Proposal to amend the definition of keys that take account of innovative vehicle alarm systems, such as silent alarm or door-unlocking using smart phone, if available.

Proposal to establish a new UN Regulation dedicated to the approval of the fitting of devices against unauthorized use, and of vehicles equipped with devices against unauthorized use, pursuant to splitting UN R116 into three separate regulations.

Proposal to create a new UN Regulation on uniform technical prescriptions concerning approval of immobilizers and approval of a vehicle with regard to its immobilizer, pursuant to splitting UN R116 into three separate regulations.

Proposal to create a new UN Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of a vehicle alarm system and approval of a vehicle with regard to its vehicle alarm system, pursuant to splitting the UN R116 into three separate regulations.

Proposal to ensure the recognition of approvals according to the new regulations created pursuant to the splitting of UN R116 into three new UN Regulations.

Proposal to ensure the recognition of the approvals according to the new regulations created by splitting UN R116 into three separate regulations.

Proposal to ensure the recognition of the approvals according to the new regulations created from splitting UN R116 into three separate regulations.

Proposal from the Field of Vision Assistants (FVA) task force to introduce provisions for Field of Vision Assistants.

Counter-proposal to document GRSP/2019/18 to address pedestrian safety and active suspensions (a system which could change the vehicle height while driving (up to a defined driving speed, e.g. up to 39 km/h)). Since the vehicle height has an influence on the headform test area (WAD) and on the test results for legform tests, all possible vehicle heights up to a driving speed of 11.1 m/s (40 km/h) should be considered to be relevant for impact with a pedestrian.

Proposal to clarify the transitional provisions in document GRSP/2020/4.

Proposal to modify document GRSP/2020/8 in order to clarify the test procedure for the height of head restraints in the case of vehicles having a low roof construction.

Proposal to modify the informal document GRSP-67-12 from the Netherlands regarding labeling provisions.

Proposal to address requirements for Safety Belt Reminders in some particular vehicle designs and clarify the continued validity of an exemption in the transitional provisions.

Proposal to amend the definitions and specifications as well as the Annex 1, Part 1. It is a revised counterproposal to document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/18 submitted by Germany and the OICA informal document GRSP-67-07.

Proposal to clarify seat-belt reminder requirements for adjustable rear seats and the transitional provisions.

Proposal to clarify the test procedure for the height of head restraints in the case of vehicles having a low roof construction.

Proposal to clarify transitional provisions of the 05 series of amendments to UN R95 (document WP.29/2020/108).

Proposal to clarify transitional provisions of the 02 series of amendments to UN R137 (document WP.29/2020/110).

Proposal for provisions concerning:

• B1 lane centering
• ACSF activation conditions
• Driver override
• Clarification of ACSF standby-mode
• Clarification of “ready-to-intervene"
• Indication to the driver in case of suppression
• Clarification of suppression criteria
• Sensor test before activation.

Video demonstration of RCP system.

Proposal complementary to GRVA/2020/12 to adapt provisions to steering-by-wire and related new technologies with regard to steering angles and system responsiveness.

Presentation on the safety benefit of automated emergency steering in case of confirmed driver inability to perform the driving task.

Proposal to clarify that the AEBS may be automatically deactivated in the event that the electronic stability control system is deactivated.

Proposals to clarify the draft text.

Proposals to clarify provisions for collision avoidance in a cut-in scenario, collision avoidance with regard to crossing pedestrians, on “other activities than driving”, and on “permanent visibility” of the means for the driver to activate and deactivate the system.

Proposal for an alternative to ensure user attentiveness when activating a remote-controlled parking system.

Proposal to modify the following elements:

1. paragraph 5.6.4.2.3., delete “temporarily”
2. paragraph 5.6.4.5.2.1., replace “actually” by “anticipated to be”
3. paragraph 5.6.4.6.6., B1 shall resume “in a timely manner”
4. paragraph 5.6.4.6.8.1., clarify the suppression criteria
5. paragraph 5.6.4.7., define distance tolerances for lane-change critical distances
6. Annex 8, Paragraph 2., Carry over the language already adopted for ACSF B1: “At the manufacturer’s discretion and with the agreement of the Technical Service, a lane with a width of less than 3.5 m may be used, if the correct function of the system on roads with wider lanes can be demonstrated.” and allow for lower temperature and wet surface test conditions, and
7. Annex 8, Paragraph 3.5.1.2. (j), amend the pass condition with regard to direction indicator deactivation.

