Pursuant to discussions during the 9th session of the informal working group on AEBS for M₁/N₁, paragraphs 6.5.2. (pass conditions regarding “car-to-car moving” collision warning) and 6.6.2. (pass conditions regarding the collision warning in the Car to Pedestrian scenario) were deleted given that pass conditions were already defined by the general requirements. For consistency, this proposal would delete the pass conditions under the car-to-car stationary scenario.

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).

Proposal to correct editorial errors in the consolidated document WP29/2016/58 relating to GRRF-80-37, GRRF/2015/22 and GRRF-81-04-Rev.1 and to insert the word “tolerance” in para. 2.3.3.4.1.

Text submitted by the expert from CLEPA to include state-of-art electro-mechanical braking systems

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.

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.

Proposal to replace the specification of the type and size of brake caliper and brake disc for brake lining CoP assessment with specifications for a pad area and thickness of the original approval. The original specification corresponds to obsolete caliper and rotor configurations no longer in widespread use.

This document was produced during an informal meeting (on 23 September 2020) of interested experts who reviewed the ALKS-related documents presented at GRVA on 24 September 2020.

Proposal for amendments to the proposal to introduce provisions for electro-mechanical braking systems (submitted to WP.29 as document WP.29/2021/12).

Argument for revising the PBC values used in the regulation based on technological progress in tyres and impact on road-friction parameters.

Proposal to amend the peak braking coefficient and related test method provisions.

Given that UN R94, 95 and 137 refer only to vehicle categories M₁ and N_{1</, the proposal would add references to UN R29 and 66 to specify an impact severity level for heavier vehicle categories for data retrieval performance limits.}

Comments on the proposal from Germany to require electrically operated parking brake systems to automatically activate when the driver leaves the vehicle cabin and/or the motor is stopped.

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

Proposal to address difficulty in Conformity of Production (CoP) routine obligations caused by unavailability of specifically prescribed hardware.