2. GRVA considered the provisional agenda prepared for this first session and adopted it (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/1 and Add.1). The adopted agenda is reproduced in GRVA-02-15-Rev.1, 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-02-01. The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I of the session report.

Proposal of amendments from the AEBS informal group to their original submission for a new UN Regulation.

45. GRVA did not consider GRVA-02-02 as its content was not anymore relevant, given the decision in para. 42 above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Password protected .zip file of the ISO standard provided to GRVA for limited use. Please contact the GRVA secretariat for access.

Password protected .zip file of the standard for limited GRVA use. Please contact the GRVA secretariat for access.

Password-protected .zip file of the standard for limited GRVA use. Please contact the GRVA secretariat for access.

Refinements to the proposal to align the GTR text with updates to UN R78 introduced in response to technological progress in motorcycle braking.

54. The expert from Italy introduced GRVA-02-07 proposing amendments to the original proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/9) for amendments to UN GTR No. 3 for harmonization of the GTR and UN Regulation No. 78. The proposal received some comments. The expert from the Netherlands asked why the proposal contained technical requirements that differed from those in UN Regulation No. 78. The expert from Canada highlighted some formulations that could be better defined to facilitate the implementation of the UN GTR into Self Certification regulations.

Proposal to

1. correct numbering of paragraph 2.3.4.18.
2. limit the initial scope to M₁ and N₁ vehicles
3. further modify the numbering to clarify that remote-controlled maneuvering (RCM) is not a form of ACSF
4. clarify that all RCM are subject to the requirements of the Electronics Annex (Annex 6 to UN R79).

56. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/8 and
GRVA-02-08 amending it, proposing to insert technical prescriptions on Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) which were systems that were already installed on vehicles without being regulated to date. The expert from Germany did not support the proposal and suggested to insert one sentence in the Regulation that would forbid RCM in vehicles of category M1 and N1. The expert from OICA explained that such system already existed for vehicles of category M1G and that there would be future applications such as reverse assistant for trailers that would bring quantifiable benefits in terms of safety. Following comments and input from the experts from Australia, France and Sweden, the Chair asked GRVA whether the status quo would be acceptable, i.e. do Contracting Parties accept that such systems are permitted and do not require recognition by Regulation. The expert from the Russian Federation summed-up the discussion and suggested to adopt the proposal. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (Annex VII). GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2019 session. GRVA unanimously agreed with this delayed submission until the November 2019, so that the dissent from the experts from Germany and the Netherlands could be considered again during the September 2019 session of GRVA, in view of reaching a broader consensus.

Presentation on current OICA thinking on methodologies for the certification or approval of automated vehicles and automated driving systems. This presentation supports document GRVA/2019/13.

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

Proposal to clarify the test method for the evaluation of performance of energy sources and energy storage devices reproduced in Annex 7 to the UN Regulation No. 13.

51. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRVA-02-10, aimed at clarifying the provisions on the evaluation of the energy source and energy storage devices performance defined in Annex 7 to UN Regulation No. 13. GRVA discussed in detail the proposal and requested the secretariat to distribute this document with an official symbol for the September 2019 session of GRVA.

3. The Secretary introduced GRVA-02-12, informing on the highlights of the November 2018 session of WP.29. He referred to the session report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1142 for further details.

4. The Secretary of WP.29 invited the GRVA delegates to participate in the Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) and WP.29 event during the week of the eighty-first session of the Inland Transport Committee (ITC) and presented the programme of the ITC week.

Status report on the consideration of new methods for the assessment of automated driving systems (pending approval of the terms of reference for a group on Validation Methods for Automated Driving).

13. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Automated Vehicle Testing, introduced the status report (GRVA-02-13) of the group, reporting the outcome of the meetings in Japan and China. The group decided to propose new ToR (see GRVA-02-14) for the group, renamed “Validation Method of Automated Driving (VMAD)”. He presented GRVA-02-16, providing clarity on the proposed activities of the group in the form of questions and answers. He also presented GRVA-02-26 with a proposed roadmap for the group. GRVA heard concerns about the proposed ToR, in particular it was felt that more precision was required regarding the objectives and the timeline for delivery. GRVA did not adopt the proposed ToR.

13. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Automated Vehicle Testing, introduced the status report (GRVA-02-13) of the group, reporting the outcome of the meetings in Japan and China. The group decided to propose new ToR (see GRVA-02-14) for the group, renamed “Validation Method of Automated Driving (VMAD)”. He presented GRVA-02-16, providing clarity on the proposed activities of the group in the form of questions and answers. He also presented GRVA-02-26 with a proposed roadmap for the group. GRVA heard concerns about the proposed ToR, in particular it was felt that more precision was required regarding the objectives and the timeline for delivery. GRVA did not adopt the proposed ToR.

