Text from the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) and from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) to align the braking performance requirements for M1 vehicles in Annex 3 of UN R79 with those of UN R13-H (light vehicle braking).

Text prepared by the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) in order to introduce the concept of “revision of approvals” into regulations under GRRF responsibility.

Several vehicle control regulations refer to compliance with UN Regulation No. 10 on electromagnetic compatibility. The proposal would revise these references to focus only on the technical (thus excluding administrative) requirements since some countries do not apply UN R10.

Proposal for collective amendments of amendments to Regulations Nos. 13 (Heavy vehicle braking), 13-H (Brakes of M1 and N1 vehicles), 79 (Steering equipment) and 89 (Speed limitation devices) and the new Regulations on LDWS and AEBS to clarify the references to Regulation No. 10 into the UN Regulations mentioned above.

OICA positions opposed to the Japanese proposal for new regulations to govern lane-keeping assist systems and parking assist system, arguing that such systems are already covered under UN Regulation 79.

Text prepared by the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) to introduce the concept of “revision of approvals” into the UN Regulations under GRRF responsibility in order to align the UN Regulations with the EU Whole Vehicle Type Approval Directive 2007/46/EC in order to ease the administrative burden for both manufacturers and approval administrations regarding the extension of existing approvals.

OICA comments on the CLCCR proposal to remove restrictions in UN R76 on the use of energy from a towing vehicle by its trailer.

OICA comments on Japan’s proposal and supporting justification for a new regulation on lane-keeping assistance systems (documents GRRF-74-40 and GRRF-74-41).

Change to the proposed text pursuant to agreement within the “LKAS Small Drafting Group” concerning the “means of detecting that the driver is likely to be no longer in primary control of the steering system” and related driver warning method(s).

Proposal to clarify the draft text to align UN R79 with UN R13-H concerning cases where the braking and steering systems have the same energy source. This proposal would clarify and reaffirm that where there is “a failure in the energy supply, the steering system shall have priority”.

Different in-use scenarios for automatically commanded steering functions.

Proposal to clarify and align the wording of Regulations Nos. 79, 13-H and 13.

The current text of Annex 3 of UN Regulation No. 79 covers requirements to be met in case the braking and the steering systems have the same energy source (paragraph 5.3.1.4.), and the same energy supply (paragraph 5.3.1.5.). However these requirements are not aligned with those of Regulation No. 13-H. Paragraph 1.1.2. of Annex 4 to Regulation No. 13-H requires the capacity of a certain number of sudden stops after the energy source failed ONLY in the case where the secondary braking performances cannot be met without energy assisting the muscular energy: see paragraph 1.1.2.

The current text of Annex 3 of Regulation No. 79 covers requirements to be met in case the braking and the steering systems have the same energy source (paragraph 5.3.1.4), and the same energy supply (paragraph 5.3.1.5.). However these requirements are not aligned with those of Regulation No. 13. Paragraph 1.1.3. of Annex 7 to Regulation No. 13 requires the capacity for the system of a certain number of sudden stops, after the energy source failed, ONLY in the case where the secondary braking performances cannot be met without energy assisting the muscular energy: see paragraph 1.1.3.

The current text of the provisions in Regulation No. 79 could be interpreted as the required number of sudden stops that must be achieved irrespective of the service braking design, i.e. even in the case of assisted braking system.

Input for the draft amendment to UN R79 to enable the type approval of automatically commanded steering functions for use at speeds above 10 km/h.

OICA presentation on approaches and trade-offs in handling driver availability for transitions between automated vehicle system and human driver.

OICA and CLEPA note that the current work on ACSF does not address class O vehicles (trailers) and therefore leaves unsettled the issue of heavy-duty commercial vehicles. The two groups signal that the informal group must coordinate with the GRRF to ensure that trailers are eventually incorporated in the ACSF approval procedures under UN R79.

Presentation and supporting materials to facilitate discussion towards clarifying provisions on sensor range and monitoring of the vehicle environment.

