Framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles
Download in .pdf format Download in .docx format
Reference Number: WP.29/2019/34
Date: 15 April 2019
Proposal Status: Formal WP.29 review
Related Documents:
WP.29-177-19 | Proposal for a framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles
WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 | Proposal to amend the draft AV Framework Document
WP.29-178-19 | Proposal for amendments to framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles
Discussion(s):
Working Party on Passive Safety | Session 65 | 13-17 May 2019

4. The Chair informed GRVA that WP.29 agreed the general approach outlined in the draft framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (WP.29-177-19) and directed GRVA to use the issues, topics and deliverables from the document as guidance to inform its further discussions on structuring its work and delivery plans. He noted that WP.29-177-19 was distributed by the secretariat with an official symbol (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34) for consideration at the June 2019 session of the World Forum. He also noted that World Forum expected GRVA to report at the June 2019 session on its proposed structure, and to propose Terms of Reference (ToRs) for IWGs in this respect.

5. The Chair mentioned that some Contracting Parties expressed the need to amend the table in the framework document and the Secretary introduced a note by the secretariat GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 capturing positions expressed during the three virtual meetings with the Contracting Parties organized by the Chair aimed at facilitating the development of the ToRs.

6. The expert from EC thanked the secretariat for the preparation of document GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He asked whether the content of Annex II was necessary as it was also contained in GRVA-03-10. The expert from the United States of America proposed to keep this Annex in square brackets.

7. The expert from Germany welcomed the document. He considered that the list of items in Annex 2 was not exhaustive and therefore should only be provided to the IWG as ideas for consideration. He also noted the ambitious deadlines proposed.

8. The expert from OICA noted the late availability of this document and highlighted the need to ensure the completion of current activities when considering future IWGs.

9. The expert from AAPC requested some clarifications on the scope of activities on Functional Requirements and on VMAD. GRVA agreed to consider this when drafting the ToRs.

10. The expert from ITU highlighted some industrial priorities on localization, data storage for automated driving, driver monitoring and transition demands. He noted the need to make progress on these activities as they could have costly hardware implications in case of delay.

11. The expert from Sweden inquired about the work on Roadworthiness of Automated Vehicles. GRVA responded that these activities were essentially a task of the ACSF group and remained current under the ACSF activities.

12. Following the interventions from the European Commission, Japan, United States of America, GRVA agreed that the work to be done on the drafting of Terms of Reference for IWGs would be performed on the basis of Table 1 in this document.

13. The Chair introduced GRVA-03-10, a draft document containing Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures for four Informal Working Groups. He explained that he drafted one single document aimed to support the drafting of ToR by providing an overview of all activities to avoid unnecessary overlaps.

14. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-03-11, GRVA-03-12 and GRVA-03-13 with separate Terms of Reference for each of the new IWGs. He stated that he proposed less ambitious deadlines than those of the Framework document.

15. The expert from Spain proposed to merge the approach presented.

16. GRVA noted that the mandate for the Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues had been extended by one year by WP.29 in March 2019 and deferred discussion on further activity for this group.

17. The expert from the European Commission preferred to work on the basis of Table 1 in GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He noted that the work could be done in phases e.g. prioritizing activities on highway, urban and then interurban conditions. He stated that short terms deliveries could be defined without explicitly defining mid-term deliveries at this stage.

18. The expert from OICA preferred a use case approach and a function approach. He stated that priorities should be carefully defined. He recalled as an example that the work on ALKS was prioritizing passenger cars over those for heavy-duty vehicles. He opined that this would not be acceptable for the industry on longer terms.

19. ToRs for the Functional Requirements, Vehicle Test Methods and Data Storage Systems/Event Data Recorders were developed during the session.

20. GRVA reviewed GRVA-03-17 and revised the draft during the session to include references to existing standards and guidelines as proposed by Spain and the United States of America respectively. This approach formed the template for drafting ToRs for the Test Methods group (VMAD) and a revision of the GRSG proposal for an IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

21. GRVA agreed that the draft Terms of Reference as reproduced in GRVA-03-20, GRVA-03-21 and GRVA-03-22 should be transmitted to WP.29 for consideration at the June 2019 session (see Annexes III to V of the session report). GRVA agreed that the work on the items proposed in Table 1 of GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 already started, subject to final endorsement by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

22. GRVA agreed that the existing objectives of the IWG on ACSF should not be affected by the new IWG on FRAV. GRVA agreed that the IWG on FRAV should structure its activities to allow the leadership of the IWG on ACSF to finish its work e.g. common timing and venues for ACSF and FRAV sessions.

