6. The Chair recalled that he had initiated an informal consultation over the summer 2018 to collect the list of items that Contracting Parties would wish to be addressed by GRVA. The Chair presented GRVA-01-33 containing the responses received together with those provided in WP.29-175-08 and WP.29-175-29, some 40 items in total. He proposed classifying the items into work streams to facilitate the participation of subject experts, e.g. Data management, Sensors (spatial awareness), Functional requirements, New assessment procedures and “other items”. The GRVA experts confirmed that the document contained all input received.

7. The expert from China offered suggestions on the structure, work programme and meeting arrangements of GRVA (reproduced in GRVA-01-32).

8. The expert from AAPC stated that they would like to support the work done under this agenda item, he suggested assessment criteria to be considered when working on priorities for GRVA.

9. The expert from the United States of America introduced GRVA-01-03 proposing some considerations relevant for the work of GRVA under the 1998 Agreement. The expert from ITU reported on their experience in the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air issues (TF CS/OTA) and highlighted the need for assistance from contracting parties when drafting documents to ensure the appropriateness of texts drafted to address specificities of the 1998 Agreement (and the context of self-certification). The expert from Germany, Co-Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Automated Commanded Steering Function (ACSF), recalled the ambition of his group to draft technical requirements suitable for use under both the 1958 and the 1998 Agreements.

10. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRVA-01-05 with their proposal for priorities. He recalled that decisions on priorities can only be made by the Executive Committee (AC. 3) for items to be handled under the 1998 Agreement. He also recalled the need for a technical sponsor for activities under the 1998 Agreement.

11. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-01-28 with information on the priorities of the industry that would require regulatory activities from GRVA. He regretted that the IWG on ACSF were not drafting provisions for so called Hands-off Lane Keeping Systems as SAE Level 2 even though this technology was already sold in some markets, e.g. in the United States of America. The Co-Chair of the IWG on ACSF and the expert from the Netherlands clarified that the IWG on ACSF considered hand off systems as Level 3 systems and not as Level 2. The Chair noted the differences between the priorities reported in GRVA-01-28 by OICA and those communicated by most of the manufacturers in their media statements. In response the expert from OICA prepared a revised document (GRVA-01-28-Rev.1) but was unable to demonstrate the technological and market priorities questions raised by GRVA. The expert from OICA also presented considerations on possible coordination of work between the subsidiary bodies (GRs) of WP.29. He suggested the nomination of GR Ambassadors on the model of IWVTA Ambassadors.

12. The expert from UITP stated the need to first address the safety of automated shared fleets for use by public transport systems.

13. The expert from ITU stated the need for GRVA to define a cluster around communication, including Platooning.

14. The expert from CLEPA insisted on the need to finalize the work on Automated Commanded Steering Function (ACSF).

15. The expert from GTB presented GRVA-01-06 with considerations on lighting and light-signalling for automated driving systems, highlighting the wish to work on this at the Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signalling (GRE). The expert from the Russian Federation suggested to explore ways to address this issue in the context of the Horizontal Regulation discussions. He mentioned that the presentation had already been made at WP.29. The expert from GTB also raised the question of coordination between GRs on automation as the expert from OICA had done. The expert from Japan recalled that WP.29 agreed to discuss coordination issues on automation. GRVA agreed that coordination issues would naturally be discussed at WP.29.

16. The expert from China introduced GRVA-01-16,

17. GRVA agreed that the items listed in GRVA-01-33 and the classification proposed should be reviewed at the next session under agenda item 4.

18. GRVA reviewed WP.29 informal documents WP.29-175-08 and WP.29-175-29 referred by WP.29 to GRVA as well as the list of items noted in the provisional agenda. GRVA had an extensive discussion on each item. The expert from OICA stated that the ongoing work was adequate to address industry priorities. The experts received clarifications on the meaning of each item by the proposal authors. They exchanged views on the priority that could be assigned to each item as well as the potential necessity to start regulatory activities (or not). GRVA concluded that GRVA is able (from the point of view of knowledge and expertise) to address each item in the list (GRVA-01-39) reproduced in Annex II to this report and was ready to fulfil its mandate as defined by WP.29 and/or AC.3. GRVA agreed to consider other items and possibly extend this list in the coming sessions.

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.