Discussion of parameters to delineate corrective steering function (CSF) from automatically commanded steering function (ACSF) systems. The former refers to intermittent systems such as lane-keeping while the latter refers to systems in continuous control of the steering function.

Proposal to refine the language ensuring that drivers may override the ACSF system through deliberate action.

Proposal for amendments to document ACSF-07-02.

Proposal towards defining corrective steering functions as a distinct function apart from automatically commanded steering functions.

OICA input on definition of corrective steering and automatically commanded steering functions.

Industry comment in support of “Option 4” in document GRRF/2016/45, the proposal to introduce technical requirements for Corrective Steering Functions (lane departure prevention, lane-keeping assistance (LKAS), steering angle correction, etc.) as defined in the regulation.

VDA research on warning times and proposing a 30s threshold at lower speeds.

Proposal, consolidating document GRRF-82-08 with the proposed test procedures, revising “option 4” as presented in the proposal introduce technical requirements for Corrective Steering Functions under UN R79 (document GRRF/2016/45). Option 4 proposes to amend the definition of corrective steering functions and to include technical requirements for LKAS as an ASCF of Category B1. The proposal includes:

• Clarification of Corrective steering function (CSF) incl. defining of new requirements;
• Establishment of new categories for automatically commanded steering function (ACSF): Categories A, B1, B2, C, D and E;
• Wording for requirements of Category A (incl. remote parking RCP), and Category B1.

During its 8th meeting (Stockholm), the ACSF informal group decided that all functions to “assist the avoidance of a collision” would be excluded from the definition of “Corrective Steering Function”. ACSF decided to establish a new definition for “Emergency Steering Functions (ESF)” with specific requirements. The intention was to draft this definition during a second phase effort through which requirements for ACSF categories beyond B1 will be established. In order to enable the approval of ESF systems critical to road safety, OICA has prepared this proposal for an ESF definition and simple requirements based upon provisions for Complex Electronics (CEL) in Annex 6. A footnote has also been added to define the specific conditions for the approval of these systems, until uniform provisions are defined by the ACSF informal group.

In order to enhance the safety of B1 corrective steering functions (by reducing the probability of driver over-reliance and misunderstanding of system limitations), OICA proposes a minimum value of 0.8 m/s² for maximum lateral acceleration in place of the draft 1 m/s² for the speed range between 100-130 km/h for M1 and N1 vehicles. OICA believes that this would ensure that a system is capable under all conditions of generating the required minimum acceleration.

Proposed changes to the draft amendments to UN R79 concerning ACSF B1 systems. The proposed new wording for the triggering condition of the warning (“any front tyre of the vehicle is crossing the lane marking”) is technically more specific than the original (“the vehicle is going to leave the lane”). The use of a haptic signal as an alternative to the acoustic signal achieves the goal pursued by Germany. This proposal is consistent with the warning strategy of AEBS specified in UN R131. In the case of M2 M3 N2 N3 vehicle categories, it is proposed to take as a base the requirements specified in UN R130 LDWS regulation, which achieves the goal.

Proposal for an “Emergency Steering Function” to automatically assist drivers in avoiding an impending collision with an obstacle or other vehicle.

Proposal to include under the complex electronics annex of UN R79, if only as an interim measure, provisions for the approval of automated systems that bring a vehicle safely to a stop in the event of driver incapacitation.

Proposals to clarify and refine provisions in the draft corrective steering function amendment to UN R79 (document GRRF-82-12/Rev.3).

Proposals for the text of the draft amendment to UN R79 to enable the approval of automated lane-changing systems.

OICA proposal for the definition of ay_smax (the maximum lateral acceleration under which an automated steering function is designed to operate).

OICA-CLEPA proposals for amendments to the draft corrective steering/ACSF B1 amendments to UN R79 (revisions to GRRF-82-12/Rev.3 approved at GRRF-82 and subsequently submitted for the March 2017 WP.29 session as WP.29/2017/10).

Proposal for category C automated steering requirements.

OICA comments and questions regarding the EC proposal to amend the UN R79 annex on complex electronic systems to require auditing of methodologies used to ensure system safety at both concept and system level.

