6. The Chair recalled that he had initiated an informal consultation over the summer 2018 to collect the list of items that Contracting Parties would wish to be addressed by GRVA. The Chair presented GRVA-01-33 containing the responses received together with those provided in WP.29-175-08 and WP.29-175-29, some 40 items in total. He proposed classifying the items into work streams to facilitate the participation of subject experts, e.g. Data management, Sensors (spatial awareness), Functional requirements, New assessment procedures and “other items”. The GRVA experts confirmed that the document contained all input received.

7. The expert from China offered suggestions on the structure, work programme and meeting arrangements of GRVA (reproduced in GRVA-01-32).

8. The expert from AAPC stated that they would like to support the work done under this agenda item, he suggested assessment criteria to be considered when working on priorities for GRVA.

9. The expert from the United States of America introduced GRVA-01-03 proposing some considerations relevant for the work of GRVA under the 1998 Agreement. The expert from ITU reported on their experience in the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air issues (TF CS/OTA) and highlighted the need for assistance from contracting parties when drafting documents to ensure the appropriateness of texts drafted to address specificities of the 1998 Agreement (and the context of self-certification). The expert from Germany, Co-Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Automated Commanded Steering Function (ACSF), recalled the ambition of his group to draft technical requirements suitable for use under both the 1958 and the 1998 Agreements.

10. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRVA-01-05 with their proposal for priorities. He recalled that decisions on priorities can only be made by the Executive Committee (AC. 3) for items to be handled under the 1998 Agreement. He also recalled the need for a technical sponsor for activities under the 1998 Agreement.

11. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-01-28 with information on the priorities of the industry that would require regulatory activities from GRVA. He regretted that the IWG on ACSF were not drafting provisions for so called Hands-off Lane Keeping Systems as SAE Level 2 even though this technology was already sold in some markets, e.g. in the United States of America. The Co-Chair of the IWG on ACSF and the expert from the Netherlands clarified that the IWG on ACSF considered hand off systems as Level 3 systems and not as Level 2. The Chair noted the differences between the priorities reported in GRVA-01-28 by OICA and those communicated by most of the manufacturers in their media statements. In response the expert from OICA prepared a revised document (GRVA-01-28-Rev.1) but was unable to demonstrate the technological and market priorities questions raised by GRVA. The expert from OICA also presented considerations on possible coordination of work between the subsidiary bodies (GRs) of WP.29. He suggested the nomination of GR Ambassadors on the model of IWVTA Ambassadors.

12. The expert from UITP stated the need to first address the safety of automated shared fleets for use by public transport systems.

13. The expert from ITU stated the need for GRVA to define a cluster around communication, including Platooning.

14. The expert from CLEPA insisted on the need to finalize the work on Automated Commanded Steering Function (ACSF).

15. The expert from GTB presented GRVA-01-06 with considerations on lighting and light-signalling for automated driving systems, highlighting the wish to work on this at the Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signalling (GRE). The expert from the Russian Federation suggested to explore ways to address this issue in the context of the Horizontal Regulation discussions. He mentioned that the presentation had already been made at WP.29. The expert from GTB also raised the question of coordination between GRs on automation as the expert from OICA had done. The expert from Japan recalled that WP.29 agreed to discuss coordination issues on automation. GRVA agreed that coordination issues would naturally be discussed at WP.29.

16. The expert from China introduced GRVA-01-16,

17. GRVA agreed that the items listed in GRVA-01-33 and the classification proposed should be reviewed at the next session under agenda item 4.

18. GRVA reviewed WP.29 informal documents WP.29-175-08 and WP.29-175-29 referred by WP.29 to GRVA as well as the list of items noted in the provisional agenda. GRVA had an extensive discussion on each item. The expert from OICA stated that the ongoing work was adequate to address industry priorities. The experts received clarifications on the meaning of each item by the proposal authors. They exchanged views on the priority that could be assigned to each item as well as the potential necessity to start regulatory activities (or not). GRVA concluded that GRVA is able (from the point of view of knowledge and expertise) to address each item in the list (GRVA-01-39) reproduced in Annex II to this report and was ready to fulfil its mandate as defined by WP.29 and/or AC.3. GRVA agreed to consider other items and possibly extend this list in the coming sessions.

