17. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland presented the second report (WP.29-194-31) of the Task Force on Automated Vehicle Categorization (AVC) detailing the status of the amendments proposed to the Consolidated Resolution R.E.3 and the Special Resolution S.R.1. He sought guidance on three topics, (a) on the impact on driver licensing and the need to consult WP.1, (b) on bidirectional vehicles and (c) on the need for a sponsor of the amendment to S.R.1.

18. The representative of Canada noted that the text proposed used three different terms: people, occupant and passenger and suggested to check consistency.

19. The representative of the United States of America inquired what was the issue that WP.1 would need to consider and if it had the expertise. The representative of Australia suggested to define the term occupant as passenger or driver. The representative of the Netherlands inquired who would be the holder of a driver licence in the case of a vehicle with an ADS. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland provided a specific case where consulting driving licence authorities could make sense and mentioned existing regulations limiting taxis to have maximum 8 passengers. The representative of France proposed to inform WP.1 on the ongoing work. The representative of OICA drew the attention of WP.29 to ECE/TRANS/WP.1/2018/4/Rev.3. WP.29 invited the experts to consider the various suggestions received and further develop its proposal. WP.29 agreed to keep WP.1 informed but did not request WP.1’s input at this time.

20. The representative of France clarified that the task forces dealing with the regulations fitness check for ADS did not consider bi-directional vehicles as a priority but also conceded that if these new concepts would be marketed, WP.29 would have to take a stance. The representative of IMMA recalled that his organization did not support the inclusion of the whole Category L in the amendments prepared by the Task Force on AVC. He explained that it would send the wrong message to the task forces reviewing the regulations on their fitness for ADS in terms of priority and need for review of regulations applicable to motorcycles. He inquired if this inclusion could be limited to the categories L6 and L7. WP.29 agreed that new concepts such as bidirectional vehicles and the Category L could be covered but that these vehicle categories were not a priority.

21. Regarding the need for a sponsor for the amendment to S.R.1, WP.29 noted that amendments to S.R.1, as established practices until now, would need in principle a sponsor country from a Contracting Party to the 1998 Agreement but would be pursued without an authorization to develop that amendment, pending confirmation of AC.3.