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.

Proposal to develop UN GTR for both assisted and automated parking. The document presents parking product classifications in China, including assisted parking (park-in/park-out, cruising capability, remote-control variants) and automated parking systems. Current UN Regulations lack specific technical requirements, test methods, and test scenarios for parking functions. China is developing national standards GB for parking combined driver assistance systems and automated parking systems, with approval expected by end of 2026 and early 2027 respectively. The proposal suggests establishing a Task Force to study applicability of current UN Regulations to parking products, then determining whether to establish an IWG or formulate new regulations.

Proposal to amend para. 5.3.3.2. to correct a referencing error by replacing the reference to para. 5.1.4. with a reference to para. 5.3.1.1., which directly relates to mechanical parts of the steering transmission, thereby removing possible uncertainty or the need to liaise with the designated technical service or approval authority to confirm interpretation of the current text.

Proposal to insert provisions on software identification and software updates into UN R13, UN R13-H, UN R79, UN R89, UN R130, UN R131, UN R152, UN R155, UN R156, UN R157, UN R171, UN R175, and UN R178 by adding definitions referencing Consolidated Resolution R.E.3 Annex 7, requiring manufacturers to provide Technical Services with information on hardware and software influencing performance, permitting vehicle manufacturers to apply for new approvals differentiating software versions for registered versus new vehicles, clarifying that production discontinuation does not apply when manufacturers seek approval extensions for software updates of registered vehicles, and amending communication forms to include software identification numbers and related information.

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.

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.

Since the 24th (January 2026) GRVA session, the ADAS task force held an online session on 3 March 2026. A 02 series of amendments to UN R171 (GRVA-24-17/Rev.2) was approved and submitted to WP.29 as WP.29/2026/86. Draft supplements and consolidated and extracted versions for 00 and 01 series were prepared (GRVA-24-18-A, GRVA-24-19-A, GRVA-24-18-B, GRVA-24-19-B). For the 25th GRVA session, editorial modifications and consolidated and extracted versions were submitted (GRVA/2026/14, GRVA/2026/15, GRVA/2026/16, GRVA/2026/17, GRVA/2026/18). The task force seeks guidance on provisions for DCAS use on highway-like roads and feedback on existing provisions following practical implementation of UN R171. The ADAS task force will be maintained with a break in activities pending stakeholder inputs and concrete proposals.

Proposal to amend UN R13, 13-H, 79, 89, 130, 131, 139, 140, 152, 155, 156, 157, 171, 175, and 178 by introducing provisions on software identification and software updates. Amendments add new paragraphs referring to Software Identification Number definitions in Consolidated Resolution R.E.3, require manufacturers to provide Technical Services with information on hardware and software influencing performance, permit vehicle manufacturers to apply for new approvals differentiating software versions for registered versus new vehicles while avoiding test duplication, and modify production discontinuation provisions to exclude cases where manufacturers seek approval extensions for software updates of registered vehicles.

Proposal to amend paragraph 5.6.1.2.9. of UN R79 to require that for RCP systems based on detection of driver position and movement, the deactivation referred to in paragraph 5.6.1.1.3. shall be through a simple and obvious action that will be recognised by the system.

Proposal to amend paragraph 4.4.3. to add letter “X” preceding the approval number when ACSF of Category A, B1 or C have been exempted from technical requirements or when the steering system exhibits functionality defined as ACSF of Category B2, D or E; amend paragraph 5.6.1. to add provisions for vehicles equipped with ACSF of Category A unless equipped with a DCAS complying with UN R171; and amend paragraph 5.6.1.2.9. regarding deactivation of RCP systems based on detection of driver position and movement through a simple and obvious action.

Proposal to amend paragraph 4.4.3. to add a letter “X” preceding the approval number when ACSF of Category A, B1 or C are exempted from technical requirements or when the steering system exhibits ACSF of Category B2, D or E functionality, to require vehicles equipped with ACSF of Category A to fulfil requirements unless equipped with a DCAS complying with UN Regulation No. 171, and to require deactivation of RCP systems based on driver position detection through a simple and obvious action.

Proposal for a Supplement 17 to the 03 series and a Supplement 12 to the 04 series to insert new Paragraph 6.2.5.1.1. into UN R79. If requested by the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle may undergo up to ten figure of eight manoeuvres, where each loop of the figure is 40m diameter at 10km/h speed with intact steering equipment, before the measurement of steering efforts with a failure in the steering equipment. This amendment aims to clarify pre-test conditions for measuring steering effort under a failure condition and to stabilize power steering oil temperature, particularly for vehicles of category N₃ and M₃.

