93. The World Forum considered the proposal for a new UN Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/61) under agenda item 4.12.1.

94. The representative of OICA stated that they did not fully support the proposal. The Chair of GRVA acknowledged the position of the representative from OICA and proposed to review amendment proposals at the group’s upcoming sessions.

95. The representative of Japan thanked GRVA experts involved in the development of the draft new UN Regulation on AEBS and and expressed his strong expectation that the new UN Regulation on AEBS would be adopted, taking into consideration its recent national situation where serious traffic accidents caused by elderly drivers occur frequently. He added that Japan had started to consider mandating the fitting of AEBS at an appropriate timing.

96. The World Forum considered the proposal and recommended its submission to AC.1 for voting.

50. GRVA agreed with the suggestion of expert from Italy to postpone the consideration of this item until the January 2019 session.

62. The expert from Italy introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/23, proposing amendments to UN GTR No. 3 as per the mandate adopted by A.C.3 (ECE/TRANS/WP29/AC.3/47). He also introduced GRVA-04-23 including amendments addressing comments received on the proposal. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended with the below correction and requested the secretariat to submit it to the Executive Committee AC.3 for consideration at vote at its March 2020 session.

In ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/23, para 10, for 5.1.17, read 3.1.17.

63. The expert from Italy also introduced GRVA-04-24, containing the technical report associated to the proposal. GRVA adopted it and requested the secretariat to submit it to the Executive Committee AC.3 for consideration at vote at its March 2020 session.

64. The expert from IMMA stated his satisfaction concerning the adoption of the amendment proposal to UN GTR No. 3. He mentioned that the outcome of this work was not fully harmonized, especially concerning Electromagnetic Compatibility and defeat device requirements.

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.

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.

73. Following the recommendation by the Chair of GRVA, WP.29 deferred adoption of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/114 to its March 2020 session and requested the secretariat to issue it as a revised version incorporating the proposed amendments of WP.29-179-15.

40. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the IWG on AEBS presented GRVA-02-28 with a status report on the activities of the group drafting a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to vehicles of category M1 and N1 and introduced the corresponding proposal in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/5. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians AEBS. He mentioned that some provisions were contained in square brackets indicating that decisions by GRVA were needed, e.g. the provisions for manual AEBS deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

41. GRVA discussed provisions allowing for the manual deactivation of an AEBS. The expert from Australia informed that according to their survey, 93 per cent of respondents answered that they never deactivated their AEBS. GRVA, taking into account the risks in case of a misalignment of sensors, agreed to include provisions allowing manual deactivation on the basis that the provisions in the proposal ensured that the process required more than one action to complete.

42. GRVA reviewed the proposal and agreed with the text as reproduced in GRVA-02-39-Corr.1.

43. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit the proposal as amended in para. 42 as draft UN Regulation on Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles for consideration and vote by WP.29 and the Administrative Committee AC.1 at their June 2019 sessions.

46. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-02-22, proposing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/5. GRVA recommended that the proposal be reviewed by the IWG on AEBS and that this proposal would either be included in the submission of the IWG for the September 2019 session or be submitted as a separate proposal for review in September 2019, if no consensus would be reached on this proposal by the IWG on AEBS.

93. The World Forum considered the proposal for a new UN Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/61) under agenda item 4.12.1.

94. The representative of OICA stated that they did not fully support the proposal. The Chair of GRVA acknowledged the position of the representative from OICA and proposed to review amendment proposals at the group’s upcoming sessions.

95. The representative of Japan thanked GRVA experts involved in the development of the draft new UN Regulation on AEBS and and expressed his strong expectation that the new UN Regulation on AEBS would be adopted, taking into consideration its recent national situation where serious traffic accidents caused by elderly drivers occur frequently. He added that Japan had started to consider mandating the fitting of AEBS at an appropriate timing.

96. The World Forum considered the proposal and recommended its submission to AC.1 for voting.

17. Due to lack of time, GRVA did not consider ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/13, describing the principles of the “Three-Pillar Approach”, proposed by the experts from OICA (see GRVA-02-09 and GRVA-02-27).

18. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates presented GRVA-02-03, containing a status report of the group’s activities since the previous GRVA session and introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He mentioned that the group responded in writing to all the questions and comments received on the proposal.

19. The expert from FIA welcomed the proposal produced by the group but mentioned that it did not reflect their position regarding life time requirements.

20. The expert from OICA wondered whether such aspect raised by FIA would belong to the scope of the 1958 Agreement. The secretariat answered that some precedents could help answering this question e.g. UN Regulation No. 49 (including conformity of in-service vehicles/engines provisions), UN Regulation No. 59 (Replacement (retrofit) silencing systems), UN Regulation No. 83 (including durability requirements and “in use” requirements), UN Regulation No. 90 (Replacement braking parts) and UN Regulation No. 133 (Recyclability of motor vehicles). He stated that he was not aware of any provision of the Agreement that would limit the activities under this Agreement only to the performance of new vehicles. The expert from OICA, Secretary of the Task Force agreed to submit in written an informal document highlighting the difficulty faced by the group with this aspect. He presented, on the last day of the second GRVA session, GRVA-02-46 that described the issue of post-production, understood as the product lifetime starting after the production is definitely discontinued.

