Regulation and standards for autonomous agricultural vehicles in Brazil: challenges and perspectivesAbstract
Autonomous agricultural vehicles are gradually becoming more common in Brazil despite significant challenges. To enable the safe and efficient adoption of rural property, it is essential to update Brazilian laws and regulations. This requires a deeper understanding of both machines and existing regulatory frameworks. This study aims to address some of these gaps through applied research that gathers information on autonomous vehicles, legislation, and technical standards. The research involved the participation of industry companies, consultations with technical and regulatory standards, and analysis of bibliographic materials. Among other findings, the study identified that NR 31 is not fully capable of covering autonomous agricultural vehicles and that the current regulatory process directed at autonomous vehicles could be beneficial to autonomous agricultural vehicles (AAVs), highlighting the emerging importance of specific regulations related to intelligent embedded systems in AAVs.
Keywords
agricultural drones; agricultural robotics; regulation; technical standards; safety
Introduction
Autonomous agricultural vehicles (AAVs) are gaining popularity in Brazil and worldwide, but their adoption is gradual and faces significant challenges, particularly with regard to regulations. According to Lowenberg-DeBoer & Griffin (2006), this process is slow and heterogeneous. Meanwhile, the European Robotics Coordination predicts that by 2030, intelligent robots will have a notable presence in agriculture, operating in natural environments to produce quality food and maintain competitiveness (euRobotics, 2012). These machines, characterized by their ability to perform programmed tasks autonomously, stand out because their operation is dependent on movement, which likens them to vehicles (Guedes & Machado, 2020). In Brazil, AAVs have sparked technical debates, particularly concerning their legal and traffic implications, highlighting the urgent need to update laws and standards to overcome regulatory barriers (Pecka & Osadcuks, 2018). In this context, this study aims to discuss the legal and regulatory aspects of introducing autonomous machines into Brazilian agriculture, analyze national and international technical standards, and evaluate the scope of existing regulations. Thus, this study seeks to contribute to advancing the debate and provide insights for future discussions and policies in the sector.
Material and Methods
This study was conducted between September 10 and November 27, 2021. It was based on applied qualitative research involving direct consultations with companies specializing in the manufacture and development of autonomous agricultural vehicles (AAVs), extensive bibliographic research, and detailed analysis of the relevant technical and regulatory standards.
To understand the global technical and regulatory landscape, six internationally recognized companies in AAV development were contacted directly: FarmDroid ApS, Saga Robotics AS, Carbon Robotics, Naïo Technologies, Agrobot, and Jacto S.A. These contacts were established through online chats, emails, and instant messaging applications. The consulting companies provided technical and regulatory information, which was later used for the qualitative analysis of the main requirements and standards adopted in the development of their equipment. The obtained responses were synthesized in a tabular format to facilitate visualization and understanding. For bibliographic research, academic and technical databases were consulted, including the Cobalto System of the Federal University of Pelotas, through the GEDWeb Target, between September 21 and 30, to survey national technical standards from the ABNT NBR. Between October 11 and 18, complementary searches were conducted in international databases of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). All identified technical standards underwent rigorous analysis regarding their direct or indirect applicability to autonomous agricultural vehicles. To this end, categorization by thematic group was established: "Machine Safety," "Agricultural Machines," "Robots and Robotic Devices," and "Driverless Industrial Vehicles." This categorization facilitated the interpretation of normative content and its direct association with the specific characteristics of autonomous agricultural vehicles. To ensure a more in-depth critical analysis, the Brazilian Regulatory Standards (NR) applicable to the agricultural context, particularly NR 31, were also reviewed. In addition, specific gaps and potential critical points for the practical implementation of AAVs in Brazil were identified. The obtained data were treated qualitatively and descriptively, emphasizing the critical interpretation of the collected information. The results were visualized to facilitate understanding and support future discussions on the regulation of autonomous agricultural vehicles in the Brazilian context.