23. GRVA briefly discussed the leadership of the IWG. GRVA agreed on the need for a global representation including Asia/Pacific, Europe and North America. GRVA was informed of Countries willing to contribute to the leadership of the IWGs (see Annex II of the session report). GRVA concluded that the leadership question would be decided by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

25. The representative of Japan introduced, on behalf of China, European Union, Japan and the United States of America, WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 containing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 – Framework Document on Automated/autonomous Vehicles. He explained that the amendments included editorial amendments as well as a restructured Table 1 containing details on (i) current activities, (ii) expected future activities and (iii) references to the key safety principles mentioned in the document.

26. The representative of the Republic of Korea introduced WP.29-178-19, proposing additional amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34. The representative of Sweden proposed to insert into Table 1 considerations related to para. 4 (j) regarding vehicle inspection. The representative of CITA supported the position of the representative of Sweden.

27. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 as amended by WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 and requested the secretariat to issue it as a reference document with the symbol ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.1.

46. The secretary of the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 on priority topics for automated and connected vehicles. The expert from the United States of America stressed that even though automated vehicles were different from conventional vehicles for many aspects, crashworthiness remained relevant. He clarified that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 did not yet include the work tasks of GRSP and was mainly a list of tasks for GRVA. He added that this document should be considered a living document and that crashworthiness should be included. He mentioned a few examples of passenger compartment configurations (e.g. passengers lying down or facing the side, lack of a steering wheel), and he added that these different dynamics would involve passengers in a crash. The expert from Germany endorsed the statement of the expert from the United States of America. He added that new tools and computer simulations should be validated. He urged to start a list of detailed subjects as soon as possible that would be examined during the December 2019 session of GRSP. The expert from the United States of America clarified that the vehicle automation was managed by WP.29 and the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) and not by GRVA. He suggested that the expert from Germany raise this issue at WP.29 and AC.3. He reiterated his statement (as per ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2) that currently, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 mainly referred to GRVA tasks and that other topics related to crashworthiness should be addressed by GRSP. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2019 session, awaiting feedback from WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2019 sessions.

World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations | Session 178 | 24-28 Jun 2019

4. The Chair informed GRVA that WP.29 agreed the general approach outlined in the draft framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (WP.29-177-19) and directed GRVA to use the issues, topics and deliverables from the document as guidance to inform its further discussions on structuring its work and delivery plans. He noted that WP.29-177-19 was distributed by the secretariat with an official symbol (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34) for consideration at the June 2019 session of the World Forum. He also noted that World Forum expected GRVA to report at the June 2019 session on its proposed structure, and to propose Terms of Reference (ToRs) for IWGs in this respect.

5. The Chair mentioned that some Contracting Parties expressed the need to amend the table in the framework document and the Secretary introduced a note by the secretariat GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 capturing positions expressed during the three virtual meetings with the Contracting Parties organized by the Chair aimed at facilitating the development of the ToRs.

6. The expert from EC thanked the secretariat for the preparation of document GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He asked whether the content of Annex II was necessary as it was also contained in GRVA-03-10. The expert from the United States of America proposed to keep this Annex in square brackets.

7. The expert from Germany welcomed the document. He considered that the list of items in Annex 2 was not exhaustive and therefore should only be provided to the IWG as ideas for consideration. He also noted the ambitious deadlines proposed.

8. The expert from OICA noted the late availability of this document and highlighted the need to ensure the completion of current activities when considering future IWGs.

9. The expert from AAPC requested some clarifications on the scope of activities on Functional Requirements and on VMAD. GRVA agreed to consider this when drafting the ToRs.

10. The expert from ITU highlighted some industrial priorities on localization, data storage for automated driving, driver monitoring and transition demands. He noted the need to make progress on these activities as they could have costly hardware implications in case of delay.

11. The expert from Sweden inquired about the work on Roadworthiness of Automated Vehicles. GRVA responded that these activities were essentially a task of the ACSF group and remained current under the ACSF activities.

12. Following the interventions from the European Commission, Japan, United States of America, GRVA agreed that the work to be done on the drafting of Terms of Reference for IWGs would be performed on the basis of Table 1 in this document.

13. The Chair introduced GRVA-03-10, a draft document containing Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures for four Informal Working Groups. He explained that he drafted one single document aimed to support the drafting of ToR by providing an overview of all activities to avoid unnecessary overlaps.

14. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-03-11, GRVA-03-12 and GRVA-03-13 with separate Terms of Reference for each of the new IWGs. He stated that he proposed less ambitious deadlines than those of the Framework document.

15. The expert from Spain proposed to merge the approach presented.

16. GRVA noted that the mandate for the Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues had been extended by one year by WP.29 in March 2019 and deferred discussion on further activity for this group.

17. The expert from the European Commission preferred to work on the basis of Table 1 in GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He noted that the work could be done in phases e.g. prioritizing activities on highway, urban and then interurban conditions. He stated that short terms deliveries could be defined without explicitly defining mid-term deliveries at this stage.

