Changes and notes made to the ACSF informal group status report as part of the GRRF discussion on how to deliver approval requirements for ACSF B2 (lane-keeping at Level 3 automation) within the prescribed mandate of the group. The ACSF group is expect to deliver a draft text within the next nine months.

CLEPA presentation on the type approval process for replacement brake pads, linings, and drums and the impact of the new approval numbering system adopted under Revision 3 to the 1958 Agreement on approvals and markings of these products.

Proposal to resolve inconsistencies present from Supplement 2 to the 02 series of amendments resulting from the approval of proposals in documents GRRF/2014/23/Rev.2, GRRF/2015/22 and GRRF/2016/22. The proposal also introduces provisions for L category (motorcycle and related) vehicles.

Proposal of requirements for L category vehicles. The original proposal addressed a broader range of issues and could not be finalized during the GRRF session. This document allows items where consensus was reached to move forward for WP.29 consideration.

Proposal to add replacement brake components for L₆ and L₇ (quadricycles) to the regulation, to correct references, and to clarify the text. This proposal aligns UN R90 with UN R78 (motorcycle braking).

Proposal to clarify the purpose of UN R139 which was originally established through the extraction of brake assist system (BAS) provisions from UN R13-H on brake systems. Within the context of UN R13-H, the BAS provisions were written to assess performance in cases where a vehicle was fitted with a brake assist system. As a stand-alone regulation, UN R139 applies only to vehicles that are equipped with BAS. Therefore, this supplement proposes to refine the text to remove the “if fitted” language and ensure that UN R139 can only be applied to a vehicle equipped with a BAS.

Proposal to remove “if fitted” language from the text to clarify that UN R140 can only be applied to a vehicle equipped with a ESC system. UN R140 was originally established through the extraction of electronic stability controls (ESC) provisions from UN R13-H on brake systems. Within the context of UN R13-H, the ESC provisions were written to assess performance in cases where a vehicle was fitted with an electronic stability control system. As a stand-alone regulation, however, UN R140 applies only to vehicles that are equipped with ESC. The proposal also would correct an apparent error in to Annex 4, paragraph 2.1. where the reference to “ISO 15037 Part 1:2005” should read “ISO 15037 Part 1:2006”.

The 02 series of amendments to UN R79 introduced requirements for RCP systems. An RCP system requires the engagement of an EPB (electronic parking brake) once the manoeuvre has finished and the ignition is switched off. This proposal would allow the release or disconnection of the EPB by a remote control system (approved to R79) so the RCP can subsequently drive the vehicle out of a parking spot.

Document resulting from the web conference held on 22 March 2018. This document lays out the essential considerations in developing lane-keeping systems operating under Level 3 automation (driver as back-up to automated system).

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.

Initial draft proposal towards the definition of a “General Classification System” to replace the “Determination of the acceptable operational domain". The classification system would allow regulators to specify specific conditions under which a given system operates and thereby more clearly define the regulatory requirements. For example, a system defined as “highway” might require safe operation on roadways equipped with a physical separation that divides the traffic moving in opposite directions and which have at least two lanes in the direction the vehicles are driving. Moreover, since such roadways are prohibited to cyclists and pedestrians, a system classified as “highway” would not require pedestrian or cyclist detection (at least not to the degree that an urban system would). The proposal envisions a Class I, II, III, … nomenclature.

Initial proposal for “external” (roadway, speed, etc.) and “internal” (driver availability recognition, data recording, transition request protocols, etc.) for Category B2 ACSF (Level 3 lane keeping systems).