Results and Discussion
During the research period, varied responses were obtained from the consulted companies, reflecting the current landscape regarding the adoption and regulation of autonomous agricultural vehicles (AAVs). FarmDroid ApS and Jacto S.A. provided detailed technical information on their projects and the applied technical and regulatory standards. Naïo Technologies showed an initial interest in participating but did not follow through with providing information. Meanwhile, Saga Robotics and Carbon Robotics did not respond to the contacts, whereas Agrobot reported the unavailability of the requested information. These responses demonstrate a heterogeneous scenario regarding the willingness and transparency of companies concerning the regulatory and technical aspects of their projects. This makes standardization and a clear understanding of the minimum requirements demanded by international and national technical standards challenging.
Legal aspects
Although intelligent autonomous vehicles are commercially available in Brazil, with some units already in operation, according to the current Brazilian Traffic Code (CTB), the use of a vehicle in a fully autonomous mode, that is, without human driver intervention, is considered a traffic violation. This interpretation stems from the 8th article of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, which stipulates that every moving vehicle must have a driver. In summary, autonomous vehicles (AVs) are permitted to operate on public roads, provided that a human is onboard and can take control of the vehicle at any moment. The physical presence of a driver inside an AV ensures the possibility of civil and/or criminal liability in the case of accidents involving fatalities, personal injuries, or property damage (Guedes & Machado, 2020).
Brazilian traffic legislation was developed in a historical context prior to the emergence of intelligent autonomous vehicles, making it currently insufficient from a legal perspective and unpredictable from a judicial standpoint to address disputes arising from accidents involving these technologies. This study identified the absence of regulations capable of clearly assigning responsibilities in these cases, reinforcing the need for legal and regulatory updates. This urgency is also reflected in international movements. For example, the European Parliament issued the Civil Law Resolution on Robotics (2013), expanding the concept of robotics to include autonomous intelligent systems in various contexts, including vehicles. Similarly, the 2016 amendment to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic allowed the operation of vehicles to be fully controlled by intelligent systems at an international level. However, in Brazil, the internalization of this amendment is still pending, limiting the legal legitimacy of autonomous vehicle operations on public roads. This view is shared by authors such as Guedes & Machado (2020), who have already highlighted how much Brazil still needs to advance in this area. According to the Regulatory Agenda of the National Traffic Department (DENATRAN) for the 2021–2022 biennium, the issue was scheduled for discussion by the General Coordination of Traffic Safety (CGST) in the second half of 2021 (Brasil, 2020).
As stated by Guedes & Machado (2020), there are currently legal restrictions for AVs regarding their operation only in public spaces, such as road systems, including streets, avenues, and highways, or in private areas of common use, such as parking lots and residential condominiums. Technically, there would be no other legal impediments to the use of AVs exclusively in private spaces because the jurisdiction of the CTB does not cover such locations. It was observed that private areas, farms, and research facilities allowed the testing of autonomous vehicles without legal restrictions related to traffic. This is a practical solution for the development of this type of technology. This same premise has been extended to autonomous agricultural and industrial vehicles, as these environments are, in most cases, characterized as private spaces for exclusive use, subject only to legal norms and procedures of Occupational Safety and Health. AAVs are understood as elements of the work environment in which their presence and operation pose risks to workers because of their mechanical nature. However, this does not imply that AAVs are beyond legal reach. In the event of fatalities involving an AAV or an autonomous industrial vehicle, it is understood that the competent institutions would initially assume the hypothesis of a workplace accident subject to an investigative process.
Regulatory Standard 31 (NR 31), established by the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MTE) in 2005, addresses Occupational Safety and Health in Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Forest Exploitation, and Aquaculture. Item 12 of NR 31 contains the precepts to be observed in the organization and work environment with machines and agricultural implements. According to NR 31, machines and implements must be used according to the manufacturer's technical specifications and within the operational limits and restrictions indicated by them (Brasil, 2005). However, although well-suited to the Brazilian context, NR 31 still does not account for the use of autonomous machines or intelligent systems in agricultural environments. Similar to what occurs with AVs, this limitation of the standard can generate uncertainties regarding the use of AAVs, similar to what happened in 2017 when the state of California issued regulations prohibiting autonomous tractors from operating without drivers on board. The amendment required the self-propelled equipment to have an operator positioned to control the machine throughout the movement period. In the U.S., state regulations are based on federal regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which do not prohibit driverless machines (Growing America, 2017). California's decision was based purely on preventive principles.