18. The expert from OICA preferred a use case approach and a function approach. He stated that priorities should be carefully defined. He recalled as an example that the work on ALKS was prioritizing passenger cars over those for heavy-duty vehicles. He opined that this would not be acceptable for the industry on longer terms.

19. ToRs for the Functional Requirements, Vehicle Test Methods and Data Storage Systems/Event Data Recorders were developed during the session.

20. GRVA reviewed GRVA-03-17 and revised the draft during the session to include references to existing standards and guidelines as proposed by Spain and the United States of America respectively. This approach formed the template for drafting ToRs for the Test Methods group (VMAD) and a revision of the GRSG proposal for an IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

21. GRVA agreed that the draft Terms of Reference as reproduced in GRVA-03-20, GRVA-03-21 and GRVA-03-22 should be transmitted to WP.29 for consideration at the June 2019 session (see Annexes III to V of the session report). GRVA agreed that the work on the items proposed in Table 1 of GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 already started, subject to final endorsement by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

22. GRVA agreed that the existing objectives of the IWG on ACSF should not be affected by the new IWG on FRAV. GRVA agreed that the IWG on FRAV should structure its activities to allow the leadership of the IWG on ACSF to finish its work e.g. common timing and venues for ACSF and FRAV sessions.

23. GRVA briefly discussed the leadership of the IWG. GRVA agreed on the need for a global representation including Asia/Pacific, Europe and North America. GRVA was informed of Countries willing to contribute to the leadership of the IWGs (see Annex II of the session report). GRVA concluded that the leadership question would be decided by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

25. The representative of Japan introduced, on behalf of China, European Union, Japan and the United States of America, WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 containing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 – Framework Document on Automated/autonomous Vehicles. He explained that the amendments included editorial amendments as well as a restructured Table 1 containing details on (i) current activities, (ii) expected future activities and (iii) references to the key safety principles mentioned in the document.

26. The representative of the Republic of Korea introduced WP.29-178-19, proposing additional amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34. The representative of Sweden proposed to insert into Table 1 considerations related to para. 4 (j) regarding vehicle inspection. The representative of CITA supported the position of the representative of Sweden.

27. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 as amended by WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 and requested the secretariat to issue it as a reference document with the symbol ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.1.

46. The secretary of the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 on priority topics for automated and connected vehicles. The expert from the United States of America stressed that even though automated vehicles were different from conventional vehicles for many aspects, crashworthiness remained relevant. He clarified that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 did not yet include the work tasks of GRSP and was mainly a list of tasks for GRVA. He added that this document should be considered a living document and that crashworthiness should be included. He mentioned a few examples of passenger compartment configurations (e.g. passengers lying down or facing the side, lack of a steering wheel), and he added that these different dynamics would involve passengers in a crash. The expert from Germany endorsed the statement of the expert from the United States of America. He added that new tools and computer simulations should be validated. He urged to start a list of detailed subjects as soon as possible that would be examined during the December 2019 session of GRSP. The expert from the United States of America clarified that the vehicle automation was managed by WP.29 and the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) and not by GRVA. He suggested that the expert from Germany raise this issue at WP.29 and AC.3. He reiterated his statement (as per ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2) that currently, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 mainly referred to GRVA tasks and that other topics related to crashworthiness should be addressed by GRSP. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2019 session, awaiting feedback from WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2019 sessions.

Working Party on Automated and Connected Vehicles | Session 3 | 3-4 Jun 2019

4. The Chair informed GRVA that WP.29 agreed the general approach outlined in the draft framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (WP.29-177-19) and directed GRVA to use the issues, topics and deliverables from the document as guidance to inform its further discussions on structuring its work and delivery plans. He noted that WP.29-177-19 was distributed by the secretariat with an official symbol (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34) for consideration at the June 2019 session of the World Forum. He also noted that World Forum expected GRVA to report at the June 2019 session on its proposed structure, and to propose Terms of Reference (ToRs) for IWGs in this respect.

5. The Chair mentioned that some Contracting Parties expressed the need to amend the table in the framework document and the Secretary introduced a note by the secretariat GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 capturing positions expressed during the three virtual meetings with the Contracting Parties organized by the Chair aimed at facilitating the development of the ToRs.

6. The expert from EC thanked the secretariat for the preparation of document GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He asked whether the content of Annex II was necessary as it was also contained in GRVA-03-10. The expert from the United States of America proposed to keep this Annex in square brackets.

7. The expert from Germany welcomed the document. He considered that the list of items in Annex 2 was not exhaustive and therefore should only be provided to the IWG as ideas for consideration. He also noted the ambitious deadlines proposed.

8. The expert from OICA noted the late availability of this document and highlighted the need to ensure the completion of current activities when considering future IWGs.

9. The expert from AAPC requested some clarifications on the scope of activities on Functional Requirements and on VMAD. GRVA agreed to consider this when drafting the ToRs.

