Comments on document ACSF-03-03. In particular, the document raises the question of whether the proposed amendments should address software validation, the eventual use of external data from infrastructure or V2V sources, and responses to system/driver response failures.

Proposal to define and require countermeasures to ensure that a driver remains available to assume control of a vehicle from an automated lane-keeping/steering system as conditions warrant. This document proposes definitions for a “driver attention recognition [system/function]” and/or a “driver attention confirmation [system/function]”.

Proposals to clarify that references to “other road users” includes pedestrians and large animals and, with respect to ensuring the driver’s availability to assume control of the vehicle, a time frequency limit for driver monitoring systems based upon the time required to travel a distance of 1500 m with an upper limit of 180 seconds (i.e., the time required to travel 1500 m at 30 km/h).

The Netherlands and Sweden note strongly urging consideration of system safety and software assessment issues before proceeding with approval procedures for Category B2 and/or E ACSF, including a discussion of the role, if any, of ISO 26262 under Annex 6.

Proposal to specify a light general-purpose street motorcycle without fairings or windscreens having an engine capacity between 400 cm³ and 600 cm³ as the approaching vehicle in the testing of automated lane-change systems under UN R79.

Copy of document GRVA-17-49.

Document GRVA-17-49 from the September 2023 GRVA session.

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 amend explanation of para. 6.2.2.1.4. to clarify that ‘while’ refers to continuous presentation of information sufficient to enable a user to take over performance of the DDT such as through ambient lighting, tell-tales, or dashboard colour changes. The explanation notes that information on adapted performance is only presented if applicable.

Proposal to clarify in the introductory text that the document does not limit requirements or introduce new requirements, update the reference to WP.29 adoption of the Regulations under the 1958 and 1998 Agreements, and add explanation that interpretation examples are not exhaustive, definitive, or compulsory and that each safety case must be tailored to the characteristics of the automated driving system, its features, their operational design domain, and assessed on its own merits.

Proposal to delete the final sentence of the Introductory Text of the GID, which states “Nonetheless, the amendments to these other regulations, including those that enable performance of the DDT, are outside the scope of the ADS regulations and of this document.” The deletion removes redundant language already conveyed in the preceding text that modifications of other regulations related to ADS are outside the scope of this document.

Proposal to delete text from the draft Introduction section of the Guidance and Interpretation Document on ADS Regulation. The formal submission to GRVA produced in June was based on the Workshop information document that contained additional explanations on the status of work. These contents are not appropriate for the final version of the Guidance and Interpretation Document.

Homework from the previous session.

Proposal from the expert of The Netherlands regarding the specifications of timing of warning modes, speed reduction and target speed for AEBS for vehicles of category M2 and N2 ≤ 8 t

Proposal to amend document AECS-02-02/Rev.2, including paragraph 6 of Part I from the proposal by CLEPA. This proposal aims to clarify the approval process of a type of AECD according to Part I and the installation in a vehicle according to Part II where mutual (overlapping) functions/verifications are part of the approval to either Part I ór Part II. This proposal includes the verification ‘AECD information and warning signal’ only. The same should apply for other possible verifications like ‘emergency call control assessment‘ after the group made a final decision what verifications to include in which Part(s).

Proposal to amend document AECS-02-02/Rev.2, including paragraph 6 of Part I from the proposal by CLEPA. This proposal aims to clarify the approval process of a type of AECD according to Part I and the installation in a vehicle according to Part II where mutual (overlapping) functions/verifications are part of the approval to either Part I ór Part II. This proposal includes the verification ‘AECD information and warning signal’ only. The same should apply for other possible verifications like ‘emergency call control assessment‘ after the group made a final decision what verifications to include in which Part(s).