OICA request for confirmation that:

• the provisions for CSF, ACSF A and ACSF B1 will be introduced via a new supplement 06 to the current series of amendments to UN R79;
• the vehicles approved prior to the introduction of the new supplement will not be required to comply with it, even in case of an extension.

Supporting argument in favor of developing provisions for the approval of category C automated steering systems.

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).

OICA concern over the provision whereby a Category B1 system can only be reactivated by a deliberate action of the driver after the system has been switched off. This provision could be problematic should lane-keeping systems become mandatory to the extent that it could be interpreted as meaning that the system cannot be “default-on” after such a manual deactivation.

Presentation of technical capabilities and constraints for radar systems.

Presentation of concept for test procedures and performance requirements for the assessment of automated steering as a collision avoidance/mitigation countermeasure.

OICA revision of the German/Japan draft text for Category C1 ACSF.

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

Revised proposal based upon document ACSF-12-11.

Proposal based on document ACSF-12-12.

OICA-CLEPA perspectives on the definition and use of Category C lane-change systems, especially emphasizing the need for human supervision (SAE Level 2 automation).

OICA-CLEPA proposals for improvement of the draft text pursuant to open issues from the previous ACSF informal group session.

Proposals concerning capabilities and requirements for ultra-sonic sensors, radar systems, and blind-spot detection and view on HMI and C1-C2 mode confusion issue.

Presentation covering

1. Lane change functional test
2. Abort of lane change test
3. Overriding force test
4. Deactivation test
5. Sensor performance test
6. Sensor blindness test (industry proposal)
7. Engine start/run cycle test (three phases)

OICA-CLEPA “homework” input addressing open issues from the previous ACSF informal group session.

Following bench testing of steering override force of 50 N, all participants concurred that the 50 N force can be easily handled and therefore is appropriate for all categories of CSF, ACSF, and ESF systems.

This proposal supplements proposal GRRF/2017/23 which amends UN R13, R13H and R140, to allow the use of the ESC tell-tale to indicate the intervention on the steering angle of one or more wheels for the purpose of vehicle stability. The intention allow design options that avoid two optical warning signals (ESC flashing + constant CSF) during an ESC intervention.

Draft proposal to enable the approval of automated emergency steering systems intended to avoid or mitigate collisions. The proposal based on document ACSF-14-07 submitted by OICA and CLEPA which was discussed during the 14th meeting of the ACSF informal group. The square brackets indicates paragraphs which are still under discussion in the informal group.

Set of diagrams illustrating the phases and timing of the test procedure for an automated lane-change maneuver as envisioned by the draft amendment to introduce Category C¹ ACSF into UN R79. These figures include the vehicle under test and approaching motorcycle speeds and distances under the lane-change phases, including timing and duration of each phase.

Vehicle manufacturer input concerning override force requirements for automated steering systems, including a proposal for an alternative to fixed limits.

Proposal for draft amendments to UN R79 for the 15th session of the ACSF informal group

Proposal to cease approvals under the 02 series of amendments from September 2020 in order to allow manufacturers adequate time to adapt to the new requirements;

• ESF, ACSF C and unexpectedly ACSF B1 (despite originally assumed to be compatible with ACSF C new requirements),
• new CEL assessment (documentation, tests…) whose scope is also extended to all non-complex electronic systems under series 03.

Regarding the application to “All Types” (e.g. for new registration), industry proposes to leave unchanged the existing vehicles on the market which are approved on the base of national of regional exemptions by Contracting Parties signatories of the UN R79 regulation, given the heavy technical impacts on ACSF C (sensor range…) which are indirectly affecting ACSF B1 systems that were initially assumed to be compatible with cat. C (e.g. 3s hands-off detection instead of 15s, lane centering prior to the lateral movement towards the marking etc.), and the add-on of requirements restricting design possibilities without clear safety benefits (e.g. the use of direction indicators to suppress the procedure).

Presentation concerning the introduction of provisions for emergency steering functions.

Results of OICA testing of driver reaction times to direction indicator activation and lane-change maneuver.

