15. The Chair of GRVA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2024/39 containing the Guidelines and recommendations for Automated Driving System safety requirements, assessments and test methods to inform regulatory development. WP.29 endorsed it and requested its publication as a brochure with the inclusion of an introduction providing the context.

16. The representative of Japan presented (WP.29-194-20) the status report of the IWG on ADS and the GRVA workshops on ADS. WP.29 noted it and invited GRVA to prepare an updated version for consideration in March 2025.

17. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland presented the second report (WP.29-194-31) of the Task Force on Automated Vehicle Categorization (AVC) detailing the status of the amendments proposed to the Consolidated Resolution R.E.3 and the Special Resolution S.R.1. He sought guidance on three topics, (a) on the impact on driver licensing and the need to consult WP.1, (b) on bidirectional vehicles and (c) on the need for a sponsor of the amendment to S.R.1.

18. The representative of Canada noted that the text proposed used three different terms: people, occupant and passenger and suggested to check consistency.

19. The representative of the United States of America inquired what was the issue that WP.1 would need to consider and if it had the expertise. The representative of Australia suggested to define the term occupant as passenger or driver. The representative of the Netherlands inquired who would be the holder of a driver licence in the case of a vehicle with an ADS. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland provided a specific case where consulting driving licence authorities could make sense and mentioned existing regulations limiting taxis to have maximum 8 passengers. The representative of France proposed to inform WP.1 on the ongoing work. The representative of OICA drew the attention of WP.29 to ECE/TRANS/WP.1/2018/4/Rev.3. WP.29 invited the experts to consider the various suggestions received and further develop its proposal. WP.29 agreed to keep WP.1 informed but did not request WP.1’s input at this time.

20. The representative of France clarified that the task forces dealing with the regulations fitness check for ADS did not consider bi-directional vehicles as a priority but also conceded that if these new concepts would be marketed, WP.29 would have to take a stance. The representative of IMMA recalled that his organization did not support the inclusion of the whole Category L in the amendments prepared by the Task Force on AVC. He explained that it would send the wrong message to the task forces reviewing the regulations on their fitness for ADS in terms of priority and need for review of regulations applicable to motorcycles. He inquired if this inclusion could be limited to the categories L6 and L7. WP.29 agreed that new concepts such as bidirectional vehicles and the Category L could be covered but that these vehicle categories were not a priority.

21. Regarding the need for a sponsor for the amendment to S.R.1, WP.29 noted that amendments to S.R.1, as established practices until now, would need in principle a sponsor country from a Contracting Party to the 1998 Agreement but would be pursued without an authorization to develop that amendment, pending confirmation of AC.3.

22. The representative of France presented the status report (WP.29-194-16) prepared by the Task Forces under the GRs reviewing the fitness of the vehicle regulations for ADS. He consulted WP.29 on potential options addressing three questions: (a) the need to amend regulations or develop two new regulations on crashworthiness and general safety instead, (b) on provisions related to the non-Dynamic Driving Tasks (DDT) of the drivers mentioned in several regulations and © the communication with ADS users. Some delegations provided initial views. WP.29 agreed that this status report would be considered by the IWG on ADS during its December 2024 meeting in Seoul and that a special session of the TF on FADS open to all participants of WP.29 could be organized in the beginning of 2025.

23. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Co-Chair of the IWG on ITS, reported (WP.29-194-21) on the outcome of the two sessions of the group that took place since the June 2024 session of WP.29. He recalled WP.29 that the IWG on ITS exchanged views on Artificial Intelligence in the context of WP.29 activities. He explained that the group endorsed the document submitted by the TF on Vehicular Communication and submitted it to WP.29 (see WP.29-194-23 titled Vehicular Communications Definition, Types, Value, Uses, and Considerations) and that the group started initial discussions on future activities on vehicular communications based on that document.

24. WP.29 welcomed the document and requested the secretariat to distribute it with an official symbol at its next session. WP.29 noted that the document contained a number of potential use cases, and that exchange should continue to identify these use cases that would be implemented in the near future and the possible role of WP.29 to support their deployment. WP.29 agreed to reflect, following the suggestion of the representatives of the Netherlands and the Russian Federation, on the possible organization of a repository of guidance and reference documents adopted by WP.29.

25. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland presented considerations on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in road vehicles. He recalled the adoption by WP.29 in June 2024 of Considerations on Artificial Intelligence in the context of road vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1182). He noted that several WP.29 regulations required a functional safety assessment (e.g. UN Regulations Nos. 13, 13-H, 79, 131, 152 and 171) without an UNECE framework for assessing AI when it is part of a safety critical system. He reflected on possible steps that should be taken by WP.29 to support Type Approval Authorities, and Technical Services, when they encounter the use of AI in vehicles and have to decide if appropriate processes have been followed. He proposed to establish a group under WP.29 to address these questions.