Proposal to correct paragraph 5.6.1.2.9. of Supplement 1 to the 04 series of UN R79, Supplement 6 to the 03 series of UN R79, and Supplement 3 to the 02 series of UN R79. For RCP systems based on detection of driver position and movement, the deactivation referred to in paragraph 5.6.1.1.3. shall be through a simple and obvious action that will be recognised by the system.

Proposal to clarify the pretest conditions for measuring steering effort under a failure condition.

Proposal from the ADAS task force to extend the provisions clarifying the scope between this Regulation and UN R171 for the ACSF categories B1, B2, C, D, E to ACSF category A.

Proposal to correct a reference to paragraph 3.6.1.1.3. that should read 5.6.1.1.3. and to correct a misspelling.

Proposal from the ADAS task force to extend the provisions clarifying the scope between this Regulation and UN R171 for the ACSF categories B1, B2, C, D, E to ACSF category A.

UN R79 mandates verification that appropriate warning signals are provided to the driver based on the timing of a system intervention (e.g., in the case of a Risk Mitigation Function). This proposal aims to clarify the moment of initiation of the signals to facilitate the verification of driver warnings, hazard lights, and other indicators in relation to this objectively determined initiation point. The proposal requires manufacturers to define a clear and accessible method for objectively determining the moment of initiation.

Proposal to

1. Enable the type approval of ADS vehicles, including those without manual controls,
2. Introduce transitional provisions pursuant to the adoption of Supplements that included changes to the approval requirements, and
3. Allow the driver to slow down the remote parking manoeuvre, including coming to a stop, sooner than intended by the system.

Proposal to:

1. Allow the driver to slow down the remote parking manoeuvre, including coming to a stop, sooner than intended by the system, and
2. Introduce transitional provisions pursuant to the adoption of Supplements that included changes to the approval requirements.

Proposal to:

1. Allow the diver to slow down the remote parking manoeuvre, including coming to a stop, sooner that intended by the system, and
2. Introduce transitional provisions pursuant to the adoption of Supplements that included changes to the approval requirements.

Proposal to require require manufacturers to provide a method for objectively determining the moment of “Risk Mitigation Function” (RMF) initiation to enable assessment of the RMF warning signals and other driver warnings, hazard lights, and indicators in relation to the objectively determined RMF initiation point.

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

Proposal to introduce transitional provisions pursuant to the adoption of Supplements by W.29 that inadvertently included changes to the approval requirements.

Proposal to allow the driver to slow down the remote parking manoeuvre, including coming to a stop, earlier than intended by the system.

Proposal from the FADS task force to amend its proposal to enable the application of UN R79 to ADS vehicles.

Proposal to require require manufacturers to provide a method for objectively determining the moment of “Risk Mitigation Function” (RMF) initiation to enable assessment of the RMF warning signals and other driver warnings, hazard lights, and indicators in relation to the objectively determined RMF initiation point.

Proposal to ensure that vehicles exhibiting functionality meeting the definition of ACSF-B2 or -E are required to comply with the correct series of R171.

Proposal to ensure that vehicles exhibiting functionality meeting the definition of ACSF-B2 or ACSF-E are required to comply with the correct series of UN R171.

Proposal from the FADS informal working group to enable the type approval of ADS vehicles, including those without manual controls.

The Task Force on regulatory Fitness for Automated Driving Systems reports proposed amendments to UN R13, R13-H, and R79. Amendments to R13 and R13-H, submitted as GRVA/2025/24 and GRVA/2025/25, include general clarifications, relaxed manual control requirements for vehicles of categories X and Y, clarification of braking system warning transmission to the ADS, and ESC compatibility provisions. R79 amendments, submitted as GRVA/2025/23, establish baseline manual control requirements for X and Y vehicles, remote control capabilities, ADS steering equipment requirements, and remove ALKS exemptions. Transitional provisions apply. The task force coordinates with other expert groups on horizontal topics and continues amending additional UN Regulations.

Proposal to improve usability, especially in enabling user targeting of the stopping point of the vehicle.

Proposal to ensure that vehicles exhibiting functionality meeting the definition of ACSF-B2 or -E are required to comply with the correct series of R171.

Proposal to enable the type approval of automated vehicles, including those without manual controls.

Proposal to improve terminology concerning the status of the system following an “engine start / run cycle” and to clarify provisions for full power steering systems such as steer-by-wire systems.

Proposal to improve terminology concerning the status of the ACSF system following an “engine start / run cycle” and to clarify provisions for full power steering systems such as steer-by-wire systems.

