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.