According to the interpretation of NR 31, it is understood that the assessment of foreseeable risks arising from the operation of equipment is the responsibility of the manufacturer. This understanding is partially ratified by NR 12, also established by the MTE and updated in 2019, which addresses Safety in Work with Machines and Equipment. According to the standard, the use of equipment must respect the safety limits established in the design. NR 12 goes further, stating that its application must consider official technical standards, and in their absence, international standards. Specifically, for robotic systems, it establishes that the prescriptions of standards ABNT ISO 10.218-1, ABNT ISO 10.218-2, ISO/TS 15.066, and other official technical standards must be followed or, in their absence or omission, applicable international standards (Brasil, 2019). Technical standards are available for a wide variety of products, services, and processes, establishing the conditions for a project to achieve its purpose effectively and safely (ABNT, 2021a).
Technical Standardization
International Standards
The ISO is an independent, non-governmental international organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, with its members representing 165 countries. It was created in 1946 to develop International Standards according to the interests of its members and contribute to innovation and solutions to global challenges (ISO, 2021). The IEC is a global nonprofit organization founded in 1906 and is currently supported by over 170 countries. Its purpose is to promote international standardization and impartial certification of electrical and electronic goods to facilitate technical innovation, infrastructure development, and access to sustainable energy (IEC 2021). Both the ISO and IEC collaborated with the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), a private international non-profit organization founded in 1961, to provide technical standards for its 34 associated National Standardization Bodies. CEN has a specific electrotechnical division, the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC). Standards produced by CEN and CENELEC are published under the prefix EN and are often released in partnership with ISO and IEC and in EN ISO and EN IEC (CEN, 2021).
The COVR Toolkit is a joint creation of research and technology organizations from Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy, and is designed to provide standards, guidelines, and protocols for developers of robots, robotic systems, and robotic components. According to the COVR (2021), mobile agricultural robotic devices are subject to at least 46 international technical standards. The Communication and Marketing Department of FarmDroid reported that the FarmDroid FD20 AAV project followed the guidelines provided by COVR (2021), among other local standards (N. Tuborg, personal communication, 2021).
The technical interpretation of COVR (2021) suggests that autonomous agricultural vehicles are generally understood as machines. However, from a more specific approach, these devices are, in fact, autonomous agricultural machines equipped with robotic systems. The breadth of this technical characterization requires the standardization of these devices for analysis from different perspectives. Thus, the main standards cited by COVR (2021) for AAVs are divided into the themes of “Agricultural Machines,” “Machine Safety,” “Robots and Robotic Devices,” and “Driverless Vehicles.” These standards are listed in Table 1.
Brazilian Standards
The Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT) is a private, non-profit entity based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The ABNT is responsible for developing Brazilian Standards (ABNT NBR) and engages in conformity assessment, product certification, and environmental labeling. It is a founding member of the ISO, Pan-American Technical Standards Commission (COPANT), and Mercosur Standardization Association (AMN). Since its establishment in 1940, it has been a member of the IEC (ABNT, 2021a).
As ABNT is Brazil’s representative member of ISO and IEC, numerous international standards from these organizations that are of interest to its members are translated and adopted in Brazil. These standards are made available in the forms of NBR ISO and NBR IEC under the same registration number as the original standard, supplemented with the year of its translated publication (ABNT, 2021a). Table 2 presents a list of technical standards cited by COVR (2021) (Table 1), which have already been translated by the ABNT and are currently available in Brazil.
As shown in Table 2, of the 26 international technical standards cited by COVR (2021) for AAVs, 16 already have a Portuguese national version. It is likely that all of these standards will eventually be incorporated into the national portfolio, as the standards not yet adopted by the ABNT address technical themes that are already part of the Brazilian agricultural and industrial context. An example of this is NR 12, which explicitly cites the ISO 15.066 standard in its text, recognizing that any application compliant with the cited standard will also be compliant with NR 31.
