Proposal to amend para. 8.1.5.1. (ADS UNR) of the audit of the safety policy guidance: Change “may state” to “states,” “may address” to “addresses,” and “may therefore describe” to “therefore describes.” The rationale states that using “may” in the interpretation paragraphs seems inappropriate for explaining regulatory intention, and present tense better suits these requirements.

Proposal to delete example “collision” under “Failure to meet the ADS requirements under paragraph 6 of this Regulation” in Annex 1 (GTR) and 3 (UNR) List of reportable occurrences by reporting type. The rationale states that not all collisions involving ADS vehicles constitute failure to meet ADS requirements, as some collisions are not caused by ADS or the ADS vehicle, and some collisions are not avoidable, such as suddenly appearing obstructing road users.

Proposal to correct a paragraph number error in para. 5.3.2.15 of the GTR and para. 7.3.2.15 of the UNR by renumbering them as 5.3.2.14 and 7.3.2.14 respectively. The safety concept shall describe the manufacturer’s approach to scenario selection to cover the reasonably foreseeable situations and conditions that the ADS will encounter including how the following aspects are covered, aligned with WP.29/2026/139 (GTR) and WP.29/2026/137 (UNR).

Proposal to clarify section 6.1.2.1 regarding crash causation. During approval process, when collisions involve the ADS during the manufacturer’s real-world or confirmatory testing, a root cause analysis is required and an explanation provided. Where the ADS is determined to have played a role in causation, the manufacturer will provide evidence of how related causal factors have been addressed in the final ADS prior to approval. Post-deployment collisions are covered by the ISMR process taking into account the applicable law of the country in which the collision occurred.

Proposal to amend paragraph 5.3.1.3 (GTR) / 7.3.1.3 (UNR) in Safety Case. The revised text adds “attributes and their respective values” to replace “parameters” in the sentence about links/dependencies between ODD parameters, to ensure consistent terminology and reflect that dependencies exist not only between attributes but also between their values.

UN R21 requires the owner’s manual to contain clear instructions for power-operated window/roof panel/partition systems, including explanation of possible consequences, use of driver-controlled switches, and WARNING messages indicating dangers to children and requiring special care with remote closing systems. UN R173 references to Annex 9, paragraph 3 are unnecessary as this paragraph no longer exists in R173 but is now in UN R16 S10 Annex. UN R94 Annex 3 requires a line break.

Comments on the proposal for a03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 160. Modifications include renumbering paragraph 2.2 as paragraph 2.25, deleting paragraph 2.25, and amending definitions for “End of event time,” “Engine throttle, percent full,” “Non-volatile memory,” and other terms. New paragraphs 2.71–2.82 introduce definitions for rollover protection system, advanced emergency braking system, blind spot monitoring system, and driver assistance systems. Paragraphs 5.3.1, 5.3.2, and 5.3.3 are amended to clarify triggering and locking conditions for rollover events and vulnerable road user events, and to establish time zero. Paragraph 5.4.3 clarifies crash test requirements.

Proposal to explain paragraph 8.3.2.1.2. The revision clarifies that coverage can be evaluated based on the following items and their interdependencies: Operational Environment, Behavioural competency, Scenario-type/category, and Rules of road compliance. A footnote acknowledges that no single item alone can robustly document coverage.

Proposal to explain para. 7.3.2.14. The revised text simplifies the definition of ‘sufficient’ to refer to the scope of tests performed on the fall-back response. With respect to scenarios, the manufacturer is encouraged to describe reasoning behind scenario choice and justification for the overall number chosen, acknowledging that scenario diversity depends on intended use case and operational design domain. References to user numbers and statistical methods for sample size assessment have been removed.

Proposal to explain para. 8.3.2.4.1.4. The revised text divides guidance between ADS users and other road users. For ADS users, representativeness means including a range whose behaviours, skills, and characteristics reflect those reasonably expected to use the ADS, with testing not limited to engineers. For other road users, representativeness means capturing a sufficiently broad range of real-world behaviours and characteristics relevant to the ODD. The revised proposal also addresses statistical significance, encouraging manufacturers to provide calculations explaining their choice of participant numbers and underlying assumptions.

Proposal to explain para. 8.3.3.1.1. The revised text clarifies that relevant standards supporting the assessment of laboratories could include ISO/IEC 17025 Testing and calibration laboratories, which sets requirements for competence, impartiality, and consistent operation. Applied to ADS testing, it ensures measurements are traceable, validated, and reproducible so results are technically reliable and defensible for approval/certification purposes. However, there is no obligation for the manufacturer or third-party organization involved in the testing to be accredited according to ISO/IEC 17025.

Proposal to revise explanation of Annex 3 in the draft guidance document. The change proposes language clarifying that performance issues constitute an unreasonable risk to safety only when deviations, degradations, or limitations in ADS capabilities, based on analysis of their frequency and severity, present an unreasonable risk within the declared ODD. The revision specifies that listed factors are examples for consideration in determining whether an unreasonable risk exists but do not necessarily constitute such a risk themselves.

