duly informed when activating a riding mode that disables the ABS on the rear axle.

Side-by-side comparison of GTR 3 and UN R78 provisions.

Proposal concerning assessment of ACSF Category B1 lane keeping systems. Under Annex 8, proposal to delete the warning-to-deactivation cascade testing at high speed because the capability is already demonstrated under the low-speed test and the high-speed variation effectively requires a test track length of more than two kilometers. The proposal would also clarify paragraph 5.6.2.3.1. regarding the use of inputs other than lane markings where lane markings are not present.

Proposal for modifications to draft tolerances in the testing of ACSF B1 and C systems with regard to lane width, coordinate system, lateral acceleration, and overriding-force test.

The 01 series of amendments aims at increasing the performance requirements in the Car to Pedestrian
scenario by permitting only reduced maximum impact speed compared to the original version of this
Regulation. Thereby the same maximum impact speed is required for the Car to Pedestrian as for the
Car to Car scenario. However, in the original proposal (GRVA/2019/16), the permitted maximum impact speed for an N₁ vehicle erroneously corresponds to that of an M₁ vehicle. This proposal corrects the error.

Pursuant to discussions during the 9th session of the informal working group on AEBS for M₁/N₁, paragraphs 6.5.2. (pass conditions regarding “car-to-car moving” collision warning) and 6.6.2. (pass conditions regarding the collision warning in the Car to Pedestrian scenario) were deleted given that pass conditions were already defined by the general requirements. For consistency, this proposal would delete the pass conditions under the car-to-car stationary scenario.

ToR and Rules of Procedure as adopted by WP.29 at is June 2019 session

ToR and Rules of Procedure as adopted by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

ToR and Rules of Procedure as adopted by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

Updated remote-controlled maneuvering proposal with editorial Improvements, clarification that the actuator of the function is to be included as part of the assessment along with the hardware and software on the vehicle, and to add requirements on the security of the connection between the remote-control device and the vehicle.

Proposal to amend the text for consistency.

Proposal from Germany to introduce additional definitions, clarify the management system certification process, enable the withdrawal (revocation) of a vehicle type approval, to require the vehicle manufacturer to maintain an Information Security Operations Centre (ISOC) to handle servicing of its vehicle fleet, and to improve the processes for identification of risks and threats and their mitigation.

Proposal for editorial corrections and clarifications concerning activation of a riding mode with ABS disabled. The changes are also being concurrently proposed for UN R78.

Proposal to temporarily remove Category L vehicles from the scope of the draft cyber-security and software update processes UN Regulations.

Changes to the proposal to update and clarify Annex 6 on requirements for documentation, fault strategy and verification of the safety of electronic systems and complex electronic vehicle control systems related to vehicle steering.

Proposal to allow the use of a haptic signal as an alternative to the current requirement for an acoustic signal for the corrective steering function, provided the vehicle is equipped with a lane-departure warning system approved under UN R130. The proposal also introduces a requirement that the haptic warning must extend beyond the steering wheel (e.g., the signal would also include the driver’s seat) in order to address misuse (i.e., hands off the steering wheel use).

Safety of the Intended Functionality standard. Password protected for use within WP.29. Please contact the GRVA secretariat for access.

Presentation in support of the proposals for the 01 series of amendments and for Supplement 1 to UN R152 (respectively, documents GRVA/2019/16 and GRVA/2019/17.

The False Reaction scenarios in Annex 3-Appendix 2 were based on UN R131 (on-highway heavy vehicles) without verification of their applicability to urban light vehicles. Japan has begun research and anticipates proposing changes to the UN R152 scenarios in the near future. This proposal identifies scenarios under study and recommends tolerances for the vehicle and pedestrian dummy placements. Japan also raises concerns over the provision “the AEBS shall not provide a collision warning” in cases where there is no imminent collision risk.

Proposal to modify lateral acceleration values for Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF) of Category B1 (e.g., SAE L2 lane-keeping) and to allow the vehicle under test to change speeds in order to meet maximum lateral acceleration values when navigating curves.

Proposal to allow for higher lateral acceleration limits for Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF) in executing lane changes. The proposal modifies acceleration limits in the original proposal (GRVA/2019/27) and focuses on the timing for lane changes (e.g., 15-second total duration).

Proposal to introduce provisions for a “two-step Human Machine Interface” in the requirements for Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF) of Category C lane-change functions.

Text approved by GRVA consolidating input from stakeholders and agreed changes to the original proposal (GRVA/2019/19) for submission to WP.29 at its March 2020 session. The proposal amends the draft text (GRVA/2019/9) submitted to resolve measurement concerns in the test requirements for ACSF of Category B1 and C by introducing provisions for tolerances, including:

• inclusion of the position at which the lateral acceleration was measured and the position of the centre of gravity of the vehicle for better traceablility,
• sampling rate of at least 100 Hz for dynamic testing,
• specification of filters and cut-off frequency for determination of lateral acceleration,
• option to measure “overriding force” torque via an internal sensor or an external device (e.g., steering robot).

Proposal to add transitional provisions to document GRVA/2019/18.

Presentation on Tesla experience with hands-on lane-keeping and automated lane-change systems, especially with regard to lateral acceleration and distance limits under UN R79.

Proposal to correct editorial errors in the consolidated document WP29/2016/58 relating to GRRF-80-37, GRRF/2015/22 and GRRF-81-04-Rev.1 and to insert the word “tolerance” in para. 2.3.3.4.1.