Presentation outlining parameters for the further development of the advanced emergency braking systems regulation in line with technological progress.

Update of the presentation outlining parameters for the further development of the advanced emergency braking systems regulation in line with technological progress.

Australia proposes to amend para. 2.14. to clarify that the nominal Peak Braking Coefficient value is understood to be the minimum value, and to amend para. 5.2.1.1. to simplify collision warning requirements for vehicles of category M₁. Industry objects the para. 2.14. amendment as unnecessary and potentially subject to misinterpretation as a requirement change. Industry agrees with dropping the 0.8-second prior warning requirement but finds the resulting text difficult to understand and proposes alternative wording that harmonizes para. 5.2.1.1. with paras. 5.2.2.1. and 5.2.3.1., specifying that a collision warning shall be provided no later than the start of emergency braking intervention.

Working draft of the proposed new regulation on in-vehicle automated emergency call systems.

Proposal for a testing and certification framework for the type approval of in-vehicle automated emergency call devices.

Proposal from the informal group secretary to add classes of emergency call devices to the draft regulation. The three classes proposed would address bandwidth variations (e.g., GSM 900, GSM 1800, UMTS 900, UMTS 2100, UMTS 1700/2100, UMTS 1900) and permit authorities to limit their acceptance of type approvals to particular classes.

OICA proposals for the test and measurement procedures to be undertaken to assess the post-collision (i.e., following the frontal impact or side impact testing under UN Regulations Nos. 94 and 95) functioning of an automatic emergency call device.

Comments on document AECS-02-02/Rev.2.

Proposal to add an automatic emergency call systems tell-tale to UN R121.

This document contributes to consolidated text and a risk catalogue for artificial intelligence in the automotive sector. It defines AI as a field of computer science focused on creating systems capable of performing tasks requiring human intelligence, including learning, reasoning, problem-solving, natural language processing, and decision-making. High-priority AI use cases include perception, planning, and motion-control driving functions, as well as driver assessment systems. The document identifies 14 risks organized across five lifecycle stages: AI and use case specification, model architecture and training processes, data specification and management, verification and validation, and operation and in-use monitoring. It provides detailed risk descriptions and references emergent practices for managing these risks, including ISO/PAS 8800, NIST AI RMF, and EU AIA approaches. Lower-priority use cases referenced include AI-06-09 for periodic technical inspection and AI-06-12 for cybersecurity threat detection.

Proposals for revisions to Section I including highlighted deletions, addition of two paragraphs (2.3, 2.4) in Section II with a request to add safety benefits to para. 2.6, editorial requests for text placement in Section III introducing use case content, small editorial proposals in Section IV’s introduction, merging of whole lifecycle and organizational risks, removal of para. 4.6 (systematic performance disparities) in favour of para. 4.5, revision of para. 6.2 (concept drift), removal or moving of para. 6.5 to whole lifecycle risks, and substantive suggestions in Section V for deletion, merging and restructuring of Table 2 with standard and title references only. Annex 1 critiques the need for extended descriptions.

OICA-proposed amendments to document GRRF/2012/2 (Proposal for Supplement 10 to the 11 series of amendments to Regulation No. 13).