26. The representative of Germany supported the proposal to establish a dedicated informal working group for transparency and visibility reasons and explained in addition that, while countries and regions may have established horizontal regulations, their application to the automotive sector needs to be informed by the expertise of WP.29. WP.29 would need to do its part. He offered that Germany be part of the leadership team of the new informal working group once established.

27. The representative of Liechtenstein supported the proposal and emphasised the importance to provide trust in AI with the appropriate United Nations protocol or regulatory framework.

28. The representative of Canada explained that his government looked at AI from global standpoint, not necessary at the vehicle level. He recommended that a new group, if established, should address the specific concern of Approval Authorities raised by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding Approval Authorities that need support to audit systems addressed by regulations that use AI for development. He highlighted that the United Kingdom referenced the GRVA informal group on Validation Method for Automated Driving that previously looked in details regarding AI.

29. The representative of the European Commission supported the proposal, suggested to establish a dedicated group, and to look at how the national and regional horizontal AI requirements would apply to the automotive ecosystem. He supported the idea to analyse existing initiatives in that field.

30. The representative of China supported the proposal. He considered it to be the right time for WP.29 to address that topic and noted initiatives at the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) and also in China. He noted that automotive AI intersected with traditional automotive technology so the drafting of AI regulations will be more difficult. He supported deep and detailed discussion within a new group and offered that China be part of the leadership team.

31. The representative of the Netherlands supported the proposal. He noted the importance of audits in that context and the useful precedents set by UN Regulations Nos. 155 and 156.

32. The representative of Sweden supported the proposal of establishing a dedicated IWG. She recommended to clarify the objectives of the new group and to confirm that all GRs should be allowed to continue to work on AI in an integrated manner.

33. The representative of IEEE welcomed the proposal; she expressed appreciation for the presentation and the report referenced in it. She volunteered to provide the secretariat to the new group.

34. The representative of France supported the preoccupations of the United Kingdom and supported the proposal. He felt important that it is known that WP.29 and the UNECE Sustainable Transport Division is addressing the topic. He supported the idea to define the objective of the new group.

35. The representative of the United States of America recommended to continue discussions on AI at WP.29. She noted that without a specific list of objectives, needs and activities, the United States of America would not be in a position to support the establishment of a new working group. She understood the enthusiasm generated by the idea to address the topic holistically but advised WP.29 to take it slow and step-by-step in developing a full UN regulatory Framework would be premature, noting that the technology was still in development. She supported the idea to create an inventory of standards and initiatives that relate to vehicle and to vehicle safety as a future possible activity of WP.29.

36. The representative of OICA recommended that, if a new IWG is established, the objective would not be to develop new requirements in addition to existing horizontal requirements already in place, but instead, would be to consider the horizontal regulations at national and regional levels as input for harmonization and to translate them into provisions applicable for automotive sector for the purpose of harmonization. He stressed the need for a clear commitment by the Contracting Parties to participate, bring their input, and be ready to define harmonized requirements/guidelines for the automotive sector. He supported that IEEE provides the secretariat to the new group, if any.

37. The representative of AAPC, Secretary to the IWG on ADS, confirmed that the WP.29 guidelines on ADS safety (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2024/39) included consideration on Artificial Intelligence with regard to ADS development and virtual testing. He advised WP.29 to make sure that the efforts of the new group would be complementary to existing groups and would not create duplications.

38. The representative of SAE International noted that SAE International would be available to be Co-Secretary to the new group.

39. WP.29 invited interested parties to liaise and consider the objectives that a new IWG on AI would address and to resume consideration of this topic in March 2025.

40. The representative of ITU presented (WP.29-194-36) considerations regarding electronic repository of unsigned traffic rules and proposed that GRVA address the topic. The representative of OICA inquired whether this could be a topic for the IWG on ITS. The representatives of Canada and United States of America explained that given the workload both at GRVA and at the IWG on ITS, this topic could not be the priority at this stage. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland inquired whether industry would be able to rely on such a traffic rules repository if established or would have to consult other sources any way. The representative of the Netherlands considered that the ADS would be the driver and therefore would have to comply with all local rules like drivers have to do. The representative of Canada highlighted this as an example for the need to develop a ranking system to ensure groups can assess how new items rank in priority to existing items which would help determine if other work should be paused or the new work should be parked for the future.

41. The representative of ITU recalled the collaboration of UNECE and ITU on the annual Future Networked Cars symposium for 15 years and that WP.29 stakeholders usually moderate the first day of the symposium. He announced the 2025 edition scheduled to take place in March 2025. WP.29 welcomed the information and looked forward to it.