47. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/7, a revised amendment proposal to the Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) of Category B1 provisions in UN Regulation No. 79 (maximum lateral acceleration aymax). The expert from the Netherlands opposed to the proposal, as it could generate mode confusion and overreliance on the market. The experts from France, the European Commission and UK supported the proposal. The expert from Germany suggested that the proposal is further discussed by a task force. GRVA agreed to keep the proposal on hold.
48. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/8 as amended by GRVA-09-37 on continued support of ACSF of Category B1 when the boundary conditions are exceeded. The proposal received comments from the experts from France and UK. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this proposal at its next session.
49. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/9 as amended by GRVA-09-30. She announced that the amendment to the tolerance in square bracket was withdrawn. GRVA adopted the proposal (without the amendment to the tolerance in para. 5.6.4.7.) and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2021 sessions.
50. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/10 proposing revised amendments to the ACSF of Category C provisions (time range during which the lane change manoeuvre is initiated) in UN Regulation No. 79. The experts from UK, European Commissions and Japan supported the proposal. The expert from Korea supported the proposal and indicated that a longer time than the one proposed would be preferable. The expert from the Netherlands opposed to the proposal for the same reasons as the one expressed in September 2020. The expert from Norway also opposed to the proposal. He wondered about the possible benefits of stretching the limits. The expert from France supported the proposal but pointed out inconsistencies in the drawing compared to the provisions in the text. The expert from OICA supported the proposal. The expert from AVERE provided answers to the statements and questions raised. The Chair asked if all doubts were cleared. The experts from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Finland still had reservations to the proposal but agreed that it could be further discussed at a task force meeting.
51. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/11, an amendment proposal to the ACSF of Category C provisions, with the main aim to include a truck-trailer data transmission. He proposed that the industry would invite for a specific workshop to discuss this until June 2021. He announced that OICA was targeting the adoption of an amendment proposal on this matter at the September 2021 session of GRVA.
52. The expert from the European Commission introduced GRVA-09-15, proposing revised Terms of Reference for the Task Force (TF) on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). He explained that the TF would work on amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 or a new Regulation as needed, that it would consider the use cases expected in the next years, that it would envisage a generic approach as well as Human Machine Interface (HMI), mode confusion, overreliance and misuse related concerns, in full coordination with the IWGs on FRAV and VMAD. He mentioned that the outcome of this work would be delivered in three phases, in September 2021 (finalization of pending proposals), in 2022 (second phase) and in 2023 (work under the 1998 Agreement).
53. The expert from AAPC recalled that UN Regulation No. 79 was only dealing with Advanced Driver Assistance Steering Systems (ADASS).
54. The expert from Japan expressed support for the ToR and committed to contribute to the work. He agreed about the importance to address HMI and social acceptance aspects and to review technical data and accidentology data. He mentioned that the USA, Canada and China included other systems than those covered in UN Regulation No. 79 on their markets and stated that 1998 Contracting Parties should participate to that work and provide data.
55. The expert from AVERE provided comments and expressed support for these activities. He presented GRVA-09-16, providing a report of the preliminary meeting of the Task Force on ADAS that developed the revised Terms of Reference.
56. The expert from Sweden expressed a positive position about the document. He mentioned that the scope of the TF would be complex and that the timing proposed was unsure. He wondered if the task force could work without ToR.
57. The expert from UK supported that work. He mentioned that the ToR established a plan and that they could be revisited as needed.
58. The expert from China agreed to join the meetings of the TF.
59. The expert from the Netherlands highlighted the challenging timeline proposed.
60. The expert from Germany supported the proposal.
61. The expert from China mentioned their readiness to work on ADAS including items beyond ADASS.
62. The expert from OICA recalled the aim of this workstream, that was to address the limitations of UN Regulation No. 79 e.g. new functions not fitting in existing definitions in UN Regulation No. 79 or longitudinal requirements that would not really fit in a steering regulation. He supported, for this reason, that the task force would focus on ADASS.
63. The expert from the United States of America expressed reservations. He recalled that UN Regulation No. 79 was about steering; going beyond that scope would get the work of the task force close to the one of the IWG on FRAV. He mentioned that there might be areas where ADAS and ADS are well separated by clear lines but that others don’t, such as HMI. He mentioned that if the group deliver a new UN Regulation by September 2021, then the group would be well ahead of the IWG on FRAV, so that it could prejudice the IWG’s work. He also mentioned that anticipating work on a UN GTR derived from a UN Regulation did not make sense.
64. The expert from OICA stated that ADAS and ADS had different scopes and recalled that their respective scopes had been defined at WP.29 level in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/2.
65. The expert from Canada expressed support to the position expressed by the United States of America. He requested that the session report reflected the concerns expressed in terms of organization, overlap and realistic timeframes.
66. GRVA took note of the reservations expressed, of the importance of coordination and adopted the proposal with the deletion of paragraph 2 in part C of the document, as reproduced in Annex IV to this report.
67. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 proposing an alternative HMI for remote control parking in UN Regulation No. 79.
68. The expert from UK noted that, under the current provisions, a remote served as interface and, that in the alternative HMI proposed, the human would serve as interface. He inquired about the safety mechanism in place to make sure that the driver knows how to stop controlling and moving the vehicle.
69. The expert from Germany proposed that the Task Force could review the proposal and the question raised. The experts from France and the Netherlands supported Germany.
70. GRVA invited the expert from OICA to liaise with France, Germany and the Netherlands, and also to discuss the proposal at the task force meetings.