122. The representative of the European Union introduced WP.29-173-20 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/144) aimed at providing an overview of the priority of the programme of work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones. She finally invited AC.3 to provide more details on new UN GTR activities. The representative of the United States of America underlined that especially for the development of new UN GTRs, sponsors should be assigned. The representative from OICA agreed with most of the proposed subjects, but underlined that:

1. Harmonisation is crucial, but issues on the same subjects already being developed in the framework of the 1958 Agreement should continue to be conducted in parallel;
2. Clarification was needed for the development of a UN GTR on Event Data Recorders (EDR); OICA supported this, but pointed out that there was a difference between EDR and data storage systems for automated vehicles and that the scope of the proposal should be clarified;
3. Clarification of the exact objectives would be welcome on the proposals, especially the one on driver recognition systems.

123. AC.3 agreed in principle on the content of WP.29-173-20 and requested the secretariat to distribute it with an official symbol at its March 2018 session for final revision and endorsement.

124. The representative of Japan stated that, regarding a next step for this agenda, the highly automated driving issue should be discussed not only under the 1958 Agreement but also under the 1998 Agreement, and that there is high possibility for this item to become a new UN GTR activity according to the programme of work.

156. The Chair of AC.3 introduced the documents that were considered under this agenda item. AC.3 considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/31, aimed at providing an updated overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones. AC.3 referred to the discussions on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 under agenda item 2.3.

157. The Chair of AC.3 proposed that agenda item 17 could be divided into two items: 17.1 on the conventional priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement, and 17.2. on priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement concerning automated and connected vehicles for consideration.

158. Discussion was inconclusive, and the Chair of AC.3 proposed to prepare and submit an informal document to the fifty-sixth session detailing the proposed changes to the agenda. AC.3 accepted this proposal and deferred continuation of discussions on the matter to the subsequent AC.3 session in June 2019.

139. AC.3 resumed discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/34 aimed at providing an overview of the priority of the Programme of Work (PoW) of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones.

140. The representative of ETRTO indicated that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/34 was already outdated and suggested that it be amended.

141. The representative from OICA introduced WP.29-174-08/Rev.1 underlining that clarification was needed for the development of a UN GTR on Event Data Recorders (EDR), since EDRs need to be clearly distinguished from Data Storage Systems for Automated Driving (DSSAD), from a regulatory point of view. He explained that in EDRs, data such as vehicle speed, speed reduction, service brake, etc., is only recorded when triggered in the event of an accident, and EDRs can be applicable in conventional and automated vehicles to understand the conditions surrounding an accident. On the other hand, he stated, the DSSAD is necessary to support the vehicle information on automated driving, namely that data stored in these devices reflects whether the automated driving system is on or off, whether there is a transition demand from the system to the driver or does the driver ask the system to take over, does the driver take over, is there a minimum risk manoeuvre being executed, etc. He explained that this data might have to be registered any time and over a period of time in order to trace the behaviour of the autonomous vehicle, in other words whether the driver or the system was responsible for its actions. He emphasized that DSSADs are not relevant for conventional vehicles but only for automated vehicles with levels of automation three, four and five.

142. The representative of OICA also stated that clarification is needed on the priority area identified as Driver Availability Recognition, namely the level of automation that the system would be applicable for, in order to secure consistency with other documents developed in this context that link the system applicability to level three and higher automation.

143. The representative of OICA expressed support for the remaining items of the PoW (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/34), in accordance with the comments provided in WP.29-174-08/Rev.1, except for the Longitudinal Control item, stating that the example given in the PoW refers to systems that are by definition level one, which as such would not require a new regulation to be developed. He noted that if the PoW refers to longitudinal control levels three and above, the issue should be handled under the item Framework Regulation on automated/autonomous vehicles level 3-5.

144. The representative of the European Union presented WP.29-174-18, jointly prepared by Japan and the European Union, which contains the seven priority areas of work on automated driving. The document proposes a distribution of activities among working parties, time horizon for their initiation and/or finalization as well as additional clarifications concerning the tentative steps to be taken.

145. The representative of the United States of America thanked the representatives of Japan and the European Union for their joint efforts to identity additional priorities, with approaches and possible timeframes to initiate the work. She stated that due to the importance of the work identified in the PoW for governments and industry stakeholders, the United States of America would review the document with the proposed regulatory approaches with national stakeholders and provide constructive comments at the next session of the World Forum.

146. Upon request for clarification from the representative of the United States of America, AC.3 experts explained that the “framework regulation” mentioned in the document was intended to contain provisions applicable to automated and autonomous vehicles in the context of both self-certification and type approval systems, supporting harmonization at global level.

147. The Chair of AC.3 proposed to defer discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/34 to the fifty-third session of AC.3, which was scheduled to be held on 20 June 2018, and to develop for that session a document as a basis for further deliberations on the PoW.

129. AC.3 resumed discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/34 aimed at providing an overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work (PoW) of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones.

130. The representative of Japan explained that in view of the decision taken by WP.29 under agenda item 2.3 (see para. 33 above) document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/34 had to be amended. Therefore, he introduced the informal documents WP.29-175-28 and WP.29-175-29, tabled jointly with the representative of the European Union, to provide an update of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/34. He added that both documents had incorporated the feedbacks received so far from the contracting parties concerning: (a) the existing working groups (informal document WP.29-175-28) and (b) the new priorities assigned (informal document WP.29-175-29) to the working group dedicated for automated/autonomous connected vehicles (GRVA) and to GRSG.

131. The representative of the United States of America suggested that a precise revision should be undertaken by all contracting parties to identify their priorities and to reflect on any element. The representative of China recalled his comments (informal document WP.29-175-08) to AC.3 on the noted GRVA. The representative of OICA confirmed that, in principle, the informal document WP.29-175-29 met the expectations of his organization, even though due to its late submission there was need for a more in-depth evaluation by his members. However, he recommended that, due to the limited resources available, it was advisable to concentrate efforts on developing a higher level of automation instead of already existing ones (e.g. longitudinal control for the Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC)).

132. The representative of the United Kingdom, Chair of the former GRRF, suggested that the informal documents WP.29-175-29 and WP.29-175-08 would be among the documents that he intended to send to interested parties prior to the GRVA session in September 2018, to have a thorough discussion on the priorities of this group. He added that the deliberations, on these documents made by his group, would be annexed to the report of GRVA of the September 2018 session or be a stand-alone document for revision to the November session of AC.3. He finally recommended informal documents WP.29-175-29 and WP.29-175-08 to be considered as live documents, as well as the informal document WP.29-175-28 which should be kept as a separate document for the clarity of all interested parties. Finally, AC.3 endorsed the recommendation of the representative of the United Kingdom and requested the secretariat to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/34 as a reference, awaiting the deliberations of GRVA and feedbacks from interested parties.