OICA proposal concerning specifications for Category C2 automated steering systems where a vehicle system assists the driver in effecting a lane change after the driver activates the turn signal and initiates the maneuver through a second deliberate action (under C1, the driver activates the turn signal and automated lane-change system to effect the maneuver automatically).

OICA discussion of lane-keeping systems (ACSF B2) in terms of the level of automation where Level 2 requires constant driver supervision of the system and engagement with the vehicle operating environment and Level 3 places the operation of the vehicle entirely under the control of the automated system with the human driver as a fallback option in the event the system detects conditions beyond its operational boundaries. OICA is concerned to ensure that B2 systems will be permitted under both levels of automation.

Vehicle and supplier industry perspectives on addressing lane-keeping and lane-change systems within the context of Level 3 and higher automation. Current automated steering provisions adopted under UN R79 implicitly refer to Level 2 automation where the driver is required to maintain constant engagement whereas higher levels of automation would enable the driver to engage in secondary tasks.

Draft proposal from OICA and CLEPA to include provisions for lane-change systems involving a second deliberate action of the driver to initiate a system-assisted lane change, including blind spot detection to avoid collisions. OICA and CLEPA wish to have provisions for such Category C2 systems included in UN R79.

OICA input regarding variations in driver responses to system requests to take over control of the vehicle and the implications for system transition requirements.

Draft proposal for automated lane-changes systems including maneuver initiation (activation of direction indicator) and a second deliberate action of the driver (two-step HMI).

Proposal of amendments to the proposal to introduce provisions for the approval of Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) systems, defined as driver-actuated systems on off-road vehicles used for navigating exceptionally difficult terrain. OICA seeks to cover remote control applications for low speed manoeuvring not addressed in the original UK proposal.

Draft proposal to add provisions for 2-step HMI for Cat. C ACSF systems while keeping the main performance of the system e.g. rear sensor range, critical situations, minimum distance and minimum operating speed, etc.

Initial draft proposal towards the definition of a “General Classification System” to replace the “Determination of the acceptable operational domain". The classification system would allow regulators to specify specific conditions under which a given system operates and thereby more clearly define the regulatory requirements. For example, a system defined as “highway” might require safe operation on roadways equipped with a physical separation that divides the traffic moving in opposite directions and which have at least two lanes in the direction the vehicles are driving. Moreover, since such roadways are prohibited to cyclists and pedestrians, a system classified as “highway” would not require pedestrian or cyclist detection (at least not to the degree that an urban system would). The proposal envisions a Class I, II, III, … nomenclature.

Initial proposal for “external” (roadway, speed, etc.) and “internal” (driver availability recognition, data recording, transition request protocols, etc.) for Category B2 ACSF (Level 3 lane keeping systems).

Input on provisions for dynamic driving tasks, headway control, and minimal risk manoeuvres.

Comments on document ACSF-18-03.

OICA and CLEPA comments on the submission from Germany (ACSF-18-04) proposing requirements for Category B2 ACSF related to the General System Classification / Human Driver Priority / Information to the Driver.

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 for requirements for systems able to keep the vehicle in the lane without any driver command on the steering control (B2).

ACSF B2 – Industry Concept for

• Driver Availibility Recognition
• Transition Demand
• Minimum Risk Manoeuvre
• Emergency Manoeuvre

Changes to the 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).

This document aims at providing a better understanding of possible operational restrictions and capacity to safely transfer control back to the driver of a Category B2 ACSF (L3 Automated Lane-Keeping System). It contains examples of different possible detection and coping strategies.

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.

Proposal for the draft regulation on automated lane-keeping systems address the following sections:
2.6. Driver Availability Recognition
2.7. Transition Demand and System Operation during Transition phase
2.8. Information to the driver
2.9. Minimal Risk Manoeuvre
2.10. Emergency Manoeuvre

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.

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.

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).

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:

• 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.

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

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 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).

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.

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.

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.

Revised and updated version of the GRVA presentation (GRVA-08-23).

Proposal of improvements to the draft text regarding limitations on continued ACSF support after exceeding the system boundary conditions.