World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)

4. The representative of Malaysia provided the World Forum with an update on automotive development in Malaysia, as part of the country’s National Automotive Policy (NAP 2020) (WP.29-180-24). He stated that WP.29 had significant impact on NAP 2020 formulation especially in the area of safety regulations and administration enhancement in Malaysia. He also emphasized that NAP 2020 had aimed to transform the Malaysian automotive industry towards a connected mobility ecosystem by 2030. The representative of Malaysia concluded with stating that Malaysia would provide full support in the development of UN Regulations especially in the area of automated, autonomous and connected vehicles, namely the work carried out within the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA).

5. WP.29 adopted the annotated provisional agenda and the running order of the 180th session.

13. AC.2 discussed ITC decisions: Nos. 17 and 18 related to the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) Road Map and proposed the IWG on ITS to lead the activities for an update of the ITS Road Map; and No. 52 on the financing of DETA.

34. The secretariat presented the list of main decisions adopted at the eighty-first session of ITC (25-28 February 2020). Decisions Nos. 15–18 and 50–52 were emphasized as of particular importance to the work of WP.29.

35. In decision No. 15, ITC took note of the status of implementation of the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) Road Map that was launched at its seventy-fourth session and encouraged continuation of the work of SC.1 on smart roads; of SC.3 on smart shipping, River Information Systems, and innovative technologies in the recently adopted Signs and Signals for Inland Waterways (SIGNI); of WP.1 on the safe deployment of automated vehicles in traffic; of WP.15 on telematics for the transport of dangerous goods; of WP.29 on the adoption of the framework document on the safety of automated vehicles; of WP.29/GRVA on regulating autonomous/automated and connected vehicles (incl. cyber security); and of WP.30 on eTIR, as fostering regulatory and other activities in these areas would ensure the benefits that ITS could provide in terms of safety, environmental protection, energy efficiency and traffic management.

36. In decision No. 16, ITC invited WP.1 and WP.29 to continue their close cooperation to facilitate the safe deployment of automated vehicles.

37. In decision No. 17, ITC noted with satisfaction that the ITS Road Map 2011–2020, which would come to its conclusion in 2020, encouraged ITS activities linked to infrastructure and all transport modes and contributed to addressing ITS issues in an integrated approach.

38. In decision No. 18, ITC decided that, on this basis and considering the importance of ITS in light of global mega trends, technological developments, and the ongoing transformation of the Committee and its Working Parties, an updated ITS Road Map would be warranted and, therefore, requested the secretariat, in close cooperation with relevant Working Parties and subsidiary bodies, to prepare it for consideration in the framework of relevant Working parties and ITC Bureau and possible adoption at its eighty-third session, subject to availability of resources.

39. In decision No. 50, ITC endorsed the establishment by WP.29 of the Framework Document on Automated/Autonomous Vehicles and its implementation mainly by the Working Party on Autonomous/Automated Vehicles (GRVA).

40. In decision No. 51, ITC noted with regret the limitation of the 179th WP.29 session to three days only as a result of the financial crisis.

41. In decision No. 52, ITC reiterated its support for hosting of the type-approval database DETA at ECE, following the entry into force of Revision 3 to the 1958 Agreement, took note of information on the status of ECE hosting of DETA and reiterated its support for the request for financing of DETA under the United Nations regular budget.

42. WP.29 identified IWG on ITS as the ideal body to support the update of the ITS Road Map and requested the IWG to develop in close cooperation with the secretariat a first draft in view of the next ITC session.

18. The World Forum took note of the list of Working Parties and Chairs (WP.29-180-01), the Priorities of work for the GRs (WP.29-180-02) and the revised 2020 calendar for WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies (WP.29-179-02/Rev.1). In line with the recommendation of AC.2, WP.29 agreed with the revised calendar of meetings for 2020.

19. The 2020 revised calendar of meetings and the list of Working Parties, Informal Working Groups (IWG) and Chairs are reproduced in Annexes III and IV to this report.

18. The World Forum took note of the list of Working Parties and Chairs (WP.29-180-01), the Priorities of work for the GRs (WP.29-180-02) and the revised 2020 calendar for WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies (WP.29-179-02/Rev.1). In line with the recommendation of AC.2, WP.29 agreed with the revised calendar of meetings for 2020.

19. The 2020 revised calendar of meetings and the list of Working Parties, Informal Working Groups (IWG) and Chairs are reproduced in Annexes III and IV to this report.

10. Following these discussions, AC.2 decided to recommend to WP.29 that: (a) GRVA would have an additional half day on 21 September 2020 a.m.; (b) GRE task force on Autonomous Vehicle Signalling Requirements (AVSR) was invited to work together with the GRVA Informal Working Group (IWG) on Functional Requirements for Automated Vehicles (FRAV); and (c) AC.2 have two half-day sessions during WP.29 weeks in November for detailed preparation of the PoW for the following year.

11. AC.2 requested the secretariat to update the calendar of sessions for 2020 to reflect these changes (see WP.29-179-02/Rev.1).

18. The World Forum took note of the list of Working Parties and Chairs (WP.29-180-01), the Priorities of work for the GRs (WP.29-180-02) and the revised 2020 calendar for WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies (WP.29-179-02/Rev.1). In line with the recommendation of AC.2, WP.29 agreed with the revised calendar of meetings for 2020.

19. The 2020 revised calendar of meetings and the list of Working Parties, Informal Working Groups (IWG) and Chairs are reproduced in Annexes III and IV to this report.

Consideration of terms such as “lifetime” and “lifecycle” in UN Regulations under the 1958 Agreement.

