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).

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.

This paper presents some of the main questions and positions of OICA regarding the Japanese proposal on lane-keeping and parking-assist systems. In general, OICA is not in favor of new regulations for LKAS and PAS.

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.

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

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”.

Presentation discussing the framework for relating independent regulations on electronic subsystems of braking or steering systems to the primary braking/steering regulations.

Supporting explanation for the proposal 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”.

CLEPA proposed a framework for relating independent regulations on electronic subsystems of braking or steering systems to the primary braking/steering regulations. This proposal revises the wording, focusing on ESC systems with relation to the requirements for complex electronic control systems under Regulation 13-H.

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.

Spreadsheet tool to calculate safety distances between vehicles as a function of speed and required braking distances.

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 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.

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-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.

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.

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.

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).

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OICA/CLEPA Input to the TF ADAS special session dedicated to RMF.

Proposal for an alternative method to the actuation of the remote-control device for the use of RCP based on document GRVA-08-28.

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 amend the provisions of ACSF of Category C with the main aim to include a truck – trailer data transmission.

Proposal to clarify the continuous support provided by the Automatically Commanded Steering Function of Category B1 after reaching its boundary conditions.

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 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 align UN R79 and UN R157 with UN R152 (AEBS for M1 and N1) regarding the conditions for automatic re-instatement of a system at the “initiation of each engine start / run cycle”.

Proposal to clarify the provisions for full power steering systems such as steer by wire systems (based on discussions held under the EBSIG interest group addressing electro-mechanical braking systems under UN R13 and 13-H).

Proposal to clarify provisions concerning the conditions for automatic re-instatement of the system at the “initiation of each engine start / run cycle”.

Proposal to clarify provisions for full power steering systems such as steer-by-wire systems.

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 exempt CSF and ESC from prohibition on use of Advanced Driver Assistance Steering Systems while an ADS feature is active.

Proposal for amendments to the 05 series of UN R79 to enable the type approval of ADS vehicles, including those without manual controls.

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.

Proposal to amend para. 5.6.1.2.7. to increase the maximum RCP operating range from 6 m to 15 m. UN R79 currently limits the maximum RCP operating range to 6 m, resulting in effective usable range of 2 or 3 m due to radio wave-based ranging inaccuracy. A 15-meter range would enhance RCP function usefulness and safety, reducing driver movement and blind areas. RCP systems with extended ranges have been used in large markets without identified safety threats. The amendment is proposed as a supplement to the 03 and 04 series of amendments to UN R79.

Supporting presentation on the proposal to insert a new sub-paragraph 5.6.1.1.4.1 to exempt ACSF Category A functions intended solely to support low-speed vehicle controllability manoeuvres in off-road environments from the obstacle detection requirements of paragraph 5.6.1.1.4, provided the function operates only until 5 km/h with 1 km/h tolerance, is activated deliberately by the driver in off-road environments only, requires the driver to be in the driver’s seat with safety belt fastened, and allows the driver to retain control and override or deactivate the system at any time.