21. The expert from Germany and the Netherlands stated that the document should address the three following phases: system/vehicle development, production and post-production.

22. The expert from Japan supported the proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 and stated the need to adopt this document during this session, since the new UN Regulation proposed in the document was one of the important and needed Regulations for the improvement of vehicle safety.

23. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

24. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of category L from the scope of the document.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force, responding to the advice received from the previous session of GRVA, reported on its proposal for a test phase to assure the draft produced. He presented the aim and the desired output of this activity.

26. GRVA agreed to keep the documents under this agenda item for continued review at next GRVA session. GRVA invited the Task Force to address the comments received and to proceed with the test phase. GRVA noted the need to make further progress on this item and requested the secretariat to explore the possibility to organize a special session of GRVA in May or June 2019.

27. GRVA noted that the presentation of GRVA-02-03 also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3, that the proposal for a test phase would also apply to the software updates work stream. The expert from Japan also supported the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3. He indicated Japan’s support for the earliest adoption (during this session), since the issue was important and a UN Regulation was needed for the improvement of vehicle safety.

28. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

29. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of Category L from the scope of the document.

30. The expert from ITU stated that regulating communication would require specific expertise and that the precedent at the Working Party on General Safety provisions with the UN Regulation No. 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems) ignored communication aspects and durability provisions. He raised the question whether a vehicle equipped with safety systems based on communication would still be roadworthy in case the communication would no longer function e.g. when the communication system would be obsolete. GRVA agreed that the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates was a good example demonstrating that WP.29 was able to attract the required experts with the right expertise and to make very quick progress on such strategic issues. GRVA agreed about the need to discuss the roadworthiness of vehicles in case of the vehicle communication unit obsolescence would impact the well performing of safety systems.

31. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3 and GRVA-01-18 on the agenda of the next GRVA session.

13. The expert from OICA introduced GRRF-86-16-Rev.1 with provisions related to the introduction of Remote Controlled Parking (RCP) in UN Regulation No. 79 (Steering equipment).

14. GRRF adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex III and requested the secretariat to submit it as draft Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13-H and as draft Supplement 15 to the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13 to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2018 sessions.

50. GRVA considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/12 (together with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/6) under agenda item 7 (a) above. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-02-29) and reproduced in Annex V. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 139 (BAS) for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

47. The expert from Australia introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/6 addressing the concern expressed during the 175th WP.29 session. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-02-30) and reproduced in Annex IV. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 3 to UN Regulation No. 140 for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

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.

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.

57. The GRRF chair mentioned that document ECE/TRANS/WP29/2018/35 would still contain square brackets. WP.29 agreed to remove the square brackets and to agree on transitional provision dates (as reflected in para. 92).

92. In ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/35, paragraphs 2.1.4., amend to read:

93. WP.29 noted the concern raised by the representative of OICA on the selection of an early date of application for the transitional provisions in paragraphs 12.2.3. and 12.2.4., which could create serious development difficulties, due to the introduction of new requirements compared to the very recently adopted 02 series of amendments, while vehicles are currently under development for the latter.

29. The expert from OICA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/2, as amended by GRVA-01-22 introducing provisions for ACSF systems of Category C with a so called 2-steps human machine interface for the lane change activation. The expert from France supported the proposal. The expert from the European Commission welcomed this proposal. The proposal received some comments from the experts from Germany, Korea, Netherlands, and Sweden namely on the deletion of some provisions, the proposed amendment to extend the time by which a lane change manoeuvre shall begin and the proposed Annex 9. GRVA invited interested experts to prepare a revised proposal addressing the comments received.

36. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-04-03, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/24 proposing an alternative Human Machine Interface (HMI) for ACSF of Category C. The proposal received comments (and GRVA extended the discussion after the end of the official meeting time, without interpretation and without decisions or conclusions).

37. Following further discussion, GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-04-43) and reproduced in Annex IV. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

35. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/9 based on GRRF-86-13 proposing clarifications of the Annex 8 testing provisions. The proposal received some comments from Japan, France, Germany and OICA. The expert from France agreed with the suggestion of GRVA to submit a revised proposal with more data for consideration at the September 2019 session. The experts from Japan, Germany and OICA were invited to share with GRVA their test data, supporting their positions.

33. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/19 proposing amendments to UN Regulation No.79 based on experience gathered by France, Germany and the Republic of Korea since the entry into force of the 03 series. The proposal received comments (see GRVA-04-09, GRVA-04-46). GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-04-47) as reproduced in Annex III, as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No.79 and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

18. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates presented GRVA-02-03, containing a status report of the group’s activities since the previous GRVA session and introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He mentioned that the group responded in writing to all the questions and comments received on the proposal.

19. The expert from FIA welcomed the proposal produced by the group but mentioned that it did not reflect their position regarding life time requirements.

20. The expert from OICA wondered whether such aspect raised by FIA would belong to the scope of the 1958 Agreement. The secretariat answered that some precedents could help answering this question e.g. UN Regulation No. 49 (including conformity of in-service vehicles/engines provisions), UN Regulation No. 59 (Replacement (retrofit) silencing systems), UN Regulation No. 83 (including durability requirements and “in use” requirements), UN Regulation No. 90 (Replacement braking parts) and UN Regulation No. 133 (Recyclability of motor vehicles). He stated that he was not aware of any provision of the Agreement that would limit the activities under this Agreement only to the performance of new vehicles. The expert from OICA, Secretary of the Task Force agreed to submit in written an informal document highlighting the difficulty faced by the group with this aspect. He presented, on the last day of the second GRVA session, GRVA-02-46 that described the issue of post-production, understood as the product lifetime starting after the production is definitely discontinued.

21. The expert from Germany and the Netherlands stated that the document should address the three following phases: system/vehicle development, production and post-production.

22. The expert from Japan supported the proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 and stated the need to adopt this document during this session, since the new UN Regulation proposed in the document was one of the important and needed Regulations for the improvement of vehicle safety.

23. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

24. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of category L from the scope of the document.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force, responding to the advice received from the previous session of GRVA, reported on its proposal for a test phase to assure the draft produced. He presented the aim and the desired output of this activity.

26. GRVA agreed to keep the documents under this agenda item for continued review at next GRVA session. GRVA invited the Task Force to address the comments received and to proceed with the test phase. GRVA noted the need to make further progress on this item and requested the secretariat to explore the possibility to organize a special session of GRVA in May or June 2019.

24. The expert from the United Kingdom, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air software updates (TF CS/OTA) reported (GRVA-03-02) on the work of the group (recommendations, a draft regulatory text with provisions for the approval of a manufacturer Cyber Security Management System and provisions for the approval of a vehicle with regards to cyber security), including the ongoing testing activities. He clarified that the outcome of the work did not aim at specifying technical solutions, preventing all kind of cyber security events to happen, securing systems outside of the vehicles (e.g. pendrives), specifying durability requirements, listing all risks and corresponding mitigation solutions, but rather a systems-based approach to security management.

25. He explained that the current testing phase was aimed at checking the robustness of the proposal. He noted that manufacturer involvement represented seventy per cent of the global sales. The expert from AVERE confirmed that North American manufacturers were involved in the testing phase. The output could result in the production of interpretation guidelines if necessary.

26. He answered to the questions raised by the GRVA experts. He confirmed that the work was involving Contracting Parties using the regime of self-certification, but that no Country had indicated their intention to become a sponsor in the sense of the 1998 Agreement.

27. The expert from the European Commission requested clarifications about the purpose of the non-regulatory text in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He noted the importance to define pass/fail criteria (also for audits) in the context of mutual recognition of type approvals. He expressed the need to consider covering hardware updated in this context. He stated that cyber security impacts privacy protection and mentioned other regulations in other jurisdictions that could complement or impact the ongoing work, such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

28. The expert from France proposed to revisit the definition of a type in the regulatory draft. He proposed to consider the vehicle architecture as one discriminatory feature.

29. The expert from Germany expressed support to the test phase work and expressed the need to consider lifetime provisions.

30. The expert from CLEPA explained that their industry would have a role to play to support cyber security and asked that GRVA consider provisions that would address their role.

31. The expert from Sweden noted the proposal on slide 16 of GRVA-03-02 “UNECE may decide to develop a harmonized framework on [the post production and vehicle support by the manufacturer] topic” and proposed to reflect on this point.

32. The expert from Spain expressed concern with the lack of guarantee over the whole life cycle and proposed to look at practices of other industry sectors to explore best practices. She also noted that these activities were linked with the activities of existing cyber security authorities and that frameworks were already existing. She stated that the outcome of the test phase should result into amendments instead of interpretation documents.

33. The expert from ITU stated that basic requirements should be built in the communication side and that support provisions could be linked to the life of the communication system (He mentioned as an example the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) protocol shutdown).

34. The expert from FIGIEFA introduced GRVA-03-16 proposing amendments to ECE/TRAN/WP29/GRVA/2019/2. She mentioned the importance for the after sales sector to take into consideration their needs when drafting provisions. She proposed that Approval Authorities should, as neutral entities, determine independently from manufacturers the companies that are authorized parties. She proposed that the Regulation specifies that the manufacturers shall share with authorized parties: data, function calls and resources inside of the vehicle to allow third parties to provide services to maintain safety and security of vehicles during their lifetime. She also proposed to replace throughout the proposal “life cycle” by “life time”.

