20. The representative of Japan presented WP.29-180-19 introducing the progress of implementation of the Revised Road Vehicle Act for automated driving scheduled to entry into force on 1 April 2020 in Japan. He highlighted that technical requirements being developed would be consistent with the international ones discussed in WP.29 and Japan would apply them without delay when the relevant UN Regulations were established. which Japan continued to strongly contribute to finalizing.

21. The representative of Germany, Chair of GRVA, reported to WP.29 on the implementation of the Framework Document on Automated Vehicles (FDAV) and the programme in its Annex. He mentioned the completion of the work on Automated Lane Keeping System (ALKS) by the IWGs on Automated Controlled Steering Functions (ACSF), Event Data Recorder / Data Storage System for Automated Driving (EDR/DSSAD) and Validation Method for Automated Driving (VMAD) as well as the delivery of the IWG on Functional Requirements for Automated and Autonomous Vehicles (FRAV).

22. The representative of the United States of America, Co-Chair of IWG on FRAV, introduced WP.29-180-10, summarizing the group’s work, suggesting FDAV improvements and presenting the group’s consensus on high-level requirements. He noted that FRAV has held two full meetings contiguous with VMAD and more than 100 experts. He highlighted the group’s concern to use accurate terms. The group discourages the use of “autonomous” as misleading and uses “minimal”, not “minimum”, risk manoeuvres (MRM) because an MRM responds to road conditions and best available solutions. In addition to avoidance of injury or death and compliance with traffic laws, the group noted additional aspects such as behaviour consistent with safe and fluid traffic flows and attention to economic consequences such as destruction of property.

23. The representative of the United States of America reported that the group has identified automated vehicle configurations that fall outside the category definitions of Special Resolution S.R.1. He noted unallocated elements of the FDAV (i.e., vehicle maintenance and inspection, consumer education and training, crashworthiness and compatibility, and post-crash Automated Vehicle (AV) behaviour) pertinent to functional safety. He announced planned meetings in Paris (April 2020) and California (September 2020).

24. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland welcomed the presentation but sought clarification as to whether the FRAV group had reached a conclusion regarding the use of Operational Design Domain (ODD) versus Operational Domain (OD), as stated in informal document 10. He added that the discussion on vehicle categories should not only concentrate on S.R.1 but also Consolidated Resolution R.E.3. He further suggested that it should also involve WP.1.

25. The representative of the United States of America answered that WP.29-180-10 presents the group’s high-level consensus. However, ODD will be discussed in detail at its next session. He noted a proposal from China to establish the term “Operational Design Conditions” (ODC) based on the concern that ODD did not include dependency on driver status. Therefore, the group would be working to produce a more precise definition for ODD and other terms.

26. The representative of Finland supported the view that a common understanding with WP.1 would be needed. He also recalled the discussion at GRSG on categories for Automated Shuttles and welcomed the idea to review S.R.1 and R.E.3 and volunteered to participate in this work.

27. The representative of the United States welcomed the comments received. He stated that the delegates from WP.1 should join the meeting and contribute or present documents.

28. The Vice-Chair of WP.29 agreed that practical solutions should be discussed with WP.1 during the joint meeting (see agenda item 8.2). He also recalled that the IWG on FRAV would continue to report to GRVA.

29. The Secretary of the IWG on FRAV (AAPC) highlighted complementary WP.1 interests. For example, FRAV experts reached a high-level consensus that a vehicle should signal initiation of minimal risk manoeuvres to surrounding road users (WP.29-180-10, item 33). He suggested that WP.1 may wish to consider driver obligations for correct use of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) or prohibiting drivers from using devices intended to defeat ADS safety features (e.g., using weights to simulate the driver’s hand on the steering wheel).

30. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland explained that at the WP.1-WP.29 Executive Task Force meeting in June 2019, he undertook to prepare a comparison table of terms used by WP.29 and WP.1. He had been invited to present this information during the joint meeting.

31. The secretariat introduced WP.29-180-18 responding to the task assigned during the 179th session of WP.29 concerning the legal basis to draft lifecycle and lifetime related provisions under the 1958 Agreement.

32. The representative of France proposed to distribute this document to all GRs for review and potential comment. WP.29 agreed with this proposal and decided to keep this document on its agenda.

33. The representative of OICA reaffirmed his views on the purpose of the 1958 Agreement and the 1997 Agreement highlighting that the 1958 Agreement defines the performance requirements that vehicles and their equipment must fulfill in order to allow their placing on the market; the 1997 Agreement is aimed at verifying that these same vehicles and equipment remain in good shape as foreseen by the Rules. He also emphasized that, while the 1958 Agreement and its UN Regulations may foresee provisions to facilitate later inspections under the 1997 Agreement, the objectives of both Agreements should not be mixed. The secretariat confirmed that the document did not explore the potential link between both Agreements but simply offered a reading of the 1958 Agreement.