The Regulatory Affairs and Product Certification Department of Jacto S.A. reported that there is currently no specific regulation for autonomous agricultural machines in Brazil; however, by definition, these are already included in the mandatory legislation for agricultural machines. According to the company, within the structure of federal legislation, international and national technical standards and regulatory standards are mandatory. In Brazil, there are strict safety requirements for agricultural machines and their implementation, including autonomous ones. It emphasizes that during the product development phase, safety requirements are defined and subsequently tested and validated, with international and national technical standards providing support for these tests and validations. Based on the documentation presented earlier, it is clear that some safety requirements are automatically met when standardized components are used, as these items already comply with specific reliability standards.
L. S. Leite (personal communication, November 27, 2021) clarified that it is the responsibility of an autonomous agricultural machine manufacturer to conduct risk assessment and reduction, as provided for official national or international technical standards. Following these guidelines, specific and standardized work and safety procedures were developed for machines and equipment based on risk assessments. For each project, the application and scope of the work were defined, and the regulations and standard requirements to be met were determined. According to the company, the requirements for NR 12 and NR 31 were observed for the Arbus 4000 JAV project.
The statement provided by Jacto aligns with the interpretation of this study regarding the legal and regulatory landscape involving AAVs: a scenario in which there is still no updated legislation or fully comprehensive regulation. In this context, AAV developers seek the most compatible solutions to the immediate regulatory needs of their projects to bring them to the market, even if the market is not yet fully prepared to receive them.
According to the ABNT (2021), although technical standards are important tools for ensuring the quality, safety, and competitiveness of products, their use in Brazil is not mandatory by law, except in specific areas determined by the Consumer Protection Code. It is also worth noting that some national and international technical standards become indirectly mandatory when referenced within NRs.
Regardless of whether they are mandatory, when a standard is applied, the decision on whether to fully or partially implement its content is the prerogative of the designer. The standards themselves grant freedom to the designer, suggesting the best way to apply their content while considering the particularities and needs of the project. In the following sections, some of these possibilities are discussed, considering the application of the standards cited by COVR (2021) to AAV projects from different perspectives.
Normative Perspectives
Machine Safety
The perspective that views AAV solely as machines generates a more generic technical characterization. The standards identified under this theme focus primarily on operator safety and typically refer to stationary machines. Half of the standards indicated by COVR (2021) belong to this group, and of these, eight have already been made available in Portuguese by the ABNT.
ABNT NBR ISO 13849-1 provides safety requirements and guidance on the principles of design and integration of Safety-Related Parts of Control Systems (SRPs/CSs), including software design. For this specific element, the standard specifies the characteristics, including the Performance Level (PL), required to perform safety functions. These levels are identified by the first five letters of the Latin alphabet, with “A” being the level with the lowest functional safety and “E” the level with the highest functional safety. This part of the ABNT NBR ISO 13.849 applies to high-performance and continuous-operation SRP/CS, regardless of the type of technology and energy used, for all types of machines (ABNT, 2019a). ABNT NBR ISO 13.849-2 specifies the procedures and conditions to be followed for validating specified safety functions, and the category and performance level achieved by an SRP/CS, which is performed through analyses and functional tests applied under predictable operating conditions. The category of an SRP/CS is defined based on its resistance to failure and its subsequent behavior under failure conditions, with five categories: B, 1, 2, 3, and 4, with B being the least demanding category and 4 being the most demanding (ABNT, 2019b).
As clarified by ABNT NBR ISO 13.849-1, the maximum PL of an SRP/CS, that is, PL=E, can only be achieved by SRP/CSs of categories 3 and 4. Category 3 SRP/CS has the following characteristics: the ability to maintain its safety function even after a fault, the possibility of detecting some faults, but not all, and the possibility of losing the safety function only owing to the accumulation of undetected faults. Category 4 SRP/CS have the following characteristics: the ability to maintain their safety function even after a fault; the possibility of detecting a fault before the next demand on the safety functions; the accumulation of undetected faults does not lead to the loss of safety functions. In addition to the characteristics mentioned, Categories 3 and 4 SRP/CSs have another lower-level characteristic: periodic verification of safety functions before any potentially hazardous action, such as machine start-up or resumption after an emergency stop. Thus, this study understands that, for robotic agricultural vehicles, the SRP/CS used in the safety functions for bystanders (including animals) should preferably be category 4, thereby ensuring that the safety of these bystanders is unlikely to be compromised.