35. The expert from the United Kingdom, Co-Chair of the Task Force, explained that the Contracting Parties were able to nominate Approval Authorities according to their competencies (1958 Agreement, Article 2, para.2). He explained that the group did not reach consensus on the post production and support duration issue and that in that case existing national regulations would apply. He confirmed that the work of the group did not conflict with other regulations such as the European GDPR. He also confirmed that the group did not discuss in detail the level of access required in GRVA-03-16.

36. The expert from France stated that the Regulation should not freeze the market for repair and maintenance. But he also expressed concerns with safety and cyber security risks posed by automotive product modification and access as proposed in GRVA-03-16. The expert from Sweden also expressed interest to the position expressed in the document and agreed with France on the need for the right balance between access and security.

37. The expert from OICA stated that the access right matter is not a cyber security one. He added that such provisions clarifying access to data for the purpose of balanced market would be relevant for a Regulation dealing with access right issues.

17. Due to lack of time, GRVA did not consider ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/13, describing the principles of the “Three-Pillar Approach”, proposed by the experts from OICA (see GRVA-02-09 and GRVA-02-27).

27. GRVA noted that the presentation of GRVA-02-03 also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3, that the proposal for a test phase would also apply to the software updates work stream. The expert from Japan also supported the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3. He indicated Japan’s support for the earliest adoption (during this session), since the issue was important and a UN Regulation was needed for the improvement of vehicle safety.

28. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

29. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of Category L from the scope of the document.

30. The expert from ITU stated that regulating communication would require specific expertise and that the precedent at the Working Party on General Safety provisions with the UN Regulation No. 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems) ignored communication aspects and durability provisions. He raised the question whether a vehicle equipped with safety systems based on communication would still be roadworthy in case the communication would no longer function e.g. when the communication system would be obsolete. GRVA agreed that the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates was a good example demonstrating that WP.29 was able to attract the required experts with the right expertise and to make very quick progress on such strategic issues. GRVA agreed about the need to discuss the roadworthiness of vehicles in case of the vehicle communication unit obsolescence would impact the well performing of safety systems.

31. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3 and GRVA-01-18 on the agenda of the next GRVA session.

40. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the IWG on AEBS presented GRVA-02-28 with a status report on the activities of the group drafting a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to vehicles of category M1 and N1 and introduced the corresponding proposal in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/5. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians AEBS. He mentioned that some provisions were contained in square brackets indicating that decisions by GRVA were needed, e.g. the provisions for manual AEBS deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

41. GRVA discussed provisions allowing for the manual deactivation of an AEBS. The expert from Australia informed that according to their survey, 93 per cent of respondents answered that they never deactivated their AEBS. GRVA, taking into account the risks in case of a misalignment of sensors, agreed to include provisions allowing manual deactivation on the basis that the provisions in the proposal ensured that the process required more than one action to complete.

42. GRVA reviewed the proposal and agreed with the text as reproduced in GRVA-02-39-Corr.1.

43. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit the proposal as amended in para. 42 as draft UN Regulation on Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles for consideration and vote by WP.29 and the Administrative Committee AC.1 at their June 2019 sessions.

46. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-02-22, proposing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/5. GRVA recommended that the proposal be reviewed by the IWG on AEBS and that this proposal would either be included in the submission of the IWG for the September 2019 session or be submitted as a separate proposal for review in September 2019, if no consensus would be reached on this proposal by the IWG on AEBS.

93. The World Forum considered the proposal for a new UN Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/61) under agenda item 4.12.1.

94. The representative of OICA stated that they did not fully support the proposal. The Chair of GRVA acknowledged the position of the representative from OICA and proposed to review amendment proposals at the group’s upcoming sessions.

95. The representative of Japan thanked GRVA experts involved in the development of the draft new UN Regulation on AEBS and and expressed his strong expectation that the new UN Regulation on AEBS would be adopted, taking into consideration its recent national situation where serious traffic accidents caused by elderly drivers occur frequently. He added that Japan had started to consider mandating the fitting of AEBS at an appropriate timing.

96. The World Forum considered the proposal and recommended its submission to AC.1 for voting.

25. The representative of the United Kingdom, Chair of GRVA, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. He proposed to delay the adoption of this document until the review of WP.29-177-19, which was under preparation at that time.

27. The representative of the United States of America introduced WP.29-177-08 referring to the work priorities on vehicle automation in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and proposing principles relevant for the performance assessment of automated vehicles.

48. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 with the following amendment:

Table 1 to read:

156. The Chair of AC.3 introduced the documents that were considered under this agenda item. AC.3 considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/31, aimed at providing an updated overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones. AC.3 referred to the discussions on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 under agenda item 2.3.

