Proposal to

1. correct numbering of paragraph 2.3.4.18.
2. limit the initial scope to M₁ and N₁ vehicles
3. further modify the numbering to clarify that remote-controlled maneuvering (RCM) is not a form of ACSF
4. clarify that all RCM are subject to the requirements of the Electronics Annex (Annex 6 to UN R79).

56. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/8 and
GRVA-02-08 amending it, proposing to insert technical prescriptions on Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) which were systems that were already installed on vehicles without being regulated to date. The expert from Germany did not support the proposal and suggested to insert one sentence in the Regulation that would forbid RCM in vehicles of category M1 and N1. The expert from OICA explained that such system already existed for vehicles of category M1G and that there would be future applications such as reverse assistant for trailers that would bring quantifiable benefits in terms of safety. Following comments and input from the experts from Australia, France and Sweden, the Chair asked GRVA whether the status quo would be acceptable, i.e. do Contracting Parties accept that such systems are permitted and do not require recognition by Regulation. The expert from the Russian Federation summed-up the discussion and suggested to adopt the proposal. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (Annex VII). GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2019 session. GRVA unanimously agreed with this delayed submission until the November 2019, so that the dissent from the experts from Germany and the Netherlands could be considered again during the September 2019 session of GRVA, in view of reaching a broader consensus.

Proposal to ensure that the safety approach for complex electronics of remote controlled maneuvering addresses malfunctions, non-fault errors, and misuse.

38. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/4 as amended by GRVA-02-19, proposing clarifications to Annex 6 of UN Regulation No. 79. The expert from OICA stated that the amendments proposed would require too much work for the approval of simple braking systems. He added that these amendments would make sense to properly assess Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS). The expert from EC stated that this proposal would be suitable as an amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 but would not be enough for the assessment of ALKS and ADAS. The expert from Spain mentioned that the Type Approval Authority signature provisions’ implications were too far-reaching to be mentioned in a footnote. Spain also observed that the proposal placed too much responsibility on the Type Approval Authority to identify risks and stated that the manufacturer should have that responsibility. The expert from the Netherlands explained that this work initially started for the purpose of ACSF of Category B2 defined in UN Regulation No. 79 and that this explained why the document was titled “Proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79”. The expert from UK volunteered to submit a revised proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, addressing the comment received. GRVA agreed that similar provisions should be specifically developed for ALKS and systems with higher levels of autonomy. The Chair noted the implications that this would have on the delivery of a regulatory provision for ALKS.

51. No information was provided under this agenda item.

Vulnerable road user casualties (pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motorcyclists), by severity, in accidents involving HGVs, LGVs, buses or coaches, cars which were reversing, in Great Britain, 2007-2017.

Document providing a link to ad hoc analyses conducted by the UK Health and Safety Executive, including Work-related fatal accidents due to being struck by a reversing vehicle.

36. The representative of United Kingdom recalled the challenge of assuring the safety of these new vehicles as well as the ideas proposed by the industry (multi-pillar approach) and IWG on VMAD. He mentioned several activities related to scenario databases around the world and highlighted that industry were developing their own databases for research and product development purposes. He proposed that WP29 should consider the need for a separate independent database for regulators with the direct oversight of the contracting parties and the ECE. An expert from the United Kingdom introduced WP.29-178-29 which presents their work on a Multi-User Scenario Catalogue for Connected and automated vehicles (MUSICC). He explained what was to be understood as a scenario and presented the vision proposed by United Kingdom: a scenario-based certification process, and proposed that the scenario catalogue would be stored at ECE, for the purpose of simulated tests, physical tests and other processes leading to the certification of a vehicle. He raised the question whether this vision was shared.

37. The representative of France supported the proposal made by the representative of United Kingdom. He welcomed the effort made to develop a common language for descripting and parametrizing scenarios that could be classified according to their criticality. He mentioned WP.29-178-20, prepared by the representative of OICA, providing information on a number of activities in various countries and encouraged them to continue this compilation work.

38. The representative of Japan, Co-Chair of the IWG on VMAD, confirmed that this vision is shared by WP.29 because the framework document adopted at this session of WP.29 included it and allocated it to VMAD IWG. He recalled the current IWG activities and invited the experts of MUSICC to contribute to IWG on VMAD.

39. The representative of Germany expressed interest in this matter and agreed to investigate. He recalled that establishing a database was difficult and that such activities could build on the electronic database for the exchange of type approval documentation (DETA) to be hosted at ECE.

Proposal to update and clarify Annex 6 on requirements for documentation, fault strategy and verification of the safety of electronic systems and complex electronic vehicle control systems related to vehicle steering. The assessment particularly addresses driver assistance and automated steering.

40. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/20, proposing amendments to Annex 6. He referred to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/4 and reported on the progress made since then. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-04-29 with amendment proposals to the official document. GRVA discussed and then adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/20, amended by Annex V, as a draft supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

Proposal to introduce provisions for the approval of Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) systems.

41. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/21 with provisions on Remote Control Manoeuvring. GRVA recalled that it had already adopted provisions on a majority basis during its second session but had agreed to review them at this session to seek full consensus. The expert introduced GRVA-04-19 with further amendments introducing clarifications.

42. The expert from Germany requested that the session report reflect their statement: “Germany does not see the necessity to regulate this function at UNECE level”. Other experts mentioned that similar provisions could be developed for heavy duty vehicles, too.

43. GRVA agreed to work on similar provisions for other vehicle categories. GRVA also agreed with the amendments to the submitted proposal, reproduced in GRVA-04-19. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit the latest version of the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for review and vote at their November 2019 session.

Reissued on 16 August for filing reasons.

Updated remote-controlled maneuvering proposal with editorial Improvements, clarification that the actuator of the function is to be included as part of the assessment along with the hardware and software on the vehicle, and to add requirements on the security of the connection between the remote-control device and the vehicle.

41. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/21 with provisions on Remote Control Manoeuvring. GRVA recalled that it had already adopted provisions on a majority basis during its second session but had agreed to review them at this session to seek full consensus. The expert introduced GRVA-04-19 with further amendments introducing clarifications.

42. The expert from Germany requested that the session report reflect their statement: “Germany does not see the necessity to regulate this function at UNECE level”. Other experts mentioned that similar provisions could be developed for heavy duty vehicles, too.

43. GRVA agreed to work on similar provisions for other vehicle categories. GRVA also agreed with the amendments to the submitted proposal, reproduced in GRVA-04-19. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit the latest version of the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for review and vote at their November 2019 session.

Draft “Manufacturer’s declaration of compliance with the requirements for the Cyber Security Management System”

This document proposes a draft text for a resolution on “activities other than those related to driving” that the driver of a vehicle equipped with an automated driving system could undertake when the automated driving system is engaged.