17. The expert from Germany presented GRVA-07-63, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/32 with a proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] (ALKS), aimed at increasing the maximum speed (from 60 km/h to 130 km/h) for ALKS. She also introduced a second proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/33) aimed at introducing provisions for ALKS performing lane changes. The experts from Austria, China, Denmark, European Commission, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Republic or Korea, Sweden and UK were rather supportive. They provided ideas and technical comments to improve the proposals. The expert from Switzerland opposed to the proposed speed increase (up to 130 km/h), stating that it would be counterproductive and as Switzerland was reviewing traffic rules based on the adopted 60 km/h. The experts from Japan, Canada and USA did not support the proposals and referred to FDAV as the reference document guiding the work of GRVA on automation. The expert from SAFE stated the need for a clear roadmap, mentioned the challenges for the Technical Services and the Approval Authorities with regards to Level 3 technologies and supported the comments from the European Commission regarding the need for a Regulation addressing Automation on motorways.

18. It was recalled that the expert from UK was working on a proposal for provisions for lane change during the minimum risk manoeuvre.

19. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-07-26, introducing a proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] (GRVA-07-31), aimed at extending the scope of the Regulation to heavy vehicles. They recalled that these vehicle categories were already in the scope of the activities of the former IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF), which drafted UN Regulation No. [157].

20. GRVA noted that its work priorities on automation were defined by WP.29 in the FDAV. GRVA also noted that a number of Contracting Parties were willing to work on amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] and therefore decided to consult the Administrative Committee for the coordination of work (AC.2).

21. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRVA-07-07, highlighting some inconsistencies between the different parts of UN Regulation No. [157]. He mentioned discrepancies on the use of the term “system”. He questioned the need for Appendix 3 to Annex 4. He then introduced amendment proposal GRVA-07-06 on behalf of the European Commission and the Russian Federation. The expert from OICA responded to the proposal (GRVA-07-59). He also briefly introduced GRVA-07-30, proposing editorial changes to the Regulation and GRVA-07-21 with substantial amendments to the Regulations.

22. The Chair mentioned other informal documents (GRVA-07-27, GRVA-07-45, GRVA-07-56, GRVA-07-62 and GRVA-07-66), proposing amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] and invited the stakeholders to prepare a consolidated document with amendment proposals that could generate consensus at GRVA. Interested parties developed GRVA-07-69-Rev.1.

23. GRVA adopted the amendment proposals marked in green and yellow in GRVA-07-69-Rev.1 (see Annex III of the session report). GRVA requested the secretariat to correct the abbreviations, as appropriate, and to submit it without the text in red as supplement to UN Regulation No. [157], for consideration and vote by the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) its Administrative Committee for the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) at their March 2021 sessions.

24. Following the interpretation request by the expert from France (GRVA-07-39), GRVA agreed that ALKS should in principle detect “approaching emergency vehicles” as per traffic rules, noting that a definition of approaching emergency vehicles as well as other clarifications should be developed as soon as possible.

17. The expert from Germany presented GRVA-07-63, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/32 with a proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] (ALKS), aimed at increasing the maximum speed (from 60 km/h to 130 km/h) for ALKS. She also introduced a second proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/33) aimed at introducing provisions for ALKS performing lane changes. The experts from Austria, China, Denmark, European Commission, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Republic or Korea, Sweden and UK were rather supportive. They provided ideas and technical comments to improve the proposals. The expert from Switzerland opposed to the proposed speed increase (up to 130 km/h), stating that it would be counterproductive and as Switzerland was reviewing traffic rules based on the adopted 60 km/h. The experts from Japan, Canada and USA did not support the proposals and referred to FDAV as the reference document guiding the work of GRVA on automation. The expert from SAFE stated the need for a clear roadmap, mentioned the challenges for the Technical Services and the Approval Authorities with regards to Level 3 technologies and supported the comments from the European Commission regarding the need for a Regulation addressing Automation on motorways.

18. It was recalled that the expert from UK was working on a proposal for provisions for lane change during the minimum risk manoeuvre.

19. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-07-26, introducing a proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] (GRVA-07-31), aimed at extending the scope of the Regulation to heavy vehicles. They recalled that these vehicle categories were already in the scope of the activities of the former IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF), which drafted UN Regulation No. [157].