Proposal to ensure that vehicles exhibiting functionality meeting the definition of ACSF-B2 or -E are required to comply with the 01 series of R171 (or later). The 01 series added the necessary technical requirements to ensure the safety of features that allow ‘hands-free’ operation or perform system-initiated manoeuvres.

Proposal to update the text in line with the establishment of UN R171 on Driver Control Assistance Systems.

Proposal to update the text in line with the establishment of UN R171 on Driver Control Assistance Systems.

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

Proposal to improve terminology concerning the status of the system following an “engine start / run cycle”.

Proposal to improve terminology concerning the status of the ACSF system following an “engine start / run cycle”.

Proposal to update the text in line with the establishment of UN R171 on DCAS.

Includes FADS session discussion.

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

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

Updated during the FADS session discussions.

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 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. The proposal also amends the text to allow for the approval of vehicles equipped with both an Automated Driving System and a manual driving mode.

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 facilitate a consistent approach across all Contracting Parties for Emergency Lane Keeping Systems (ELKS) covering vehicles of category M₁ and N₁.

Proposal to address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications and to incorporate amendments addressing ACSF systems relative to the new UN Regulation on driver control assistance systems (DCAS).

Proposal to differentiate between the scope of UN R79 and the proposed UN Regulation on Driver Control Assistance Systems (DCAS).

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

Consolidated amendments from the FADS task force to the proposal to enable application of UN R79 to ADS vehicles.

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

Proposal to retain provisions for functions meeting the definitions of ACSF-B2 and E that have not yet been developed under the proposed UN Regulation on Driver-Control Assistance Systems (DCAS).

Amended version of document GRVA/2024/12 incorporating the ADAS task force amendments proposed in document GRVA-18-14.

Proposal to facilitate a consistent approach across all Contracting Parties for Emergency Lane Keeping Systems (ELKS) covering vehicles of category M₁ and N₁.

Proposal to address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications.

Proposal to address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications.

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 adapt the regulation to allow for the approval of vehicles equipped with both an Automated Driving System and a manual driving mode.

Proposal to differentiate between the scope of UN R79 and the proposed UN Regulation on Driver Control Assistance Systems (DCAS).

Document GRVA-17-49 from the September 2023 GRVA session.

Copy of document GRVA-17-49.

Proposal to delineate the scope of UN R79 vis-à-vis the draft new UN Regulation on Driver Control Assistance Systems (DCAS).

Proposal to ensure that vehicles with ‘basic’ B1+ACC are not required to approve to the DCAS regulation just because that functionality meets the definition of DCAS. However, if the vehicle is equipped with DCAS that includes such functionality, that functionality must be approved according to this regulation so that the DCAS has been assessed holistically.

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 address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications.

Proposal to address cross-referencing issues in UN Regulation No. 79 with respect to UN Regulation No. 130 (Lane Departure Warning System), especially with regard to Australian lane marking specifications.

Proposal to permit crossing of lane markings by ACSF of category B1 to assist the driver in forming an access corridor for emergency and enforcement vehicles in slow-moving traffic (based on provisions adopted for UN R157).

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 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 justification:

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.
6. Regarding paragraph 5.6.4.2.3.: While entering the eligible road, the driver may be distracted or annoyed by this “prominent” indication. His attention resources shall be totally available during this phase. So the system would switch automatically to standby mode when fulfilling these two conditions: reaching an eligible and regular lane of travel. This second condition may be fulfilled for example by implementing a suitable time delay or by a direct verification of the lane of travel. These criteria should be explained, agreed between the technical service and the vehicle manufacturer.

Proposal to clarify the 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 justification:

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.
6. Regarding paragraph 5.6.4.2.3.: While entering the eligible road, the driver may be distracted or annoyed by this “prominent” indication. His attention resources shall be totally available during this phase. So the system would switch automatically to standby mode when fulfilling these two conditions: reaching an eligible and regular lane of travel. This second condition may be fulfilled for example by implementing a suitable time delay or by a direct verification of the lane of travel. These criteria should be explained, agreed between the technical service and the vehicle manufacturer.

Revised proposal prepared by the GRVA secretary pursuant to discussions during the 15th session 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 justification:

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.
6. Regarding paragraph 5.6.4.2.3.: While entering the eligible road, the driver may be distracted or annoyed by this “prominent” indication. His attention resources shall be totally available during this phase. So the system would switch automatically to standby mode when fulfilling these two conditions: reaching an eligible and regular lane of travel. This second condition may be fulfilled for example by implementing a suitable time delay or by a direct verification of the lane of travel. These criteria should be explained, agreed between the technical service and the vehicle manufacturer.