10. The expert from ITU highlighted some industrial priorities on localization, data storage for automated driving, driver monitoring and transition demands. He noted the need to make progress on these activities as they could have costly hardware implications in case of delay.

11. The expert from Sweden inquired about the work on Roadworthiness of Automated Vehicles. GRVA responded that these activities were essentially a task of the ACSF group and remained current under the ACSF activities.

12. Following the interventions from the European Commission, Japan, United States of America, GRVA agreed that the work to be done on the drafting of Terms of Reference for IWGs would be performed on the basis of Table 1 in this document.

13. The Chair introduced GRVA-03-10, a draft document containing Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures for four Informal Working Groups. He explained that he drafted one single document aimed to support the drafting of ToR by providing an overview of all activities to avoid unnecessary overlaps.

14. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-03-11, GRVA-03-12 and GRVA-03-13 with separate Terms of Reference for each of the new IWGs. He stated that he proposed less ambitious deadlines than those of the Framework document.

15. The expert from Spain proposed to merge the approach presented.

16. GRVA noted that the mandate for the Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues had been extended by one year by WP.29 in March 2019 and deferred discussion on further activity for this group.

17. The expert from the European Commission preferred to work on the basis of Table 1 in GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He noted that the work could be done in phases e.g. prioritizing activities on highway, urban and then interurban conditions. He stated that short terms deliveries could be defined without explicitly defining mid-term deliveries at this stage.

18. The expert from OICA preferred a use case approach and a function approach. He stated that priorities should be carefully defined. He recalled as an example that the work on ALKS was prioritizing passenger cars over those for heavy-duty vehicles. He opined that this would not be acceptable for the industry on longer terms.

19. ToRs for the Functional Requirements, Vehicle Test Methods and Data Storage Systems/Event Data Recorders were developed during the session.

20. GRVA reviewed GRVA-03-17 and revised the draft during the session to include references to existing standards and guidelines as proposed by Spain and the United States of America respectively. This approach formed the template for drafting ToRs for the Test Methods group (VMAD) and a revision of the GRSG proposal for an IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

21. GRVA agreed that the draft Terms of Reference as reproduced in GRVA-03-20, GRVA-03-21 and GRVA-03-22 should be transmitted to WP.29 for consideration at the June 2019 session (see Annexes III to V of the session report). GRVA agreed that the work on the items proposed in Table 1 of GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 already started, subject to final endorsement by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

22. GRVA agreed that the existing objectives of the IWG on ACSF should not be affected by the new IWG on FRAV. GRVA agreed that the IWG on FRAV should structure its activities to allow the leadership of the IWG on ACSF to finish its work e.g. common timing and venues for ACSF and FRAV sessions.

23. GRVA briefly discussed the leadership of the IWG. GRVA agreed on the need for a global representation including Asia/Pacific, Europe and North America. GRVA was informed of Countries willing to contribute to the leadership of the IWGs (see Annex II of the session report). GRVA concluded that the leadership question would be decided by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

25. The representative of Japan introduced, on behalf of China, European Union, Japan and the United States of America, WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 containing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 – Framework Document on Automated/autonomous Vehicles. He explained that the amendments included editorial amendments as well as a restructured Table 1 containing details on (i) current activities, (ii) expected future activities and (iii) references to the key safety principles mentioned in the document.

26. The representative of the Republic of Korea introduced WP.29-178-19, proposing additional amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34. The representative of Sweden proposed to insert into Table 1 considerations related to para. 4 (j) regarding vehicle inspection. The representative of CITA supported the position of the representative of Sweden.

27. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 as amended by WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 and requested the secretariat to issue it as a reference document with the symbol ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.1.

46. The secretary of the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 on priority topics for automated and connected vehicles. The expert from the United States of America stressed that even though automated vehicles were different from conventional vehicles for many aspects, crashworthiness remained relevant. He clarified that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 did not yet include the work tasks of GRSP and was mainly a list of tasks for GRVA. He added that this document should be considered a living document and that crashworthiness should be included. He mentioned a few examples of passenger compartment configurations (e.g. passengers lying down or facing the side, lack of a steering wheel), and he added that these different dynamics would involve passengers in a crash. The expert from Germany endorsed the statement of the expert from the United States of America. He added that new tools and computer simulations should be validated. He urged to start a list of detailed subjects as soon as possible that would be examined during the December 2019 session of GRSP. The expert from the United States of America clarified that the vehicle automation was managed by WP.29 and the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) and not by GRVA. He suggested that the expert from Germany raise this issue at WP.29 and AC.3. He reiterated his statement (as per ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2) that currently, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 mainly referred to GRVA tasks and that other topics related to crashworthiness should be addressed by GRSP. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2019 session, awaiting feedback from WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2019 sessions.