31. The secretariat introduced WP.29-180-18 responding to the task assigned during the 179th session of WP.29 concerning the legal basis to draft lifecycle and lifetime related provisions under the 1958 Agreement.

32. The representative of France proposed to distribute this document to all GRs for review and potential comment. WP.29 agreed with this proposal and decided to keep this document on its agenda.

33. The representative of OICA reaffirmed his views on the purpose of the 1958 Agreement and the 1997 Agreement highlighting that the 1958 Agreement defines the performance requirements that vehicles and their equipment must fulfill in order to allow their placing on the market; the 1997 Agreement is aimed at verifying that these same vehicles and equipment remain in good shape as foreseen by the Rules. He also emphasized that, while the 1958 Agreement and its UN Regulations may foresee provisions to facilitate later inspections under the 1997 Agreement, the objectives of both Agreements should not be mixed. The secretariat confirmed that the document did not explore the potential link between both Agreements but simply offered a reading of the 1958 Agreement.

Proposal to add checks under the current tests:

• damage to seat attachments
• occupant compartment hazards (e.g., risk of impact by loose objects such as fire extinguisher) and
• post-crash functionality of escape hatches (including force required to open)

The objective of this proposal is to develop, in the framework of the 1998 Agreement, an amendment to UN Global Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 8 on Electronic Stability Control to amend to the testing provisions to accommodate the latest innovations for steering systems which have significantly low steering gear ratio (i.e. quick steering characteristics).

20. The representative of Japan presented WP.29-180-19 introducing the progress of implementation of the Revised Road Vehicle Act for automated driving scheduled to entry into force on 1 April 2020 in Japan. He highlighted that technical requirements being developed would be consistent with the international ones discussed in WP.29 and Japan would apply them without delay when the relevant UN Regulations were established. which Japan continued to strongly contribute to finalizing.

In accordance with the WP.29 Framework Document on Automated/Autonomous Vehicles, this document provides common functional performance requirements based on national/regional guidelines and other relevant reference documents consistent with the 1958 and 1998 Agreements. The document is based primarily upon discussions held among the experts of the Informal Working Group on Functional Requirements for Automated Vehicles (FRAV) under the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) and informal documents GRVA-05-40 and GRVA-05-41 as presented during the 5th GRVA session (10-14 February 2020). This document highlights common concepts identified through the first two FRAV sessions. These concepts are not exhaustive and many, if not all, will undergo changes as the FRAV and GRVA work progresses. This document does not constitute a proposal, formal or otherwise, for automated vehicle legal requirements but may serve to support discussions across WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies.

22. The representative of the United States of America, Co-Chair of IWG on FRAV, introduced WP.29-180-10, summarizing the group’s work, suggesting FDAV improvements and presenting the group’s consensus on high-level requirements. He noted that FRAV has held two full meetings contiguous with VMAD and more than 100 experts. He highlighted the group’s concern to use accurate terms. The group discourages the use of “autonomous” as misleading and uses “minimal”, not “minimum”, risk manoeuvres (MRM) because an MRM responds to road conditions and best available solutions. In addition to avoidance of injury or death and compliance with traffic laws, the group noted additional aspects such as behaviour consistent with safe and fluid traffic flows and attention to economic consequences such as destruction of property.

23. The representative of the United States of America reported that the group has identified automated vehicle configurations that fall outside the category definitions of Special Resolution S.R.1. He noted unallocated elements of the FDAV (i.e., vehicle maintenance and inspection, consumer education and training, crashworthiness and compatibility, and post-crash Automated Vehicle (AV) behaviour) pertinent to functional safety. He announced planned meetings in Paris (April 2020) and California (September 2020).

24. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland welcomed the presentation but sought clarification as to whether the FRAV group had reached a conclusion regarding the use of Operational Design Domain (ODD) versus Operational Domain (OD), as stated in informal document 10. He added that the discussion on vehicle categories should not only concentrate on S.R.1 but also Consolidated Resolution R.E.3. He further suggested that it should also involve WP.1.

25. The representative of the United States of America answered that WP.29-180-10 presents the group’s high-level consensus. However, ODD will be discussed in detail at its next session. He noted a proposal from China to establish the term “Operational Design Conditions” (ODC) based on the concern that ODD did not include dependency on driver status. Therefore, the group would be working to produce a more precise definition for ODD and other terms.

26. The representative of Finland supported the view that a common understanding with WP.1 would be needed. He also recalled the discussion at GRSG on categories for Automated Shuttles and welcomed the idea to review S.R.1 and R.E.3 and volunteered to participate in this work.

27. The representative of the United States welcomed the comments received. He stated that the delegates from WP.1 should join the meeting and contribute or present documents.

28. The Vice-Chair of WP.29 agreed that practical solutions should be discussed with WP.1 during the joint meeting (see agenda item 8.2). He also recalled that the IWG on FRAV would continue to report to GRVA.

29. The Secretary of the IWG on FRAV (AAPC) highlighted complementary WP.1 interests. For example, FRAV experts reached a high-level consensus that a vehicle should signal initiation of minimal risk manoeuvres to surrounding road users (WP.29-180-10, item 33). He suggested that WP.1 may wish to consider driver obligations for correct use of Automated Driving Systems (ADS) or prohibiting drivers from using devices intended to defeat ADS safety features (e.g., using weights to simulate the driver’s hand on the steering wheel).

30. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland explained that at the WP.1-WP.29 Executive Task Force meeting in June 2019, he undertook to prepare a comparison table of terms used by WP.29 and WP.1. He had been invited to present this information during the joint meeting.