Consolidated proposal incorporating comments from OICA/CLEPA, CITA, Germany, and AVERE (including most recent proposal to the 7th GRVA session).

Proposal to clarify the text with regard to:

1. paragraph 2.6., Definition of an imminent collision
2. paragraphs 5.1.9 and 7.1.4., Lifetime of the system
3. paragraph 5.2.3.3., Traffic Rules and Safety Distance to the front
4. paragraph 5.2.5.2. – “anticipated TTC” in cut-in scenario
5. paragraph 6.2.5.1., Deactivation by input to driving controls
6. paragraph 6.2.6., Transition to assisted driving
7. paragraph 6.4.4., Examples of information to the driver
8. Annex 5 – Tests
   • Section 5.1. contains physical tests that have to be performed at the time of type approval
   • Section 5.2. aims to confirm at the time of type approval, that the system complies with the corresponding provisions of the main text. This confirmation shall be done by at least one physical test per provision, if possible due to the nature of the provision, and may be supported by further evidence.
   • Section 5.3. is a collection of additional scenarios, that the ALKS could encounter. Whether they are relevant to the ALKS depends on its ODD. So either the manufacturer explains why his system will not need to handle these scenarios, or has to explain the behaviour of the ALKS.
   • larify the content of par. 5.2. by rewording the provisions similar to that of the core text.

This document proposes a new 04 series of amendments to Regulation 79 with regard to a system that aims at bringing the vehicle to a safe stop in case of driver unavailability, defining a “risk mitigation function”.

Proposal to permit manoeuvring assistance in defined low speed driving situations to reduce damages and injuries.

Proposal to address risks related to activities other than driving and to clarify that a declaration of a maximum operational speed that exceeds 60 km/h is possible, but not required.

Proposal to amend the proposal from Germany regarding lane-change functionality:

1. paragraph 5.2.1. – lane keeping
2. paragraph 5.2.6.1. – risk to safety of the vehicle occupants and other road users
3. paragraphs 5.2.6.2. and 5.2.6.3. – preconditions for a lane change procedure
4. paragraph 5.2.6.5. – timing of a lane change maneuver
5. paragraph 5.2.6.6. and its sub-paragraphs – criticality of a lane change maneuver
6. paragraph 7.1.3. – rear detection range
7. Annex 5. – test cases for rear detection range, lane change.

The intention of the proposed amendment is to clarify the existing text on continued support of an ACSF B1 if the boundary conditions are exceeded. It clarifies that under certain circumstances, e.g. if there are no lane markings present or if the vehicle has already drifted substantially out of the lane such that the lane may no longer be recognized, a continuation of support may no longer be possible or reasonable.

The proposal aims to correct 5 types of inconsistencies:

1. The reference to Annex 4 is repeated in each sub-paragraph and should instead be stated once in each paragraph.
2. Acronyms are used inconsistently. Proposal to use them consistently throughout similar to UN-R79, e.g. Emergency Manoeuvre (EM), and when used in the text as “emergency manoeuvre”
3. Each sub-paragraph has a heading, this helps understand the structure and should be carried over to par. 8.1., 9.1. and 9.2. as well, the wording for the heading of par. 9.1. and 9.2. are derived from UN-R155 and UN-R156 respectively.
4. Consistent use of term throughout, e.g. R₁₅₇SWIN without blank, Cyber Security as two words as used in UN-R155
5. Editorial corrections, e.g. missing paragraph numbers, missing full stop in the paragraph number.

Proposal to include all vehicle categories M and N in the scope of UN R157.

The intention of the proposed amendment is to clarify the existing text on continued support of an ACSF B1 if the boundary conditions are exceeded.