40. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-15-34, welcoming on the one side the work done by the IWGs on FRAV and VMAD and calling on the other side for a regulatory action plan. He proposed that GRVA identifies: (a) contents from FRAV and VMAD that would be potentially useful for developing a UN Global Technical Regulation; (b) contents that would be useful for drafting a UN Regulation; and (c) additional contents not yet covered by FRAV or VMAD that would be needed for the sake of rulemaking. He stressed the importance of planning and executing and therefore proposed the establishment of a task force to perform these tasks.

41. The expert from the Netherlands, Co-Chair of the IWG on VMAD, did not oppose to meet these targets in general. He pointed at the ambitious plan of the industry to develop a global certification scheme for ADS and expected delays due to the lack of input by industry. He expected that the establishment of a new Task Force would distract the ongoing work of FRAV and VMAD.

42. The expert from France shared the concerns expressed by industry regarding potentially missing items and timetables. He expressed his thought that developing a regulatory package would imply establishing a drafting group. He highlighted the importance of addressing vehicle categories and asked if industry could share their needs on this.

43. The expert from Canada, Co-Chair of the IWG on VMAD, proposed to keep the current approach, which was generic, technology neutral and agreement neutral. He confirmed that Canada would not be supportive of establishing an additional task force.

44. The expert from the European Commission wondered how much resource (time) would be needed to address the request by industry and if industry could organize a small group meeting to discuss these items. She mentioned that the VMAD subgroup 3 discussed this matter but did not conclude in absence of a mandate to do so.

45. The expert from OICA welcomed the responses received. He answered to the question related to vehicle categories and indicated that industry already identified vehicles that would not fit under the current categories in the future and was finalizing proposals on how to map requirements to specific vehicle categories. He answered to Canada that there was still no commitment nor clear way forward regarding regulations on ADS. He stated that without corresponding regulations, these vehicles cannot be on the road. He welcomed the development of a matrix (see para. 18). He advocated for the development of a plan to address questions such as auditing requirements, and requirements for a safety management system. He welcomed the proposal by the European Commission and stated that a clear commitment from the contracting parties was needed on the future activities based on the deliverables from FRAV and VMAD.

46. GRVA recalled that the current outcome of FRAV and VMAD so far was not mature enough for the purpose of regulation and that the time provided under the two-year mandate was used to deliver a mature text.

47. GRVA stood ready to collaborate with GRSG on activities related to the definition of vehicle categories in the context of ADS.

42. The representative of the European Commission presented GRVA-17-24, tabled by the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She recalled the activities performed by IWGs on FRAV and VMAD and the completion of the integration group’s task expected by June 2024. She recalled previous presentations of the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland mentioning their respective ambitions for ADS in terms of regulation and timing. She proposed to establish a new Task Force on Automated Driving Systems (TF on ADS) for developing a UN Regulation on ADS and presented the corresponding draft Terms of Reference for the TF.

43. The representative of the United States of America recalled the ongoing approach at GRVA with the work of FRAV/VMAD being independent of the 1958 and 1998 Agreements. He urged GRVA to not engage in a process that would exclude Canada, China and the United States of America. She announced that the United States of America would sponsor the development of a UN GTR on ADS.

44. The representative of Italy noted that the basis for further work would be the outcome of the current process, that would need to be distilled in real world, i.e. under the two Agreements. He welcomed that Canada, China and the United States of America would join that process.

45. The representative of France agreed with the United States of America on the vision for a global approach. He proposed to clarify the schedules of work on a UN Regulation and a UN GTR. He called for a prompt conclusion as he felt that there was no need to delay decision and there was the possibility to anticipate and prepare for the post mid 2024 period.

46. The representative of Canada called for maintaining a global approach, independent from the 1958 Agreement. He advocated for the continuation of the existing format based on FRAV and VMAD.

47. The representative of China agreed and proposed to develop both a UN Regulation and a UN GTR.

48. The representative of Japan agreed with the proposal by the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He noted, as Chair of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3), that it was not for GRVA to discuss the development of a GTR, but for AC.3. He proposed to discuss the development of a GTR at AC.3 in November 2023 keeping in mind the global ambition of GRVA.

49. The representative of ITU felt that there was too much work for one single group. He proposed to split activities between the dual mode vehicles and the ADS dedicated vehicles.

50. The representative of Germany supported the proposal of the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He confirmed that no one should feel excluded, that he would support any group working on a common approach and that he could also support, if the work would start with the drafting of a UN Regulation.

51. The representative of OICA felt that it was the right timing to discuss such proposal. He supported an Agreement neutral approach that can avoid fragmentation. He proposed to not exclude the 1998 Agreement parties and also, to not delay the work on a UN Regulation. He presented (GRVA-17-38) a draft action plan and proposed preliminary activities supporting the development of regulations on ADS. He recalled their position presented at the fifteenth session (GRVA-15-34), mentioning the necessary preparatory work for prompt progress under both Agreements.

52. The representative of the European Commission heard the different arguments and agreed that agreement neutrality was important. She clarified that she would not desire any exclusion. But, she also mentioned that she did not hear any statement indicating a potential risk, if the drafting would start under the framework of the 1958 Agreement.

53. The representative of the United States of America answered that the risk of exclusion could be explained by the first lines of the proposed terms of reference. He highlighted the fragmentation risks if two groups would work in parallel on requirements for ADS.

54. The Chair noted the commonalities of the different approaches mentioned and the few divergences. He proposed to continue to rely on the framework document process, at WP.29 level, to guide the activities of GRVA.

55. The representative of Canada felt that it was premature to consult WP.29 and that an alternative could be to rediscuss that point in January 2024 at GRVA level. The representative of EU answered that her proposal reflected the need of contracting parties. She added that delaying the process of the 1958 Agreement contracting parties was also a form of exclusion.

56. GRVA agreed to request an ad hoc meeting of the Administrative Committee for the coordination of work (AC.2) for further discussing this item, within the established process of the Framework Document on Automated Vehicles at WP.29.