Diagram illustrating the phases of a lane-change maneuver as envisioned by the Category C¹ ACSF amendment to UN R79.

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).

Proposal to align M1 vehicle braking performance requirements with UN R13-H provisions and clarify those for N1 vehicles in Annex 3 of UN R79.

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.

Proposal to clarify braking requirements and to align them with UN R13-H on light vehicle braking.

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.

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).

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 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.

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 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.

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

Proposal for an alternative to the actuation of the remote control device for the use of Remote-Controlled Parking functions.

This proposal seeks to permit manoeuvring assistance in certain low speed driving situations. The proposal is identical to that briefly presented as document GRVA-07-24 at the seventh session of GRVA (September 2020).

Proposal for amendments to the proposal to allow up to seven seconds between the start of the lane change procedure and the start of the lane change manoeuvre.

Proposal to clarify the existing text on continued support of an Automatically Commanded Steering Function of Category B1 if the boundary conditions are exceeded. It proposes to clarify 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 introduce new text concerning activation: “Notwithstanding the activation criteria above and following the activation request at any type of road by a deliberate action with the same means as for ACSF of Category B1, the ACSF of Category C may turn automatically to standby mode when entering a type of road as described above.”

Proposal to clarify a logical cascade of actions regarding activation of ACSF B1 and C and the indication on when the vehicle has entered an eligible road based on the following:

1. 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.
2. 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 discourages most drivers from using this assistance function.
3. 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.
4. This amendment further clarifies the requirement on the indication of when the vehicle enters an eligible road. It gives some examples of the type of indication to be given to the driver, e.g. additional popup or blinking indication, without being design restrictive.
5. A dedicated status indication of an ACSF C off-mode is by nature already different from the standby or active indication. Therefore, the driver is already sufficiently informed on a potential status change.

Proposal to clarify a logical cascade of actions regarding activation of ACSF B1 and C and the indication on when the vehicle has entered an eligible road.

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 clarify the wording concerning automatic re-instatement of the AEBS default status at the “initiation of each engine start/run cycle”.

Proposal to amend provisions concerning full power steering to address technological advances such as steer-by-wire systems.

Proposal to clarify provisions on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) of category A.

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.