157. The Chair of AC.3 proposed that agenda item 17 could be divided into two items: 17.1 on the conventional priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement, and 17.2. on priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement concerning automated and connected vehicles for consideration.

158. Discussion was inconclusive, and the Chair of AC.3 proposed to prepare and submit an informal document to the fifty-sixth session detailing the proposed changes to the agenda. AC.3 accepted this proposal and deferred continuation of discussions on the matter to the subsequent AC.3 session in June 2019.

36. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/10, proposing clarifications to the tall-tell requirements for Corrective Steering Function (CSF), Emergency steering Function (ESF) and ACSF. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended and reproduced in Annex III. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit Annex III to the report as draft Supplement 1 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC. 1) for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

40. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the IWG on AEBS presented GRVA-02-28 with a status report on the activities of the group drafting a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to vehicles of category M1 and N1 and introduced the corresponding proposal in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/5. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians AEBS. He mentioned that some provisions were contained in square brackets indicating that decisions by GRVA were needed, e.g. the provisions for manual AEBS deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

41. GRVA discussed provisions allowing for the manual deactivation of an AEBS. The expert from Australia informed that according to their survey, 93 per cent of respondents answered that they never deactivated their AEBS. GRVA, taking into account the risks in case of a misalignment of sensors, agreed to include provisions allowing manual deactivation on the basis that the provisions in the proposal ensured that the process required more than one action to complete.

42. GRVA reviewed the proposal and agreed with the text as reproduced in GRVA-02-39-Corr.1.

43. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit the proposal as amended in para. 42 as draft UN Regulation on Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles for consideration and vote by WP.29 and the Administrative Committee AC.1 at their June 2019 sessions.

46. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-02-22, proposing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/5. GRVA recommended that the proposal be reviewed by the IWG on AEBS and that this proposal would either be included in the submission of the IWG for the September 2019 session or be submitted as a separate proposal for review in September 2019, if no consensus would be reached on this proposal by the IWG on AEBS.

93. The World Forum considered the proposal for a new UN Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/61) under agenda item 4.12.1.

94. The representative of OICA stated that they did not fully support the proposal. The Chair of GRVA acknowledged the position of the representative from OICA and proposed to review amendment proposals at the group’s upcoming sessions.

95. The representative of Japan thanked GRVA experts involved in the development of the draft new UN Regulation on AEBS and and expressed his strong expectation that the new UN Regulation on AEBS would be adopted, taking into consideration its recent national situation where serious traffic accidents caused by elderly drivers occur frequently. He added that Japan had started to consider mandating the fitting of AEBS at an appropriate timing.

96. The World Forum considered the proposal and recommended its submission to AC.1 for voting.

25. The representative of the United Kingdom, Chair of GRVA, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. He proposed to delay the adoption of this document until the review of WP.29-177-19, which was under preparation at that time.

27. The representative of the United States of America introduced WP.29-177-08 referring to the work priorities on vehicle automation in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and proposing principles relevant for the performance assessment of automated vehicles.

48. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 with the following amendment:

Table 1 to read:

156. The Chair of AC.3 introduced the documents that were considered under this agenda item. AC.3 considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/31, aimed at providing an updated overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones. AC.3 referred to the discussions on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 under agenda item 2.3.

157. The Chair of AC.3 proposed that agenda item 17 could be divided into two items: 17.1 on the conventional priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement, and 17.2. on priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement concerning automated and connected vehicles for consideration.

158. Discussion was inconclusive, and the Chair of AC.3 proposed to prepare and submit an informal document to the fifty-sixth session detailing the proposed changes to the agenda. AC.3 accepted this proposal and deferred continuation of discussions on the matter to the subsequent AC.3 session in June 2019.

18. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates presented GRVA-02-03, containing a status report of the group’s activities since the previous GRVA session and introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He mentioned that the group responded in writing to all the questions and comments received on the proposal.

19. The expert from FIA welcomed the proposal produced by the group but mentioned that it did not reflect their position regarding life time requirements.

20. The expert from OICA wondered whether such aspect raised by FIA would belong to the scope of the 1958 Agreement. The secretariat answered that some precedents could help answering this question e.g. UN Regulation No. 49 (including conformity of in-service vehicles/engines provisions), UN Regulation No. 59 (Replacement (retrofit) silencing systems), UN Regulation No. 83 (including durability requirements and “in use” requirements), UN Regulation No. 90 (Replacement braking parts) and UN Regulation No. 133 (Recyclability of motor vehicles). He stated that he was not aware of any provision of the Agreement that would limit the activities under this Agreement only to the performance of new vehicles. The expert from OICA, Secretary of the Task Force agreed to submit in written an informal document highlighting the difficulty faced by the group with this aspect. He presented, on the last day of the second GRVA session, GRVA-02-46 that described the issue of post-production, understood as the product lifetime starting after the production is definitely discontinued.

