18. The expert from the United States of America, Co-Chair of the IWG on Functional Requirements for Automated and Autonomous Vehicles (FRAV) summarized the group’s work (GRVA-05-40 and GRVA-05-41). He noted that FRAV has held two full meetings contiguous with VMAD and with more than 100 experts. He highlighted the group’s concern to use accurate terms. The group discouraged the use of “autonomous” as misleading and uses “Minimal”, not “Minimum”, Risk Manoeuvres (MRM) because an MRM responds to road conditions and best available solutions. In addition to avoidance of injury or death and compliance with traffic laws, the group noted additional aspects such as behaviour consistent with safe and fluid traffic flows and attention to economic consequences such as destruction of property. He reported that the group had identified automated vehicle configurations that fall outside the category definitions of Special Resolution S.R.1. He also suggested improvements to the Framework Document on Automated Vehicles (FDAV) would be soon necessary and presented the group’s consensus on high-level requirements. He noted unallocated elements of the FDAV (i.e. vehicle maintenance and inspection, consumer education and training, crashworthiness and compatibility, and post-crash Automated Vehicle (AV) behaviour) pertinent to functional safety. He announced planned meetings in Paris (April 2020) and California (September 2020).

22. The secretariat presented, for information, WP.29-181-05, reflecting the advancement evaluation of the activities listed in the Framework Document on Automated/autonomous Vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.2).

22. The secretariat recalled the purpose of WP.29-186-08 drafted by the IWG on FRAV and WP.29-186-09 drafted by the IWG on Validation Methods for Automated Driving (VMAD), that were mandated under the framework document on automated vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.2 as amended by ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/151). The Chair of GRVA detailed the content of the two documents and their purpose. He explained that both documents were guidelines that would be suitable for the contracting parties of the 1998 and 1958 Agreements.

23. The representative of the European Commission stated his full support for these informal documents and added that the contained concepts were also taken into consideration for developing the European Union legislation for ADS.

24. The representative of the United States of America clarified that WP.29-186-08 was not mature enough and recommended not to issue it as an official document for the next session.

25. The representative of OICA stated the importance of the work done by GRVA and its informal working groups under the framework document. He welcomed the progress done on the drafting of guidelines for ADS safety. He explained that OICA would welcome proposals from Contracting Parties for ADS regulations based on the guidelines prepared by GRVA.

26. The representative of OICA advised to initiate a review of the UN Regulations and UN GTRs with regards to their fitness for ADS, including driverless systems, as these regulations might refer to drivers.

27. The Chair of GRVA explained that AC.2 discussed the need to review the UN Regulations and UN GTRs and was in the process of setting a coordinated approach.

28. The representative of the European Commission fully recognized the need to review the Vehicle Regulations, which were linked to drivers, to accommodate for automated/autonomous driving.

29. The representative of the United States of America advised that this task could require a phased approach, one phase being the identification of UN Regulations and UN GTRs of relevance and a second phase being the evaluation of the provisions and test requirements that might be linked to drivers.

30. WP.29 requested all GRs to perform a screening of the UN Regulations and UN GTRs of relevance until March 2023 and agreed to resume consideration of a coordinated approach for reporting to AC.2 and WP.29.

22. The representative of the United States of America, Co-Chair of IWG on FRAV, introduced WP.29-180-10, summarizing the group’s work, suggesting FDAV improvements and presenting the group’s consensus on high-level requirements. He noted that FRAV has held two full meetings contiguous with VMAD and more than 100 experts. He highlighted the group’s concern to use accurate terms. The group discourages the use of “autonomous” as misleading and uses “minimal”, not “minimum”, risk manoeuvres (MRM) because an MRM responds to road conditions and best available solutions. In addition to avoidance of injury or death and compliance with traffic laws, the group noted additional aspects such as behaviour consistent with safe and fluid traffic flows and attention to economic consequences such as destruction of property.

23. The representative of the United States of America reported that the group has identified automated vehicle configurations that fall outside the category definitions of Special Resolution S.R.1. He noted unallocated elements of the FDAV (i.e., vehicle maintenance and inspection, consumer education and training, crashworthiness and compatibility, and post-crash Automated Vehicle (AV) behaviour) pertinent to functional safety. He announced planned meetings in Paris (April 2020) and California (September 2020).

24. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland welcomed the presentation but sought clarification as to whether the FRAV group had reached a conclusion regarding the use of Operational Design Domain (ODD) versus Operational Domain (OD), as stated in informal document 10. He added that the discussion on vehicle categories should not only concentrate on S.R.1 but also Consolidated Resolution R.E.3. He further suggested that it should also involve WP.1.

25. The representative of the United States of America answered that WP.29-180-10 presents the group’s high-level consensus. However, ODD will be discussed in detail at its next session. He noted a proposal from China to establish the term “Operational Design Conditions” (ODC) based on the concern that ODD did not include dependency on driver status. Therefore, the group would be working to produce a more precise definition for ODD and other terms.

26. The representative of Finland supported the view that a common understanding with WP.1 would be needed. He also recalled the discussion at GRSG on categories for Automated Shuttles and welcomed the idea to review S.R.1 and R.E.3 and volunteered to participate in this work.

27. The representative of the United States welcomed the comments received. He stated that the delegates from WP.1 should join the meeting and contribute or present documents.

28. The Vice-Chair of WP.29 agreed that practical solutions should be discussed with WP.1 during the joint meeting (see agenda item 8.2). He also recalled that the IWG on FRAV would continue to report to GRVA.

29. The Secretary of the IWG on FRAV (AAPC) highlighted complementary WP.1 interests. For example, FRAV experts reached a high-level consensus that a vehicle should signal initiation of minimal risk manoeuvres to surrounding road users (WP.29-180-10, item 33). He suggested that WP.1 may wish to consider driver obligations for correct use of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) or prohibiting drivers from using devices intended to defeat ADS safety features (e.g., using weights to simulate the driver’s hand on the steering wheel).

30. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland explained that at the WP.1-WP.29 Executive Task Force meeting in June 2019, he undertook to prepare a comparison table of terms used by WP.29 and WP.1. He had been invited to present this information during the joint meeting.

28. The representative of the United States of America presented WP.29-179-25 proposing the correction of a printing error in the Framework Document on Automated Vehicles. WP.29 requested the secretariat to prepare Revision 2 to the framework document.

28. The representative of the United States of America reminded GRSP about the framework document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.2, endorsed by the World Forum, on priority topics for automated and connected vehicles. He reiterated that crashworthiness remained relevant and that the framework document would be implemented by related topics stemming from the activities of GRSP. The expert from Germany also reiterated the need of developing a document showing passive safety priority topics. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject based on a proposal to be developed by the expert from Germany with the experts from OICA and other concerned parties.

39. The secretariat introduced WP.29-184-15 proposing updates to Table 1 of the Framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.2). He explained that the document was developed by AC.2, and that it had been reviewed and completed by GRVA at its tenth session and that it included the last-minute amendments proposed by the IWGs on Validation Method for Automated Driving (VMAD) and Event Data Recorder / Data Storage System for Automated Driving (EDR/DSSAD).

40. The representative of the European Union introduced document WP.29-184-18 tabling proposed changes to the rows on DSSAD and EDR in WP.29-184-15.

41. The World Forum discussed and endorsed the revised Framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.2), as amended by WP.29-184-15 and the EDR/DSSAD related amendments in WP.29-184-18, with deadlines for submission of EDR related deliverables to WP.29 reflected in its Table 1 remaining in square brackets. WP.29 requested the secretariat to distribute the revised document with an official symbol for final consideration in November 2021.