Proposal to explain para. 8.3.3.1. of the draft UN Regulation. The proposal addresses residual comments concerning wording used to derive scenarios for confirmatory testing by removing terminology not used in the regulation to avoid mis-interpretations. Confirmatory testing scenarios depend on the ADS feature, its ODD, and safety case scenarios. When selecting scenarios, the assessor may consider the ADS system description and its safety concept, and the safety claims presented in the safety case. Confirmatory testing may be undertaken using virtual testing, expected to be within the scope and capability of the toolchain being used, and can be within, at the boundary of or outside the ODD.

Proposal to amend para. 6.2.2.3.8.1 (b) to change “a driving task relevant area” to “the driving task relevant area” and to expand the accompanying GID text to define the driving task relevant area as consisting of different zones including inside mirror, left outside mirror, right outside mirror, left window, right window, windscreen, and instrument cluster or instrument display, and to clarify that depending on the type of ADS feature and driving situation the user could be suitable to have looked at just one zone or more than one zone.

Proposal to remove explanation for para. 7.3.1.14. The document suggests differences in how ADSF-1 and ADSF-2 vehicles would handle fallbacks to a mitigated risk conditions that have not been fully explored by the ADS informal group. Rather than speculate, the preparatory discussions among IWG experts resulted in a recommendation to omit this explanation pending the next phase of work on the regulations.

Proposal to amend Paragraph 5.3.1.3 (GTR) / 7.3.1.3 (UNR) in Safety Case. The revision replaces “no new behaviours or traffic flows” with “no new behaviours or traffic flows density or dynamic element types” and adds “or traffic behaviour” to the text regarding traffic laws because ODD does not include a definition of traffic behaviour, making the original sentence factually incorrect.

The ADS regulations (GTR and UNR) include definitions for reporting thresholds based on EDR triggering. Time-series data recording for heavy vehicles under UN R169 requires triggers and trigger thresholds to record data in specified time periods, which may not immediately precede, follow, or coincide with crashes. Last Stop, Safety Systems, and Sudden Deceleration triggers are unreliable crash indications. Sudden Deceleration is too sensitive for storing time-series data over several months. Optional SRS or a new independent trigger alongside Detected Collision offers the only viable possibility for effective time-series data recording.

Proposal to amend explanation of para. 6.2.2.1.4. to clarify that ‘while’ refers to continuous presentation of information sufficient to enable a user to take over performance of the DDT such as through ambient lighting, tell-tales, or dashboard colour changes. The explanation notes that information on adapted performance is only presented if applicable.

Proposal to amend UN R155 and UN R156 regarding approval authority requirements:

• Add a refusal ground to para. 5.1.3. of UN R155 where the Certificate of Compliance for the Cyber Security Management System has not been issued by the same approval authority granting type approval
• Insert new para. 5.4. into UN R156 to provide that approval authorities shall not grant any type approval if the Certificate of Compliance for the Software Update Management System has not been issued by the same approval authority granting type approval.

Proposal to amend UN R86 to address Automated Driving Systems:

• Insert new paragraphs 0, 0.1 to 0.1.2 introducing Supplement 3 to address vehicles of categories X and Y and conventional vehicles equipped with an Automated Driving System (ADS)
• Amend paragraph 1.1 footnote 1 to reference ECE/TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.8
• Amend paragraph 1.3 subparagraph (a) to include control by an ADS
• Insert new paragraph 2.9.4 defining “Presence of an ADS”
• Amend paragraph 2.12 to expand immunity related functions to include ADS-related functions and functions related to charging mode when coupled to the power grid
• Delete paragraphs 2.26 and 2.27
• Renumber paragraphs 2.28 to 2.33 as 2.26 to 2.31
• Insert new paragraph 2.32 defining “ADS test configuration”
• Renumber paragraph 2.34 as 2.33
• Insert new paragraph 3.1.9 requiring specification of seating position if driver’s seat is not the front seat nearest to opposing traffic
• Insert new paragraph 6.11 and subparagraphs 6.11.1 to 6.11.3 establishing special requirements for ADS-equipped vehicles including alternative test methods and ESA immunity testing
• Amend paragraph 9.3.2 to reference ADS degradation in conformity verification
• Amend Appendix 8 paragraph 2 figures 3, 4, 5 and paragraph 3 figure 6 to correct charging notation from “>” to “<” and adjust time from 60 to 20 seconds
• Add new items 74 and 75 to Annex 2A addressing ADS presence and description
• Insert new paragraph 7 to Annex 3A Appendix and renumber former paragraph 7 as 8
• Amend Annex 4 paragraph 2.1.2 to reference ADS capability to switch equipment
• Amend Annex 5 paragraph 2.3 to reference ADS
• Amend Annex 6 paragraph 2.1.1.2 to establish “50 km/h mode”, “Brake mode” and “Active ADS Mode” test conditions with corresponding failure criteria including ADS operational state requirements
• Amend paragraph 2.1.1.3 to reference ADS
• Amend paragraph 2.1.1.4 to reference ADS features control
• Delete paragraph 2.1.1.5
• Amend paragraph 2.1.2 to permit manufacturer evidence for systems not operating under specified conditions
• Amend paragraph 2.2.1.3 to reference ADS for equipment switched OFF

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.