38. The expert from ITU presented GRVA-15-15/Rev.2 on the identification of the status of a vehicle with ADS, based on radio communication, as an alternative to the light-signalling option currently reviewed by the Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signalling. He recalled the discussions at the IWG on FRAV and IGEAD workshop (see para. 31 above), which indicated that an external light signal would not be the preferred option, at this stage, to identify the status of a vehicle with ADS.

39. GRVA agreed to transmit GRVA-15-15/Rev.2 to the IWG on ITS, so that this can be considered under the activities related to vehicular communications.

40. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-15-34, welcoming on the one side the work done by the IWGs on FRAV and VMAD and calling on the other side for a regulatory action plan. He proposed that GRVA identifies: (a) contents from FRAV and VMAD that would be potentially useful for developing a UN Global Technical Regulation; (b) contents that would be useful for drafting a UN Regulation; and (c) additional contents not yet covered by FRAV or VMAD that would be needed for the sake of rulemaking. He stressed the importance of planning and executing and therefore proposed the establishment of a task force to perform these tasks.

41. The expert from the Netherlands, Co-Chair of the IWG on VMAD, did not oppose to meet these targets in general. He pointed at the ambitious plan of the industry to develop a global certification scheme for ADS and expected delays due to the lack of input by industry. He expected that the establishment of a new Task Force would distract the ongoing work of FRAV and VMAD.

42. The expert from France shared the concerns expressed by industry regarding potentially missing items and timetables. He expressed his thought that developing a regulatory package would imply establishing a drafting group. He highlighted the importance of addressing vehicle categories and asked if industry could share their needs on this.

43. The expert from Canada, Co-Chair of the IWG on VMAD, proposed to keep the current approach, which was generic, technology neutral and agreement neutral. He confirmed that Canada would not be supportive of establishing an additional task force.

44. The expert from the European Commission wondered how much resource (time) would be needed to address the request by industry and if industry could organize a small group meeting to discuss these items. She mentioned that the VMAD subgroup 3 discussed this matter but did not conclude in absence of a mandate to do so.

45. The expert from OICA welcomed the responses received. He answered to the question related to vehicle categories and indicated that industry already identified vehicles that would not fit under the current categories in the future and was finalizing proposals on how to map requirements to specific vehicle categories. He answered to Canada that there was still no commitment nor clear way forward regarding regulations on ADS. He stated that without corresponding regulations, these vehicles cannot be on the road. He welcomed the development of a matrix (see para. 18). He advocated for the development of a plan to address questions such as auditing requirements, and requirements for a safety management system. He welcomed the proposal by the European Commission and stated that a clear commitment from the contracting parties was needed on the future activities based on the deliverables from FRAV and VMAD.

46. GRVA recalled that the current outcome of FRAV and VMAD so far was not mature enough for the purpose of regulation and that the time provided under the two-year mandate was used to deliver a mature text.

47. GRVA stood ready to collaborate with GRSG on activities related to the definition of vehicle categories in the context of ADS.