ABNT NBR IEC 60.204-1 established that the risks associated with the inherent hazards of electrical equipment must be assessed as part of the general requirements for machine risk assessment. These hazardous situations may result from failures or defects in electrical equipment, control circuits, or power supply circuits; disturbances in power sources; loss of circuit continuity; electromagnetic or electrostatic disturbances; and other causes (ABNT, 2020a).
The ABNT NBR IEC 60204-1 standard specifies that electrical equipment must operate between 5°C and 40°C, with a maximum relative humidity of 50% when the temperature is at 40°C. For lower temperatures, the standard allows higher humidity—for example, 90% at 20°C. However, these ideal conditions are not often met in Brazil. Consider the heat in cities in the central-west region of Brazil or the constant humidity in the Amazon: in some regions, it is not uncommon to see days exceeding 40°C with humidity above 80%. In other words, contrary to what might be assumed, these limits are frequently exceeded. This raises the important concern that the operation of embedded systems in AAVs may be compromised in certain climatic contexts, especially under rain, in irrigated areas, or during heat peaks. Therefore, beyond complying with the standard, it is essential to evaluate actual field operating conditions.
Agricultural Machines
The interpretation of the AAV and its systems as agricultural machines provides a highly compatible technical characterization of the concept, although it is agreed that an AAV can far exceed the construction complexity of a traditional agricultural machine. The standards identified under this theme primarily address the safety of the onboard operator and control systems. Of the 26 standards indicated by COVR (2021), six belong to this group, of which only one has not yet been translated into Portuguese or made available in Brazil. The high adoption rate of these standards by the ABNT can be easily explained by the well-known importance of the agricultural sector in the country.
ABNT NBR ISO 4.254-1 specifies safety requirements and verification means for the design of self-propelled agricultural machines driven by an onboard operator and mounted, semi-mounted, or towed agricultural machines to address the typical risks present in these machines. The significant risks and events to be considered in the design of such machines include mechanical, electrical, thermal, acoustic, chemical, ergonomic, operational, environmental, and climatic risks or a combination thereof (ABNT, 2015).
The safety requirements proposed by ABNT NBR ISO 4.254-1 are divided into three distinct groups: “Safety requirements and/or measures applicable to all machines,” presented in item 4 of the standard; “Safety requirements and/or measures applicable to self-propelled machines driven with an onboard operator,” presented in item 5 of the standard; and “Safety requirements and/or measures applicable to mounted, semi-mounted, and towed machines,” presented in item 6 of the standard. It is understood that an autonomous agricultural vehicle must mandatorily meet the requirements of item 4, but would be exempt from the requirements of item 5 because its basic design does not include an onboard operator. Regarding the requirements of Item 6, autonomous agricultural machines can be subject to some of these obligations, particularly those related to stability.
Robots and Robotic Devices
The technical characterization of AAVs as robots stems from a more contemporary approach that seeks to identify elements in projects that demonstrate their ability to perform tasks, solve problems, and even make decisions autonomously. The standards identified in this theme primarily focus on industrial robotic devices and systems. Of the 26 standards indicated by COVR (2021), four belong to this group, of which have been translated into Portuguese and made available in Brazil.
ABNT NBR ISO 10.218 (Parts 1 and 2) specifies safety requirements and guidelines for the design of industrial robots and robotic systems, and indicates protective measures and information related to the use of these devices. It also lists the basic associated hazards and how to eliminate or reduce them. The standard is applicable to industrial robots and robotic systems, and covers the integration projects of these devices with other automated or non-automated industrial equipment or systems. According to the ABNT NBR ISO 10.218, integration can be understood as the action of combining a robot with other equipment or machines, including other robots, to form a system that is capable of performing useful tasks. Although the scope of the standard emphasizes its specificity, its principles may be adopted by other robotics segments, such as medicine and underwater exploration (ABNT, 2018a; ABNT, 2018b).
According to ABNT NBR ISO 10.218, the principles are not necessarily restricted to industrial activity; therefore, it is presumed that they can be applied to other segments, including agriculture. The definition of integration used in the standard supports the understanding that autonomous agricultural vehicles can be considered as two devices operating in an integrated manner. One of these devices is the mobile structure itself; in this case, an automated device, and the other device would be the tool-carrying unit, which is recognized as a robotic device; thus, technically, it would be an integrated robotic system.
