Proposal to improve usability, especially in enabling user targeting of the stopping point of the vehicle.

Proposal to allow the driver to slow down the remote parking manoeuvre, including coming to a stop, earlier than intended by the system.

Proposal to insert new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 establishing that requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4 shall not apply to ACSF Category A functions provided they are intended solely to support low-speed vehicle controllability manoeuvres in off-road environments, operate only until 5km/h with 1km/h tolerance, require deliberate driver activation, require driver presence in driver’s seat with fastened safety belt, and allow driver to retain control and override or deactivate the system at any time.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to increase the maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 15 m. UN R79 currently limits the maximum RCP operating range to 6 m, resulting in effective usable range of 2 or 3 m due to radio wave-based ranging inaccuracy. A 15-meter range would enhance RCP function usefulness and safety, reducing driver movement and blind areas. RCP systems with extended ranges have been used in large markets without identified safety threats. The amendment is proposed as a supplement to the 03 and 04 series of amendments to UN R79.

Supporting presentation on the proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions intended solely to support low-speed vehicle controllability manoeuvres in off-road environments from the obstacle detection requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided the function operates only until 5 km/h with 1 km/h tolerance, is activated deliberately by the driver in off-road environments only, requires the driver to be in the driver’s seat with safety belt fastened, and allows the driver to retain control and override or deactivate the system at any time.

Proposal to modify the specified maximum remote controlled parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m. Large markets including Canada, USA, and China do not regulate maximum remote controlled parking operating range. Remote controlled parking systems exceeding 6 m operating range are already offered in the field. Radio wave-based ranging is inherently inaccurate due to complicated and varying electromagnetic environment in garage and changing orientation of remote device, requiring safety margin integration into product design, which reduces effective usable range below 6 m maximum. Extended range remote controlled parking systems have been used in the field for several years without negative feedback or identified safety threats.

Proposal for amendments to the requirements for Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF) of Category C, introducing specific provisions for the use of a lane change function with a two-step Human Machine Interface (HMI).

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.

Since an Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) of Category B is required to demonstrate compliance with regard to the warning cascade under testing at low speed, it is proposed to stop the high-speed test after the system has given the optical warning, meaning it has correctly detected the hands to be off the steering wheel.

Proposal to allow a corrective steering function to use haptic signals as an alternative to acoustic signals for M₂ and M₃ vehicles equipped with Lane Departure Warning System compliant with UN R130. The proposal would specify that the haptic warning may not be given solely via the steering wheel (e.g., provided in the driver’s seat).

Proposal to permit a function to cope with temporary driver inability to control the vehicle (e.g. caused by a health problem). The proposed emergency steering function of type (c) would warn and possibly revive the driver while automatically performing emergency lane change(s) with the aim to bring the vehicle to a standstill in an area with a low risk of collision (“target stop area” e.g. hard shoulder).

Proposal for provisions concerning:

1. B1 lane centering
2. ACSF activation conditions
3. Driver override
4. Clarification of ACSF standby-mode
5. Clarification of “ready-to-intervene"
6. Indication to the driver in case of suppression
7. Clarification of suppression criteria
8. Sensor test before activation.

Proposal to clarify that a continuation of support by a Category B1 ACSF after its boundary conditions have been exceeded may not be possible under conditions as outlined in the manufacturer’s safety concept.

Proposal to

1. Align lane-centering provisions with principles applied to UN R157 (ALKS)
2. Permit Category C ACSF to remain in stand-by during temporary roadway transitions
3. Clarify overriding provision (para. 5.6.4.3) reference to stand-by mode
4. Introduce a tolerance factor for “critical situation” lane changes
5. clarification to test conditions
6. Align direction indicator deactivation under a pass conditions with previously adopted provisions.

Proposal to introduce provisions for truck/trailer data transmission for Category C ACSF.

Proposal to allow continuous movement of the driver as an alternative to the continuous actuation of the remote-control device as a means to assure driver attentiveness.

Proposal to introduce a Risk Mitigation Function designed to bring a vehicle to a safe stop in the event of fallback driver unavailability.

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.

Proposal to clarify the provisions for ACSF Cat. A “Remote Controlled Parking (RCP)” for vehicle combinations. The current definition for RCP S_RCPmax sets a maximum limit of 6m distance to the motor vehicle, which is insufficient in situations where the operation is supervised by the driver located behind the vehicle combination.

Proposal to align UN R79 and UN R157 with UN R152 (AEBS for M1 and N1) regarding the conditions for automatic re-instatement of a system at the “initiation of each engine start / run cycle”.

Proposal to clarify the provisions for full power steering systems such as steer by wire systems (based on discussions held under the EBSIG interest group addressing electro-mechanical braking systems under UN R13 and 13-H).

Proposal to clarify provisions concerning the conditions for automatic re-instatement of the system at the “initiation of each engine start / run cycle”.

Proposal to clarify the conditions for automatic re-instatement of the system at the “initiation of each engine start / run cycle”.

Proposal to clarify provisions for full power steering systems such as steer-by-wire systems.

Proposal to introduce transitional provisions pursuant to the adoption of Supplements by W.29 that inadvertently included changes to the approval requirements.

Proposal for amendments to the 05 series of UN R79 to enable the type approval of ADS vehicles, including those without manual controls.

Proposal to amend para. 5.1.6.3.4. to specify that the intervention shall generate the signal to activate hazard warning lights and to clarify that for verification of timing requirements applicable to Risk Mitigation Functions, the signal to activate hazard warning lights is deemed to start the intervention, and amend Annex 8, para. 3.6.1.(b) to specify that the signal to activate hazard warning lights is generated at the earliest five seconds after the warning signal specified in para. 5.1.6.3.2. has been generated.

Proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to establish exemptions for Automatically Commanded Steering Function Category A functions designed for off-road low-speed vehicle recovery manoeuvres, and amend para. 5.6.1.2.7 to increase the specified maximum Remote-Control Parking operating range from 6 m to 15 m.

Proposal first presented to the ACSF informal group for a type-approval mechanism to control for updates to software dependent systems.

Proposed changes to align RxSWIN provisions with the RxSWIN template adopted through WP.29-197-06, remove the proposed requirement to comply with UN R156/01 or later from R157 and R171, remove amendments to UN R155 as decided by the IWG CS/OTA, apply the RxSWIN amendments also to earlier series of amendments in R13, R13-H, R79, R131, R152, R157, and R171, update references to the latest version of R.E.3, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.8, in earlier series, and correct paragraph references and improve structure in R89, R139, R140, R155, R156, and R171.

Proposal for transitional provisions for inclusion in UN R79 – (ECE/TRANS/WP29/2017/10, as amended by WP29-171-06). In the interests of moving quickly, the ACSF informal group agreed to submit the initial amendments to UN R79 as a supplement. The proposed Supplement 6 to the 01 series of amendments (documents WP.29/2017/10 and WP.29-171-06) introduce requirements for corrective steering functions (CSF) and A and B1 categories of automatically commanded steering functions (ACSF). This approach included an agreement to ensure that existing approvals and their subsequent extensions won’t be affected by the new technical requirements given that the aim of the supplement is to regulate new systems coming to market, not to impact systems already on the market (see document GRRF-83-21 for complete background).

This text represents a first draft of “certification-neutral” technical requirements for a “Data Storage System for Automated Driving”, as presented by OICA in March 2018 ITS/AD session n°14.