21. The expert from UK presented the developments in 2018 on the creation of the Task Force on Automated Vehicle Testing (“AutoVeh”) and its two subgroups called “SG-1” and “SG-2”, established under WP.29. He presented that the aim of these groups was to develop a novel innovative concept for the assessment of Automated Driving technologies. He recalled that Terms of Reference (ToR) for this group were not adopted and that “AutoVeh” was transferred to GRVA in June 2018 (including the corresponding draft ToR). The expert from Japan reported on the status of the discussions in the groups and presented slide 3 in GRVA-01-35. GRVA agreed that the parent group (“AutoVeh”) would no longer be needed as the management of SG-1 and SG-2 would take place at GRVA.

22. The expert from Japan Co-Chair of “AutoVeh” presented ToR of both Subgroups (GRVA-01-07 and GRVA-01-11). The expert from EC sought clarity on the scope of SG-1 and on possible overlap with IWG on ACSF. The expert from China mentioned the lack of clarity of the proposed structure and proposed to classify existing and new work items to create groups with sufficient compatibility for existing and new ones in the future. He also mentioned the challenges related to the work on simulation and on-road testing due to the differences in traffic conditions and traffic rules within the contracting parties. He recommended to not endorse the ToRs proposed at this session. The expert from Germany asked about potential work duplications and asked whether GRVA or WP.29 already agreed on the three pillars concept mentioned in the ToR. The expert from Japan answered the questions.

23. After discussion, GRVA did not endorse GRVA-01-07 and GRVA-01-11 but, noting arrangements were already in place for further meetings, agreed that the groups continue to work until the next GRVA session. GRVA suggested that the group should refine the ToR to develop the novel innovative concept to verify the compliance with technical requirements (such as those developed within the IWG on ACSF) and demonstrate the validity of the new approach. The group should also prepare a full discussion on the three pillars approach and start working.

24. The secretariat recalled the decision of WP.29 to defer the document on artificial intelligence and vehicle regulations (WP.29-175-21) to SG-1.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air issues (TF CS/OTA) presented GRVA-01-19 introducing GRVA-01-17 and GRVA-01-18 with recommendations on software updates and on cyber security. He invited the experts to send comments on the recommendations until 28 October 2018. The expert from France congratulated the Task Force for the work done. The expert from the United States of America confirmed that they had participated in the last meeting of the group and explained that both recommendations would require amendments to make them compatible with the 1998 Agreement (especially in the self-certification context) and offered to provide comments.

26. The expert from Japan also mentioned that the recommendations contained proposals for a draft UN Regulation for cyber security and a draft generic Annex that could be added to relevant UN Regulations with regards to software number management. He added that the innovative approaches proposed would probably require some verification before adoption and that these activities would require an extension of the group’s mandate or the creation of a new group.

27. GRVA invited the Task Force to use the remaining time on their current mandate to develop a verification programme that could be considered at the second session of GRVA. GRVA also requested the Chair to report on these activities at WP.29.

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.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air issues (TF CS/OTA) presented GRVA-01-19 introducing GRVA-01-17 and GRVA-01-18 with recommendations on software updates and on cyber security. He invited the experts to send comments on the recommendations until 28 October 2018. The expert from France congratulated the Task Force for the work done. The expert from the United States of America confirmed that they had participated in the last meeting of the group and explained that both recommendations would require amendments to make them compatible with the 1998 Agreement (especially in the self-certification context) and offered to provide comments.

26. The expert from Japan also mentioned that the recommendations contained proposals for a draft UN Regulation for cyber security and a draft generic Annex that could be added to relevant UN Regulations with regards to software number management. He added that the innovative approaches proposed would probably require some verification before adoption and that these activities would require an extension of the group’s mandate or the creation of a new group.

27. GRVA invited the Task Force to use the remaining time on their current mandate to develop a verification programme that could be considered at the second session of GRVA. GRVA also requested the Chair to report on these activities at WP.29.