ISO/TS 15.066 specifies safety requirements for industrial robotic systems and collaborative work environments. A collaborative work environment is defined as a specific space within an operational environment in which a robotic system and a human can perform tasks simultaneously during production operations. This task, performed by humans in collaboration with robots, is called a collaborative operation. For practical purposes, this standard does not apply to nonindustrial robots; however, its safety principles can be applied to other areas of robotics that are not yet covered by the standards (ISO, 2016).
The design of autonomous agricultural vehicles generally does not predict human intervention during operation, except in cases of system failure or errors associated with the operation. From this approach, it is understood that the robotic device onboard the machine, by itself, would not be a collaborative robot. However, the future possibility of AAVs capable of learning specific tasks by repeating movements performed by a human operator manually controlling the robot cannot be ruled out. It can be characterized as a collaborative system, as it would allow physical interaction between humans and robots in the same work environment. The interpretation of the autonomous agricultural vehicle as equivalent to an integrated robotic system—as mentioned earlier—that requires human intervention to perform maneuvers during operation would support the concept of a collaborative system. This is because the continuity of the operation would depend on the physical interaction of a human with the machine in an operational environment.
Driverless Industrial Vehicles
The interpretation of an AAV solely as a driverless vehicle provides a partial but extremely useful and appropriate technical characterization within the normative context. The standards identified under this theme focus primarily on vehicle systems, which are mostly electronics. Of the 26 standards indicated by COVR (2021), three belong to this group, but only one has been translated and made available in Portuguese.
ABNT NBR ISO 3.691-4 specifies the safety requirements, verification means, and information related to the use of driverless industrial vehicles and their systems. Driverless industrial vehicles are motorized vehicles designed to operate automatically. The systems of a driverless vehicle include the control system, which may be part of the vehicle and/or separate from it; the guidance means; and the energy source system (ABNT, 2020f).
ABNT NBR ISO 3.691-4 provides for the use of optical or pressure-sensitive devices to detect people in the path of a driverless industrial vehicle; the operation of these devices is mandatory during vehicle operation in automatic mode. For robotic agricultural machines, this study understands that it is also necessary for detection devices to be capable of identifying animals in the vehicle’s path, whether domestic animals such as dogs, birds, and cattle, or wild animals such as armadillos, anteaters, and capybaras. As an alternative to detection devices, the standard establishes that the speed of a vehicle in the direction of movement should not exceed 0.3 m/s during operation in automatic mode. In the understanding of this study, this speed limit could impose significant operational restrictions on some robotic agricultural machine projects.
Conclusions
The analyses and discussions presented in this study provided a comprehensive understanding of the current scenario AAVs in Brazil, highlighting significant challenges and important legal and regulatory gaps that require urgent attention. Fundamental questions regarding Regulatory Standard 31 (NR 31) and its ability to fully encompass autonomous agricultural vehicles were identified. At this point, the question remains as to whether it is more appropriate to update the existing standard to explicitly include AAVs or to create an entirely new Regulatory Standard dedicated exclusively to autonomous vehicles, covering the various agricultural activities that these devices may perform. Another critical finding relates to the still-unresolved absence of a Portuguese version of the ISO/TS 15.066 standard by the ABNT, especially considering that this standard is directly cited by NR 12 as a mandatory reference for validating operational safety requirements. This creates an environment of technical and legal uncertainty that hinders the uniform and adequate implementation of international standards in Brazil. The urgent translation and incorporation of these and other international standards is strategically important to ensure their broad and consistent application throughout the country. Regarding the practical application of international and national technical standards, this study found that despite its simplicity, the reductionist approach employed by the COVR (2021) initiative offered considerable practical advantages. This approach allows for the flexible and customized application of standards depending on the technical and functional specificities of each AAV project. This suggests that, depending on additional technical characteristics, certain projects may also require compliance with standards beyond those initially identified. Examples include autonomous agricultural vehicles equipped with implements such as mowing or spraying systems, which would necessarily have to comply with standards ABNT NBR ISO 4.254-12 and ABNT NBR ISO 4.254-6, respectively. Furthermore, the analysis concludes that the regulatory process currently directed AVs in general could directly and more quickly benefit autonomous agricultural vehicles. This is because aspects, such as the physical presence of passengers, unrestricted operation on public roads, and high speeds, are not predominant or critical for AAVs. An immediate practical recommendation is to apply the same treatment currently administered to conventional agricultural machines for traffic on highways and public roads, provided that they are adapted to the operational particularities of remote or autonomous control. This adaptation should include the requirements for licensed remote operators and accompanying support vehicles when necessary. Finally, this study highlighted the emerging importance of specific regulations related to intelligent systems embedded in AAVs. The increasing technological sophistication and operational complexity of these algorithms necessitates the creation of a specific technical standard to ensure the safety, integrity, ethics, and transparency of these systems. It is strongly recommended that future technical standards provide strict controls for operational safety and ensure clear and auditable records, especially when considering the potential civil or criminal liabilities arising from the use of these innovative technologies in the Brazilian agricultural context.