21. The expert from Germany and the Netherlands stated that the document should address the three following phases: system/vehicle development, production and post-production.

22. The expert from Japan supported the proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 and stated the need to adopt this document during this session, since the new UN Regulation proposed in the document was one of the important and needed Regulations for the improvement of vehicle safety.

23. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

24. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of category L from the scope of the document.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force, responding to the advice received from the previous session of GRVA, reported on its proposal for a test phase to assure the draft produced. He presented the aim and the desired output of this activity.

26. GRVA agreed to keep the documents under this agenda item for continued review at next GRVA session. GRVA invited the Task Force to address the comments received and to proceed with the test phase. GRVA noted the need to make further progress on this item and requested the secretariat to explore the possibility to organize a special session of GRVA in May or June 2019.

17. Due to lack of time, GRVA did not consider ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/13, describing the principles of the “Three-Pillar Approach”, proposed by the experts from OICA (see GRVA-02-09 and GRVA-02-27).

27. GRVA noted that the presentation of GRVA-02-03 also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3, that the proposal for a test phase would also apply to the software updates work stream. The expert from Japan also supported the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3. He indicated Japan’s support for the earliest adoption (during this session), since the issue was important and a UN Regulation was needed for the improvement of vehicle safety.

28. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

29. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of Category L from the scope of the document.

30. The expert from ITU stated that regulating communication would require specific expertise and that the precedent at the Working Party on General Safety provisions with the UN Regulation No. 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems) ignored communication aspects and durability provisions. He raised the question whether a vehicle equipped with safety systems based on communication would still be roadworthy in case the communication would no longer function e.g. when the communication system would be obsolete. GRVA agreed that the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates was a good example demonstrating that WP.29 was able to attract the required experts with the right expertise and to make very quick progress on such strategic issues. GRVA agreed about the need to discuss the roadworthiness of vehicles in case of the vehicle communication unit obsolescence would impact the well performing of safety systems.

31. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3 and GRVA-01-18 on the agenda of the next GRVA session.

18. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates presented GRVA-02-03, containing a status report of the group’s activities since the previous GRVA session and introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He mentioned that the group responded in writing to all the questions and comments received on the proposal.

19. The expert from FIA welcomed the proposal produced by the group but mentioned that it did not reflect their position regarding life time requirements.

20. The expert from OICA wondered whether such aspect raised by FIA would belong to the scope of the 1958 Agreement. The secretariat answered that some precedents could help answering this question e.g. UN Regulation No. 49 (including conformity of in-service vehicles/engines provisions), UN Regulation No. 59 (Replacement (retrofit) silencing systems), UN Regulation No. 83 (including durability requirements and “in use” requirements), UN Regulation No. 90 (Replacement braking parts) and UN Regulation No. 133 (Recyclability of motor vehicles). He stated that he was not aware of any provision of the Agreement that would limit the activities under this Agreement only to the performance of new vehicles. The expert from OICA, Secretary of the Task Force agreed to submit in written an informal document highlighting the difficulty faced by the group with this aspect. He presented, on the last day of the second GRVA session, GRVA-02-46 that described the issue of post-production, understood as the product lifetime starting after the production is definitely discontinued.

21. The expert from Germany and the Netherlands stated that the document should address the three following phases: system/vehicle development, production and post-production.

22. The expert from Japan supported the proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 and stated the need to adopt this document during this session, since the new UN Regulation proposed in the document was one of the important and needed Regulations for the improvement of vehicle safety.

23. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

24. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of category L from the scope of the document.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force, responding to the advice received from the previous session of GRVA, reported on its proposal for a test phase to assure the draft produced. He presented the aim and the desired output of this activity.

26. GRVA agreed to keep the documents under this agenda item for continued review at next GRVA session. GRVA invited the Task Force to address the comments received and to proceed with the test phase. GRVA noted the need to make further progress on this item and requested the secretariat to explore the possibility to organize a special session of GRVA in May or June 2019.

27. GRVA noted that the presentation of GRVA-02-03 also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3, that the proposal for a test phase would also apply to the software updates work stream. The expert from Japan also supported the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3. He indicated Japan’s support for the earliest adoption (during this session), since the issue was important and a UN Regulation was needed for the improvement of vehicle safety.

28. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

29. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of Category L from the scope of the document.

30. The expert from ITU stated that regulating communication would require specific expertise and that the precedent at the Working Party on General Safety provisions with the UN Regulation No. 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems) ignored communication aspects and durability provisions. He raised the question whether a vehicle equipped with safety systems based on communication would still be roadworthy in case the communication would no longer function e.g. when the communication system would be obsolete. GRVA agreed that the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates was a good example demonstrating that WP.29 was able to attract the required experts with the right expertise and to make very quick progress on such strategic issues. GRVA agreed about the need to discuss the roadworthiness of vehicles in case of the vehicle communication unit obsolescence would impact the well performing of safety systems.

31. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3 and GRVA-01-18 on the agenda of the next GRVA session.

48. The expert from Germany presented GRRF-86-13 tabled by the experts from Germany and from the Republic of Korea with a proposal for amendments to the ACSF testing provisions in Annex 8 of UN Regulation No. 79, based on the first experience gathered since the 02 series of amendments of UN Regulation No. 79 entered into force. GRRF welcomed the proposal and provided comments. The experts from Germany and the Republic of Korea volunteered to prepare a revised proposal aimed to avoid prescriptive requirements on the measurement instruments and providing more detailed justification e.g. on the sample rate and the filtering of the lateral acceleration data.

35. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/9 based on GRRF-86-13 proposing clarifications of the Annex 8 testing provisions. The proposal received some comments from Japan, France, Germany and OICA. The expert from France agreed with the suggestion of GRVA to submit a revised proposal with more data for consideration at the September 2019 session. The experts from Japan, Germany and OICA were invited to share with GRVA their test data, supporting their positions.

33. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/19 proposing amendments to UN Regulation No.79 based on experience gathered by France, Germany and the Republic of Korea since the entry into force of the 03 series. The proposal received comments (see GRVA-04-09, GRVA-04-46). GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-04-47) as reproduced in Annex III, as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No.79 and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

59. The expert from the Russian Federation presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/18, proposing clarifications on Annex 7 of UN Regulation No. 13. The expert from OICA declared that the clarification was not necessary, as it would have no impact on the test results. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed a compromise including transitional provisions (GRVA-04-50). The expert from the Czech Republic supported the proposal and mentioned that a similar clarification should be provided for similar provisions in Part C of Annex 7. GRVA took note of a notice issued by the European Type Approval Authorities Meeting on this matter, supporting the Russian proposal. GRVA agreed to consider this matter at its next session.

67. The expert from the Russian Federation, recalling previous discussions on this item at the last GRVA session, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/13, proposing clarifications regarding the application of test procedures in Annex 7 to UN Regulation No. 13. GRVA adopted this proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as supplement to the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.

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.

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.

35. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/9 based on GRRF-86-13 proposing clarifications of the Annex 8 testing provisions. The proposal received some comments from Japan, France, Germany and OICA. The expert from France agreed with the suggestion of GRVA to submit a revised proposal with more data for consideration at the September 2019 session. The experts from Japan, Germany and OICA were invited to share with GRVA their test data, supporting their positions.

34. The expert from AVERA presented GRVA-04-53, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/26, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/27 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/28. The presentation contained videos, simulations and fleet data supporting the proposals for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. The presenters referred to a driving demonstration organized by Tesla in conjunction with GRVA to justify their statements. The proposal received some comments. The contracting parties were not opposed to an evolution of the regulatory provisions based on experience, if the assurance of safety is provided. The expert from AVERE presented revised proposals GRVA-04-41 and GRVA-04-42 aimed at addressing comments received. GRVA noted that some parts of the proposals were also addressed by the proposal submitted by the expert from OICA and agreed to review it.

35. GRVA welcomed the proposal from the expert from the United Kingdom, who volunteered to lead activities on the review of the three AVERE proposals as well as the amendment proposal tabled by OICA in GRVA-04-08 with the aim to prepare a formal proposal until November 2019 in order to meet the deadline for submission of documents for the February 2020 session of GRVA.

43. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/7 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/8 (and their respective amendments in GRVA-05-08 and GRVA-05-24), proposing amendments to the ACSF provisions, resuming the discussion started in September 2019. He mentioned the support provided by the expert from the United Kingdom. The experts from Sweden and France provided comments. The experts from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway expressed concerns. The expert from the Netherlands explained that the dynamics problems reported by the manufacturer, member of AVERE, were not due to the provisions in the Regulation but were due to design choices made by this manufacturer. The experts from the European Commission, Korea and United Kingdom and Northern Ireland supported the proposals; the expert from OICA, too. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed alternative proposals (GRVA-05-59) improving the text. The expert from the United Kingdom proposed GRVA-05-57 aimed at addressing the comments expressed by the expert from Sweden. GRVA reviewed all revised proposals produced by the expert from AVERE during the week but remained divided. GRVA agreed to review a revised proposal at the sixth session of GRVA, if time allows.

44. The Chair of GRVA noted the division of GRVA on this matter. He proposed that GRVA performs a general review of the Regulation at its September 2020 session.

45. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/9 as amended by GRVA-05-09. The proposal received comments (GRVA-05-58). The expert from the Netherlands expressed concerns with the proposal as the proposed amendment did not improve safety. GRVA adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex IV of the session report (based on GRVA-05-09-Rev.3) and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as a supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.