28. This agenda item was addressed together with agenda item 6 (b) above.

6. The Chair recalled that he had initiated an informal consultation over the summer 2018 to collect the list of items that Contracting Parties would wish to be addressed by GRVA. The Chair presented GRVA-01-33 containing the responses received together with those provided in WP.29-175-08 and WP.29-175-29, some 40 items in total. He proposed classifying the items into work streams to facilitate the participation of subject experts, e.g. Data management, Sensors (spatial awareness), Functional requirements, New assessment procedures and “other items”. The GRVA experts confirmed that the document contained all input received.

7. The expert from China offered suggestions on the structure, work programme and meeting arrangements of GRVA (reproduced in GRVA-01-32).

8. The expert from AAPC stated that they would like to support the work done under this agenda item, he suggested assessment criteria to be considered when working on priorities for GRVA.

9. The expert from the United States of America introduced GRVA-01-03 proposing some considerations relevant for the work of GRVA under the 1998 Agreement. The expert from ITU reported on their experience in the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air issues (TF CS/OTA) and highlighted the need for assistance from contracting parties when drafting documents to ensure the appropriateness of texts drafted to address specificities of the 1998 Agreement (and the context of self-certification). The expert from Germany, Co-Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Automated Commanded Steering Function (ACSF), recalled the ambition of his group to draft technical requirements suitable for use under both the 1958 and the 1998 Agreements.

10. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRVA-01-05 with their proposal for priorities. He recalled that decisions on priorities can only be made by the Executive Committee (AC. 3) for items to be handled under the 1998 Agreement. He also recalled the need for a technical sponsor for activities under the 1998 Agreement.

11. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-01-28 with information on the priorities of the industry that would require regulatory activities from GRVA. He regretted that the IWG on ACSF were not drafting provisions for so called Hands-off Lane Keeping Systems as SAE Level 2 even though this technology was already sold in some markets, e.g. in the United States of America. The Co-Chair of the IWG on ACSF and the expert from the Netherlands clarified that the IWG on ACSF considered hand off systems as Level 3 systems and not as Level 2. The Chair noted the differences between the priorities reported in GRVA-01-28 by OICA and those communicated by most of the manufacturers in their media statements. In response the expert from OICA prepared a revised document (GRVA-01-28-Rev.1) but was unable to demonstrate the technological and market priorities questions raised by GRVA. The expert from OICA also presented considerations on possible coordination of work between the subsidiary bodies (GRs) of WP.29. He suggested the nomination of GR Ambassadors on the model of IWVTA Ambassadors.

12. The expert from UITP stated the need to first address the safety of automated shared fleets for use by public transport systems.

13. The expert from ITU stated the need for GRVA to define a cluster around communication, including Platooning.

14. The expert from CLEPA insisted on the need to finalize the work on Automated Commanded Steering Function (ACSF).

15. The expert from GTB presented GRVA-01-06 with considerations on lighting and light-signalling for automated driving systems, highlighting the wish to work on this at the Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signalling (GRE). The expert from the Russian Federation suggested to explore ways to address this issue in the context of the Horizontal Regulation discussions. He mentioned that the presentation had already been made at WP.29. The expert from GTB also raised the question of coordination between GRs on automation as the expert from OICA had done. The expert from Japan recalled that WP.29 agreed to discuss coordination issues on automation. GRVA agreed that coordination issues would naturally be discussed at WP.29.

16. The expert from China introduced GRVA-01-16,

17. GRVA agreed that the items listed in GRVA-01-33 and the classification proposed should be reviewed at the next session under agenda item 4.

18. GRVA reviewed WP.29 informal documents WP.29-175-08 and WP.29-175-29 referred by WP.29 to GRVA as well as the list of items noted in the provisional agenda. GRVA had an extensive discussion on each item. The expert from OICA stated that the ongoing work was adequate to address industry priorities. The experts received clarifications on the meaning of each item by the proposal authors. They exchanged views on the priority that could be assigned to each item as well as the potential necessity to start regulatory activities (or not). GRVA concluded that GRVA is able (from the point of view of knowledge and expertise) to address each item in the list (GRVA-01-39) reproduced in Annex II to this report and was ready to fulfil its mandate as defined by WP.29 and/or AC.3. GRVA agreed to consider other items and possibly extend this list in the coming sessions.

20. The expert from the Netherlands presented activities and thoughts developed in his country aimed at addressing the challenges related to the safety and security assessment of the so called modern vehicles (GRVA-01-40).