References
-
Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2021). Standardization: How standards are developed? http://www.abnt.org.br/normalizacao/elaboracao-e-participacao/como-se-elaboram
» http://www.abnt.org.br/normalizacao/elaboracao-e-participacao/como-se-elaboram - Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2018). ABNT NBR ISO 10218-1: Robots and robotic devices - Safety requirements for industrial robots - Part 1: Robots.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2018). ABNT NBR ISO 10218-2: Robots and robotic devices - Safety requirements for industrial robots - Part 2: Robotic systems and integration.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2020). ABNT NBR ISO 25119-1: Tractors and agricultural and forestry machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 1: General principles for design and development.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2020). ABNT NBR ISO 25119-2: Tractors and agricultural and forestry machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 2: Concept phase.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2020). ABNT NBR ISO 25119-3: Tractors and agricultural and forestry machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 3: Series development, hardware and software.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2020). ABNT NBR ISO 25119-4: Tractors and agricultural and forestry machinery - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 4: Production, operation, modification, and support processes.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2015). ABNT NBR ISO 4254-1: Agricultural machinery - Safety - Part 1: General requirements.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2020). ABNT NBR IEC 60204-1: Machine safety - Electrical equipment of machines - Part 1: General requirements.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2021). ABNT NBR ISO 13857: Machine safety - Safety distances to prevent access to hazard zones by upper and lower limbs.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2003). ABNT NBR NM-ISO 13854: Machine safety - Minimum gaps to avoid crushing of parts of the human body.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2021). ABNT NBR ISO 13850: Machine safety - Emergency stop function - Principles for design.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2013). ABNT NBR ISO 12100: Machine safety - General principles for design - Risk assessment and reduction.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2019). ABNT NBR ISO 13849-1: Machine safety - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 1: General principles for design.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2019). ABNT NBR ISO 13849-2: Machine safety - Safety-related parts of control systems - Part 2: Validation.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2013). ABNT NBR ISO 13855: Machine safety - Positioning of protective equipment with reference to the approach of parts of the human body.
- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. (2020). ABNT NBR ISO 3691-4: Industrial vehicles - Safety requirements and verification - Part 4: Driverless industrial vehicles and their systems.
