3. GRVA considered the provisional agenda prepared for this first session and adopted it (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/1). The adopted agenda is reproduced in
GRVA-01-14, including all informal documents received until the session’s starting date. GRVA also agreed on the running order for the session as proposed in GRVA-01-01 with the modification suggested by the expert from the United States of America to move the election of officers for the year 2019 to the end of the session as per Rule 37. The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I of this report.

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.

34. The expert from AVERE introduced GRVA-01-04 proposing to clarify the existing introduction of UN Regulation No. 79 with regard to the prohibition of approval according to UN Regulation No. 79 of steering systems that incorporate functions by which the steering can be controlled by external signals. The expert from the Republic of Korea stated the importance of addressing this issue. The experts from Germany, the Netherlands, Russian Federation and Sweden stated that the purpose of the proposal was unclear and asked for more information on the context of the proposal. GRVA invited the expert from AVERE to consider whether changes to the text would be preferable to the use of footnotes and suggested he consult the experts and to produce a revised proposal for consideration at the next session.

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.

30. The expert from Germany presented the status report of the IWG on ACSF (GRVA-01-37). She requested guidance on whether the group should develop provisions for a new regulation, as the activities would go beyond the scope of UN Regulation No. 79 as originally envisaged. GRVA agreed with the suggestion of the IWG that technical provisions for new regulation should be developed. She introduced GRVA-01-08 with amended ToR for the group in line with the decision of GRVA in favour of a new regulation. GRVA endorsed the proposal for revised ToR as reproduced in Annex III to the report and noted that the timeline was ambitious. The Chair agreed to bring this point to the attention of WP.29.

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.

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.

56. Due to the lack of time, GRVA agreed to postpone the consideration of
GRVA-01-12 and the oral report of the expert from Spain on the activities of the Special Interest Group of experts on UN Regulation No. 90 until the January 2019 session.

26. The expert from Italy presented GRRF-80-31, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2014/23/Rev.2 and GRRF-80-37 and proposing requirements for the approval of replacement brake discs for L‑category vehicles, taking into consideration the latest technologies available in the market as well as comments received during the previous session of GRRF. GRRF adopted the proposal with the following amendments:

(a) the proposed transitional provisions (paras 12.1 to 12.6) shall be deleted;
(b) The note under Table A15/2.9 shall read: “There are no groups…”

27. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/22 proposing to enable the approval according to Regulation No. 90 of test groups instead of single variants. GRRF adopted the proposal with an amendment below:

In paragraph 4.2.3.(b), for “approval document” read “communication document”

28. GRRF adopted the proposal as amended and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2016 sessions, as Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 90.

25. The expert from CLEPA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/22 based on GRRF-80-12 proposing amendments to provisions defined for equivalent brake discs and drums and a relaxation of the requirement on the thickness variation for interchangeable replacement discs or drums. The expert presented a revised proposal GRRF-81-04 limiting the thickness variation requirement modification to vehicles of category O2, O3, N3 and M3. The expert from Italy expressed his concern with the proposed requirement relaxation. After discussion, GRRF agreed on the revised document GRRF-81-04-Rev.1. GRRF adopted the proposal amended by Annex IV to the report and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2016 sessions, as Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 90.

5. The secretariat introduced GRVA-01-13, informing on the highlights of the March and June 2018 session of WP.29. The secretariat announced that the next GRVA session would take place from 28 January to 1 February 2019 and advised that the deadline for the submission of official documents would be 2 November 2018.

3. GRVA considered the provisional agenda prepared for this first session and adopted it (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/1). The adopted agenda is reproduced in
GRVA-01-14, including all informal documents received until the session’s starting date. GRVA also agreed on the running order for the session as proposed in GRVA-01-01 with the modification suggested by the expert from the United States of America to move the election of officers for the year 2019 to the end of the session as per Rule 37. The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I of this report.

58. The secretariat briefly informed GRVA on the activities of the IWG on International Whole Vehicle Type Approval and especially the discussion on the new format of approval numbers specified in Schedule 4 of the 1958 Agreement. The expert from the Russian Federation tabled a proposal aimed at addressing this issue for UN Regulation No. 90 (GRVA-01-15). The expert from CLEPA tabled an alternative proposal (GRVA-01-41). GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its next session.

62. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/11 aimed at addressing the issue raised in WP.29-176-19. The expert from CLEPA expressed reservations because customs could be confused by the introduction of differences between the Approval Number and the Approval Code proposed in this document. The expert from Spain mentioned that UN Regulation No. 90 was used in various countries not being Contracting Party to the 1958 Agreement and that therefore the issue raised concerning customs could be valid. The expert from Spain stated that Transitional Provisions could be added to the document. The expert from CLEPA stated the need to first test the markets with this new approach and agreed to undertake a study. The expert from the Russian Federation agreed to submit a revised proposal for consideration at the September 2019 session of GRVA.

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.

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.

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.

35. The expert from UK informed GRVA that the work on this item was ongoing, that the current draft was reproduced in GRVA-01-20 and that the outcome of this work could be incorporated in the future proposal emanating from the IWG on ACSF.

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.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

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.

46. The expert from Sweden presented GRVA-01-23. He recalled that the work of the group was on hold and that the mandate of the group was about to expire. GRVA agreed to recommend a mandate extension to WP.29 and requested the group to prepare revised ToR until the next GRVA session.

33. The expert from Sweden presented GRVA-01-24 with a status report of the Task Force on PTI/roadworthiness of ACSF systems. The expert from the Russian Federation, Chair of the IWG on PTI, invited the Task Force to liaise with the IWG on these issues. GRVA agreed that the group should liaise with the IWG on PTI on Periodic Technical Inspection process related issues and that the Task Force should focus on roadworthiness related provisions linked to the construction of automated vehicles such as continuous self-diagnostic functions, system failure recognition, fault code recording and fault code access.

32. The expert from CITA introduced GRVA-01-25 with a proposal to include in UN Regulation No. 79 Periodic Technical Inspection (PTI) related provisions with regards to ACSF of Category B2. GRVA wondered why the proposal was based on an outdated working paper (ACSF-06-28) of the IWG on ACSF. GRVA agreed that the document should be addressed to the Task Force on PTI/ roadworthiness of the ACSF systems led by the expert from Sweden.

52. The expert from UK mentioned the work done on provisions for Remote Controlled Manoeuvring (RCM) as in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/3 amended by GRVA-01-26. He informed GRVA that he informally consulted GRVA experts and that further work could be needed. GRVA agreed with his proposal to resume consideration of this proposal or consider a revised consolidated proposal at the January 2019 session of GRVA.

47. GRVA considered WP.29-175-04 (together with WP.29-175-05 under agenda item 8 (a) above.)

48. Due to the lack of time and the late submission of informal document GRVA-01-27, GRVA agreed to postpone the consideration of this document until the January 2019 session of GRVA.

71. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-05-39-Rev.1 introducing GRVA-05-38-Rev.1 with a revised proposal for a new endurance braking testing procedure (proposed Type IV test) for Battery Electric and Hybrid Electric heavy Vehicles (including vehicle of Category M3 and N3) not coping with the existing Type II-A test when the traction battery is fully charged.

72. GRVA requested the secretariat to distribute the OICA proposal with an official symbol at it September 2020 session.

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.

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.

62. GRVA noted that GRVA-01-29 tabled by the expert from OICA was a new proposal. The expert from OICA agreed to present this document at the next GRSG session.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of 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.

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.

19. The expert from Japan introduced GRVA-01-34 presenting the Japanese guideline on safety technologies for automated vehicles in Japan. She mentioned that this guideline was newly issued in September 2018 with two safety concepts and ten safety requirements for automated vehicles.

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.

31. The secretariat presented GRVA-01-36 with a correction proposal to align the three linguistic versions of UN Regulation No. 79. GRVA agreed with the proposal and requested the secretariat to make the necessary corrections in the English version as follow:

Paragraph 2.4.15., correct to read:

“2.4.15. An ACSF is in “active mode” (or “active”) when the function is switched on and the conditions for being active are met. In this mode, the system continuously or discontinuously controls the steering system is generating, or is ready to generate, a steering control action to assist the driver."