34. The expert from AVERA presented GRVA-04-53, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/26, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/27 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/28. The presentation contained videos, simulations and fleet data supporting the proposals for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. The presenters referred to a driving demonstration organized by Tesla in conjunction with GRVA to justify their statements. The proposal received some comments. The contracting parties were not opposed to an evolution of the regulatory provisions based on experience, if the assurance of safety is provided. The expert from AVERE presented revised proposals GRVA-04-41 and GRVA-04-42 aimed at addressing comments received. GRVA noted that some parts of the proposals were also addressed by the proposal submitted by the expert from OICA and agreed to review it.

35. GRVA welcomed the proposal from the expert from the United Kingdom, who volunteered to lead activities on the review of the three AVERE proposals as well as the amendment proposal tabled by OICA in GRVA-04-08 with the aim to prepare a formal proposal until November 2019 in order to meet the deadline for submission of documents for the February 2020 session of GRVA.

43. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/7 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/8 (and their respective amendments in GRVA-05-08 and GRVA-05-24), proposing amendments to the ACSF provisions, resuming the discussion started in September 2019. He mentioned the support provided by the expert from the United Kingdom. The experts from Sweden and France provided comments. The experts from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway expressed concerns. The expert from the Netherlands explained that the dynamics problems reported by the manufacturer, member of AVERE, were not due to the provisions in the Regulation but were due to design choices made by this manufacturer. The experts from the European Commission, Korea and United Kingdom and Northern Ireland supported the proposals; the expert from OICA, too. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed alternative proposals (GRVA-05-59) improving the text. The expert from the United Kingdom proposed GRVA-05-57 aimed at addressing the comments expressed by the expert from Sweden. GRVA reviewed all revised proposals produced by the expert from AVERE during the week but remained divided. GRVA agreed to review a revised proposal at the sixth session of GRVA, if time allows.

44. The Chair of GRVA noted the division of GRVA on this matter. He proposed that GRVA performs a general review of the Regulation at its September 2020 session.

37. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-02-24 (based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/2), proposing to insert in the Regulation some provisions for ACSF of Category C with a two-step Human Machine Interface (HMI) approach. The expert from the Netherlands disagreed with the proposed seven seconds as the time during which the second deliberate action by the driver should take place while this time for the one-step HMI approach (latest time by which an automatic initiation should occur), already in force, is limited to five seconds. The expert from France supported the proposal and showed flexibility on the seven seconds value to reach consensus among CPs. The expert from Germany asked whether this proposal would allow one single vehicle to be equipped with both a one-step HMI and a two-step HMI and how the combination of both would work. GRVA invited OICA to consider the issues raised by the experts and requested the secretariat to distribute the proposal with an official symbol for review at its September 2019 session.

36. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-04-03, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/24 proposing an alternative Human Machine Interface (HMI) for ACSF of Category C. The proposal received comments (and GRVA extended the discussion after the end of the official meeting time, without interpretation and without decisions or conclusions).

37. Following further discussion, GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-04-43) and reproduced in Annex IV. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

43. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/7 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/8 (and their respective amendments in GRVA-05-08 and GRVA-05-24), proposing amendments to the ACSF provisions, resuming the discussion started in September 2019. He mentioned the support provided by the expert from the United Kingdom. The experts from Sweden and France provided comments. The experts from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway expressed concerns. The expert from the Netherlands explained that the dynamics problems reported by the manufacturer, member of AVERE, were not due to the provisions in the Regulation but were due to design choices made by this manufacturer. The experts from the European Commission, Korea and United Kingdom and Northern Ireland supported the proposals; the expert from OICA, too. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed alternative proposals (GRVA-05-59) improving the text. The expert from the United Kingdom proposed GRVA-05-57 aimed at addressing the comments expressed by the expert from Sweden. GRVA reviewed all revised proposals produced by the expert from AVERE during the week but remained divided. GRVA agreed to review a revised proposal at the sixth session of GRVA, if time allows.

44. The Chair of GRVA noted the division of GRVA on this matter. He proposed that GRVA performs a general review of the Regulation at its September 2020 session.

45. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/9 as amended by GRVA-05-09. The proposal received comments (GRVA-05-58). The expert from the Netherlands expressed concerns with the proposal as the proposed amendment did not improve safety. GRVA adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex IV of the session report (based on GRVA-05-09-Rev.3) and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as a supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.

47. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-05-52, introducing GRVA-05-30 with amendments to the provisions applicable to ACSF of Category C.

48. The expert from CITA introduced GRVA-05-50 with amendment proposals to Annex 8.

49. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-05-53 with amendment proposals to para. 5.6.4.7. (critical situation).

50. GRVA requested the secretariat to distribute GRVA-05-30, GRVA-05-50 and GRVA-05-53 with official symbols at its September 2020 session.