Advance copy of the guidance developed for regulators when considering legal requirements for automated driving systems. This proposal contains tentative provisions still under discussion pending the November sessions of WP.29 and the informal group on ITS/Automated Driving.
28. WP.29 agreed to defer consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/145 (still containing text in square brackets) to the March 2018 session.
31. WP.29 agreed with the proposals of the IWG and (a) requested that GRRF address the work item on Data Storage System for Automated Driving (DSSAD), (b) extend the mandate of the group until March 2020 and (c) adopt ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/2 with the following modifications:
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.