-
Brasil. (2019). Norma Regulamentadora nº 12: Segurança no trabalho em máquinas e equipamentos. https://www.gov.br/trabalho-e-previdencia/pt-br/composicao/orgaos-especificos/secretaria-de-trabalho/inspecao/seguranca-e-saude-no-trabalho/sst-portarias/2019/portaria_seprt_916_-aprova_a_nova_nr_12.pdf
» https://www.gov.br/trabalho-e-previdencia/pt-br/composicao/orgaos-especificos/secretaria-de-trabalho/inspecao/seguranca-e-saude-no-trabalho/sst-portarias/2019/portaria_seprt_916_-aprova_a_nova_nr_12.pdf -
Brasil. (2005). Norma Regulamentadora nº 31: Segurança e saúde no trabalho na agricultura, pecuária, silvicultura, exploração florestal e aquicultura. https://www.agricultura.rs.gov.br/upload/arquivos/201803/01121430-nr31-seguranca-e-saude-no-trabalhado.pdf
» https://www.agricultura.rs.gov.br/upload/arquivos/201803/01121430-nr31-seguranca-e-saude-no-trabalhado.pdf -
Brasil. (2020). Portaria GM/MInfra nº 2.663: Estabelece a Agenda Regulatória do Departamento Nacional de Trânsito (DENATRAN) para o biênio 2021-2022. Diário Oficial da União. https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-n%C2%BA-2.663-de-31-de-dezembro-de-2020
» https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-n%C2%BA-2.663-de-31-de-dezembro-de-2020 -
European Committee for Standardization. (2021). About CEN. https://www.cencenelec.eu/
» https://www.cencenelec.eu/ -
COVR. (2021). Safety for collaborative robots. https://www.safearoundrobots.com/toolkit/home
» https://www.safearoundrobots.com/toolkit/home -
euRobotics. (2012). Challenge 2: Cognitive systems, interaction, robotics. FP7 ICT Call 10 - NCP briefing. http://scienceportal.org.by/upload/14.12.2012-Challenge2_Ob.2.1-2.pdf
» http://scienceportal.org.by/upload/14.12.2012-Challenge2_Ob.2.1-2.pdf -
FarmDroid. (2021). FD20 product factsheet. https://farmdroid.dk/wp-content/uploads/Factsheet-FD20-v1.2.pdf
» https://farmdroid.dk/wp-content/uploads/Factsheet-FD20-v1.2.pdf -
Growing America. (2017). California regulation requires driver be in autonomous tractor, defeats the purpose. https://www.growingamerica.com/news/2017/12/california-regulation-requires-driver-be-in-autonomous-tractor-defeats-the-purpose-2017-12-12
» https://www.growingamerica.com/news/2017/12/california-regulation-requires-driver-be-in-autonomous-tractor-defeats-the-purpose-2017-12-12 -
International Electrotechnical Commission. (2021). What we do. https://www.iec.ch/what-we-do
» https://www.iec.ch/what-we-do -
International Organization for Standardization. (2021). About us. https://www.iso.org/about-us.html
» https://www.iso.org/about-us.html -
Guedes, M. S., & Machado, H. F. S. (2020). Intelligent autonomous vehicles and civil liability in traffic accidents in Brazil: Regulatory challenges and proposals for solution and regulation. Escola Superior do Ministério Público da União. http://www.mpsp.mp.br/portal/page/portal/documentacao_e_divulgacao/doc_biblioteca/bibli_servicos_produtos/BibliotecaDigital/BibDigitalLivros/TodosOsLivros/Ve%C3%ADculos%2Baut%C3%B4nomos%2Binteligentes.pdf
» http://www.mpsp.mp.br/portal/page/portal/documentacao_e_divulgacao/doc_biblioteca/bibli_servicos_produtos/BibliotecaDigital/BibDigitalLivros/TodosOsLivros/Ve%C3%ADculos%2Baut%C3%B4nomos%2Binteligentes.pdf -
International Electrotechnical Commission. (2021). What we do. https://www.iec.ch/what-we-do
» https://www.iec.ch/what-we-do -
International Organization for Standardization. (2021). About us. https://www.iso.org/about-us.html
» https://www.iso.org/about-us.html - Inamasu, R. Y. (2010). New technologies at the service of precision agriculture: ISOBUS products and telemetry. In Brazilian Congress of Precision Agriculture - ConBAP2010.
-
Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., & Griffin, T. W. (2006). Potential for precision agriculture adoption in Brazil. Site-Specific Management Center, Purdue University. https://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ssmc/frames/SSMC_newsletter6_06.pdf
» https://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ssmc/frames/SSMC_newsletter6_06.pdf - Pecka, A., & Osadcuks, V. (2018). Conceptual design of modular multifunctional agricultural mobile robot. Research for Rural Development, 1, 202-206.
-
Data Availability Statement:
The data in this article were based on Brazilian and international technical standards. Data sharing does not apply to this article.
Edited by
-
Area Editor:
Tatiana Fernanda Canata
The data in this article were based on Brazilian and international technical standards. Data sharing does not apply to this article.
