36. The expert from EC, Co-Chair of the IWG on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) presented GRVA-01-10 with a status report on the activities of the group on the drafting of a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to M1 and N1 vehicles as reproduced in GRVA-01-02. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB) systems and highlighted the open issues discussed by the group on provision for manual AEB deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

37. The expert from UK, supported by the expert from the Netherlands, questioned the proposed value of the maximum differential test speed (42 km/h) that targets collision avoidance. He suggested 50 km/h instead of 42 km/h. He expressed doubts that a staged approach for vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-bicycle AEB systems would be appropriate. The expert from OICA justified the value of the maximum differential speed for collision avoidance noting that Euro NCAP was requesting less than this value and justified the staged requirements especially for vehicle-to-bicycle AEBS systems because of the ongoing development process of such systems.

38. The expert from Canada suggested to specify performance-based requirements for all aspects to be tested, including the adhesion criteria of the track surface used for testing. GRVA noted the existing relevant precedent in UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 and the corresponding value proposed in the draft.

39. The expert from Italy mentioned the risk related to false positive AEB system activation and the need of a manual AEBS deactivation function. The experts from Germany and UK expressed support for provisions on automatic deactivation function in limited cases. They disagreed with the proposal for provisions allowing the manual deactivation of AEB systems.

40. The Chair highlighted the provisions related to the AEBS performance outside of the testing conditions.

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.

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.

41. The Co-Chair of the IWG presented GRVA-01-09 proposing changes to the ToR of the group as well as a mandate extension by one year. GRVA agreed to extend the mandate of the IWG on AEBS for one year until September 2019. GRVA agreed with the goal of the AEBS Chair to present an official document covering vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrian collision for adoption at the next GRVA session in January 2019. GRVA also asked the informal working group to present, at the same session, the requirements on vehicle-to-bicycle on the basis of available data.

36. The expert from EC, Co-Chair of the IWG on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) presented GRVA-01-10 with a status report on the activities of the group on the drafting of a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to M1 and N1 vehicles as reproduced in GRVA-01-02. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB) systems and highlighted the open issues discussed by the group on provision for manual AEB deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

37. The expert from UK, supported by the expert from the Netherlands, questioned the proposed value of the maximum differential test speed (42 km/h) that targets collision avoidance. He suggested 50 km/h instead of 42 km/h. He expressed doubts that a staged approach for vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-bicycle AEB systems would be appropriate. The expert from OICA justified the value of the maximum differential speed for collision avoidance noting that Euro NCAP was requesting less than this value and justified the staged requirements especially for vehicle-to-bicycle AEBS systems because of the ongoing development process of such systems.

38. The expert from Canada suggested to specify performance-based requirements for all aspects to be tested, including the adhesion criteria of the track surface used for testing. GRVA noted the existing relevant precedent in UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 and the corresponding value proposed in the draft.

39. The expert from Italy mentioned the risk related to false positive AEB system activation and the need of a manual AEBS deactivation function. The experts from Germany and UK expressed support for provisions on automatic deactivation function in limited cases. They disagreed with the proposal for provisions allowing the manual deactivation of AEB systems.

40. The Chair highlighted the provisions related to the AEBS performance outside of the testing conditions.