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 for amendments to document ACSF-07-02.

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.

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.

Proposal to amend provisions on electronic stability control warnings under braking regulations to allow for activation of the ESC visual warning during a stability-assistance intervention of an electronic steering control. The aim is to avoid separate requirements for brake-actuated and steering-actuated stability assistance that would lead to two visual warnings where only one is appropriate.

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.

Revised proposal based upon document ACSF-12-11.

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).

Proposal based on document ACSF-12-12.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.