20. GRVA noted that its work priorities on automation were defined by WP.29 in the FDAV. GRVA also noted that a number of Contracting Parties were willing to work on amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] and therefore decided to consult the Administrative Committee for the coordination of work (AC.2).

21. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRVA-07-07, highlighting some inconsistencies between the different parts of UN Regulation No. [157]. He mentioned discrepancies on the use of the term “system”. He questioned the need for Appendix 3 to Annex 4. He then introduced amendment proposal GRVA-07-06 on behalf of the European Commission and the Russian Federation. The expert from OICA responded to the proposal (GRVA-07-59). He also briefly introduced GRVA-07-30, proposing editorial changes to the Regulation and GRVA-07-21 with substantial amendments to the Regulations.

22. The Chair mentioned other informal documents (GRVA-07-27, GRVA-07-45, GRVA-07-56, GRVA-07-62 and GRVA-07-66), proposing amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] and invited the stakeholders to prepare a consolidated document with amendment proposals that could generate consensus at GRVA. Interested parties developed GRVA-07-69-Rev.1.

23. GRVA adopted the amendment proposals marked in green and yellow in GRVA-07-69-Rev.1 (see Annex III of the session report). GRVA requested the secretariat to correct the abbreviations, as appropriate, and to submit it without the text in red as supplement to UN Regulation No. [157], for consideration and vote by the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) its Administrative Committee for the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) at their March 2021 sessions.

24. Following the interpretation request by the expert from France (GRVA-07-39), GRVA agreed that ALKS should in principle detect “approaching emergency vehicles” as per traffic rules, noting that a definition of approaching emergency vehicles as well as other clarifications should be developed as soon as possible.

19. The expert from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland introduced the report of the Special Interest Group on UN Regulation No. 157, provided in GRVA-09-22. He recalled the matters that the group was willing to address. He announced the ambition of the group to meet on a monthly basis and to complete its activities until September 2021. He also mentioned the workshop organized by the industry that discussed emergency vehicles and vehicle categories. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/33 as well as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/4 on the agenda for reference.

20. The expert from USA explained that in his opinion, there were two distinct activities. On one hand, activities related to scope extension to additional vehicle categories, speed increase and lane change for emergency situations. On the other hand, so called convenience lane changes that would fall in the remit of FRAV activities.

21. The expert from Japan supported the ongoing activities. He mentioned that the timeline was ambitious and would have to be adjusted as necessary to allow sufficient time for technical discussions and satisfactory coordination with the IWGs on FRAV and VMAD.

22. The expert from France fully supported the ongoing activities. He also noted that the timeline was ambitious but felt that it was necessary. He mentioned that the group did not discuss some important technical details such as speeds, accelerations, decelerations and the tyre performance. He explained that tyres were replaced in the lifetime of the vehicle and that the performance of tyre could vary, also in case of winter tyres installation, which has to be addressed as a safety risk. He wrote in the messaging system of the meeting that the IWG on FRAV could address this issue.

19. The expert from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland introduced the report of the Special Interest Group on UN Regulation No. 157, provided in GRVA-09-22. He recalled the matters that the group was willing to address. He announced the ambition of the group to meet on a monthly basis and to complete its activities until September 2021. He also mentioned the workshop organized by the industry that discussed emergency vehicles and vehicle categories. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/33 as well as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/4 on the agenda for reference.

20. The expert from USA explained that in his opinion, there were two distinct activities. On one hand, activities related to scope extension to additional vehicle categories, speed increase and lane change for emergency situations. On the other hand, so called convenience lane changes that would fall in the remit of FRAV activities.

21. The expert from Japan supported the ongoing activities. He mentioned that the timeline was ambitious and would have to be adjusted as necessary to allow sufficient time for technical discussions and satisfactory coordination with the IWGs on FRAV and VMAD.

22. The expert from France fully supported the ongoing activities. He also noted that the timeline was ambitious but felt that it was necessary. He mentioned that the group did not discuss some important technical details such as speeds, accelerations, decelerations and the tyre performance. He explained that tyres were replaced in the lifetime of the vehicle and that the performance of tyre could vary, also in case of winter tyres installation, which has to be addressed as a safety risk. He wrote in the messaging system of the meeting that the IWG on FRAV could address this issue.