30. The expert from Germany presented the status report of the IWG on ACSF (GRVA-01-37). She requested guidance on whether the group should develop provisions for a new regulation, as the activities would go beyond the scope of UN Regulation No. 79 as originally envisaged. GRVA agreed with the suggestion of the IWG that technical provisions for new regulation should be developed. She introduced GRVA-01-08 with amended ToR for the group in line with the decision of GRVA in favour of a new regulation. GRVA endorsed the proposal for revised ToR as reproduced in Annex III to the report and noted that the timeline was ambitious. The Chair agreed to bring this point to the attention of WP.29.

53. The expert from France introduced GRVA-01-38 (based on GRRF-86-13) addressing the accuracy of interpretation of data produced during system assessment. The expert from Germany welcomed the document and proposed to consider the filtering provisions together with the tolerances. Other experts welcomed the document and agreed to study it until the next session. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its January 2019 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.

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.

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).

58. The secretariat briefly informed GRVA on the activities of the IWG on International Whole Vehicle Type Approval and especially the discussion on the new format of approval numbers specified in Schedule 4 of the 1958 Agreement. The expert from the Russian Federation tabled a proposal aimed at addressing this issue for UN Regulation No. 90 (GRVA-01-15). The expert from CLEPA tabled an alternative proposal (GRVA-01-41). GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its next session.

62. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/11 aimed at addressing the issue raised in WP.29-176-19. The expert from CLEPA expressed reservations because customs could be confused by the introduction of differences between the Approval Number and the Approval Code proposed in this document. The expert from Spain mentioned that UN Regulation No. 90 was used in various countries not being Contracting Party to the 1958 Agreement and that therefore the issue raised concerning customs could be valid. The expert from Spain stated that Transitional Provisions could be added to the document. The expert from CLEPA stated the need to first test the markets with this new approach and agreed to undertake a study. The expert from the Russian Federation agreed to submit a revised proposal for consideration at the September 2019 session of GRVA.

51. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-01-42 as a follow-up proposal of
GRRF-86-35 aiming to specify the stop lamp activation criteria for conditions other than only on application of the service brake (e.g. regenerative braking). She explained that the proposal is based on the provisions laid down in UN Regulation No.13-H. The expert of OICA mentioned that they were working on amendments to these criteria. GRVA encouraged the experts from IMMA and OICA to come up with harmonized provisions for UN Regulations Nos. 78 and 13-H and requested the secretariat to distribute the proposal with an official symbol at the next session of GRVA unless an alternative proposal would be submitted by the experts from CLEPA and OICA.

22. The expert from IMMA introduced GRRF-86-35 with provisions allowing additional conditions for the activation of the stop lamp. The proposal received some comments. GRRF noted that some conditions were related to regenerative braking and, therefore, GRRF recommended to explore corresponding provisions in UN Regulations Nos. 13 and 13-H on the braking performance of regenerative braking and to complement the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 78 with corresponding provision, not only addressing brake light activation requirements. GRRF noted the potential need to clarify the need of the word “instantaneous” in para. 5.1.16. The expert from IMMA agreed to submit a revised proposal for the September 2018 session of GRRF.

55. The expert from IMMA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/7, introducing revised provisions on the stop lamps activation under more conditions than the application of the service brake only (e.g. regenerative braking). GRVA adopted the proposal as amended and reproduced in Annex VI to the report. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit Annex VI to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 1 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 78 for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

44. The expert from the ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands submitted a presentation and two videos (GRVA-01-43, GRVA-01-44 and GRVA-01-45) reporting on field tests performed with trucks equipped with AEBS systems. The Chair agreed to dedicate time to this presentation at the next session of GRVA

44. The expert from the ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands submitted a presentation and two videos (GRVA-01-43, GRVA-01-44 and GRVA-01-45) reporting on field tests performed with trucks equipped with AEBS systems. The Chair agreed to dedicate time to this presentation at the next session of GRVA

44. The expert from the ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in the Netherlands submitted a presentation and two videos (GRVA-01-43, GRVA-01-44 and GRVA-01-45) reporting on field tests performed with trucks equipped with AEBS systems. The Chair agreed to dedicate time to this presentation at the next session of GRVA

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.

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.