Including submissions received through 23 January.

2. GRVA considered the provisional agenda prepared for this first session and adopted it (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/1 and Add.1). The adopted agenda is reproduced in GRVA-02-15-Rev.1, 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-02-01. The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I of the session report.

Explanation of the scope of the proposed informal working group on Validation Methods for Automated Driving (VMAD), including relation to other informal working groups such as ACSF.

13. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Automated Vehicle Testing, introduced the status report (GRVA-02-13) of the group, reporting the outcome of the meetings in Japan and China. The group decided to propose new ToR (see GRVA-02-14) for the group, renamed “Validation Method of Automated Driving (VMAD)”. He presented GRVA-02-16, providing clarity on the proposed activities of the group in the form of questions and answers. He also presented GRVA-02-26 with a proposed roadmap for the group. GRVA heard concerns about the proposed ToR, in particular it was felt that more precision was required regarding the objectives and the timeline for delivery. GRVA did not adopt the proposed ToR.

Broad comparison of AV safety elements under GRVA purview and elements present in AV safety guidance issued by Contracting Parties.

10. The expert from Japan introduced GRVA-02-17, prepared by the Validation Method of Automated Driving (VMAD) group, providing a consolidated overview of items within Guidelines on ADVs, issued in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan and USA. He explained that the group was dealing with a novel assessment method, had to look at existing reference documents including Guidelines on ADVs from various Contracting Parties and therefore produced this document. GRVA noted that this work would be very useful for the work under other agenda items.

Proposal to exclude L-category vehicles (motorcycles, etc.) from the scope of the cybersecurity and software updates activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to ensure that the safety approach for complex electronics of remote controlled maneuvering addresses malfunctions, non-fault errors, and misuse.

38. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/4 as amended by GRVA-02-19, proposing clarifications to Annex 6 of UN Regulation No. 79. The expert from OICA stated that the amendments proposed would require too much work for the approval of simple braking systems. He added that these amendments would make sense to properly assess Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS). The expert from EC stated that this proposal would be suitable as an amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 but would not be enough for the assessment of ALKS and ADAS. The expert from Spain mentioned that the Type Approval Authority signature provisions’ implications were too far-reaching to be mentioned in a footnote. Spain also observed that the proposal placed too much responsibility on the Type Approval Authority to identify risks and stated that the manufacturer should have that responsibility. The expert from the Netherlands explained that this work initially started for the purpose of ACSF of Category B2 defined in UN Regulation No. 79 and that this explained why the document was titled “Proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79”. The expert from UK volunteered to submit a revised proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, addressing the comment received. GRVA agreed that similar provisions should be specifically developed for ALKS and systems with higher levels of autonomy. The Chair noted the implications that this would have on the delivery of a regulatory provision for ALKS.

51. No information was provided under this agenda item.

16. The expert from OICA presented briefly GRVA-02-20, introducing GRVA-02-21 with considerations on Data Storage Systems for Automated Driving (DSSAD). GRVA agreed on the need to make progress on this item and requested the secretariat to introduce a new agenda item on DSSAD for the next session of GRVA.

Initial outline and elements for development into a new UN Regulation for data and event recording systems for L3-5 automated vehicles.

16. The expert from OICA presented briefly GRVA-02-20, introducing GRVA-02-21 with considerations on Data Storage Systems for Automated Driving (DSSAD). GRVA agreed on the need to make progress on this item and requested the secretariat to introduce a new agenda item on DSSAD for the next session of GRVA.

Amendment proposal to the draft text for a new UN Regulation on M₁ and N₁vehicle automatic emergency braking systems.

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.

This document proposes amendments to the ESC prescribed test conditions in anticipation of future developments in steering systems.

48. The expert from OICA, on behalf of OICA and CLEPA, and anticipating the development of future steering systems, introduced GRVA-02-23, proposing amendments to the Electronic Stability Control related test conditions. GRVA questioned the impact on UN Global Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 8. as well as the unintended impact on the compliance with the initial spirit of the Regulation.

Proposal for amendments to the requirements for Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF) of Category C, introducing specific provisions for the use of a lane change function with a two-step Human Machine Interface (HMI).

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

Proposal for amendments to the draft proposal concerning changes to the provisions introduced by the 02 series of amendments for remote-controlled parking (RCP).

52. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-02-25, proposing clarifications of the requirements regarding the generation of a brake signal to illuminate the stop lamp especially in the context of hybrid electric and battery electric vehicles. The proposal received some comments. GRVA invited the expert from OICA to submit a revised proposal for review at the September 2019 session of GRVA.

13. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Automated Vehicle Testing, introduced the status report (GRVA-02-13) of the group, reporting the outcome of the meetings in Japan and China. The group decided to propose new ToR (see GRVA-02-14) for the group, renamed “Validation Method of Automated Driving (VMAD)”. He presented GRVA-02-16, providing clarity on the proposed activities of the group in the form of questions and answers. He also presented GRVA-02-26 with a proposed roadmap for the group. GRVA heard concerns about the proposed ToR, in particular it was felt that more precision was required regarding the objectives and the timeline for delivery. GRVA did not adopt the proposed ToR.

Updated document to provide information on a “multi-pillar approach” certification scheme to demonstrate the level of safety and reliability which allows for safe market introduction of automated/autonomous vehicles, including refinement via the synthesis of Contracting Party AV guidance to provide a framework for defining specific safety elements.

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

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.

Proposal to clarify that UN R139 does not mandate the installation of brake assist systems (BAS) on vehicles but rather specifies requirements for the approval of vehicles should they be equipped with a BAS system.

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

Proposal to clarify that UN R140 does not mandate the installation of electronic stability control systems (ESC) on vehicles but rather specifies requirements for the approval of vehicles should they be equipped with an ESC system.

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

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

• Safety aspects of automated driving
• What is the Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF)?
• ISO/PAS 21448 status and activities
• Connection with Automated Driving (AD) regulatory activities

15. The expert from ISO introduced GRVA-02-32, presenting the outcome of the ISO working group dealing with the safety of the intended functionality as defined in ISO/PAS 21448. GRVA discussed aspects of the presentation e.g. the definition of an acceptable minimum level of safety, the notion of residual risk, and noted the work done as well as the convergence of this work with the activities of GRVA.

Proposal to amend the draft text (GRVA/2019/9) submitted to resolve measurement concerns in the test requirements for ACSF of Category B1 and C by introducing provisions for tolerances, including:

1. inclusion of the position at which the lateral acceleration was measured and the position of the centre of gravity of the vehicle for better traceablility,
2. sampling rate of at least 100 Hz for dynamic testing,
3. specification of filters and cut-off frequency for determination of lateral acceleration.

EU-funded project to develop and demonstrate new technologies, concepts and architectures for complete heavy-duty commercial vehicles and trailers that are energy efficient, safe, comfortable, configurable and cost-effective, while ensuring that the varying needs of customers are satisfied by being flexible and adaptable with respect to the continuously changing operational conditions.

11. The expert from Spain introduced GRVA-02-34, presenting the Aerodynamic and Flexible Truck for Next Generation of Long Distance Road Transport (AEROFLEX project). GRVA noted that such project could potentially lead to future regulatory activities and agreed that technical barriers should be removed if the safety performance of such systems would be demonstrated.

32. The expert from Japan, on behalf of the Co-chair of the IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF), introduced GRVA-02-35, containing a status report on the activities of the IWG. He mentioned the consensus reached by the group so far on: Automated Lane Keeping System (ALKS) activation criteria, driver presence provisions, transition demand provisions, minimum risk manoeuvre and emergency manoeuvre considered in parallel with the transition demand provisions. He also mentioned the challenge related to a vehicle not implementing all driver inputs when an ALKS was activated (e.g. in the case of unintended action by the driver), that should be discussed with WP.1. The Chair of GRVA noted that there was a concern that the minimum risk manoeuvre should not automatically result in a vehicle stopping in a live traffic lane.

33. The expert from Spain asked how to verify the activation criteria related to the vehicle driving on roads where pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited at the time of Type Approval. The expert from Germany answered that one technical solution could imply inspecting the maps used by the system.

34. The secretariat asked whether maps would be in the scope of the Regulation. The expert from OICA stated that maps belong to the technical solutions being part of the designs of the system, implying that Regulations on maps would be undesired design requirements. The expert from ITU stated that maps would have to be certified in the future in case maps would serve as redundancy for safety reasons. He also mentioned that maps could have other purposes, e.g. helping Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) to eliminate false positive activations on stationary objects and that therefore map providers would have to be fully liable for their products. He offered to provide GRVA with an overview of map development.

Request to extend the ACSF mandate a further 12 months.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to the draft proposal for a new UN Regulation on light vehicle AEBS as noted during the second GRVA session.

Correction to the agreed changes to the draft AEBS regulation for light vehicles as noted by the GRVA secretariat.

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.

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

Proposal submitted by the GRVA chair for the scope and objectives of a new informal group.

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

12. The experts from China and Japan introduced GRVA-02-43 containing preliminary suggestions to the framework document on automated/autonomous driving. GRVA agreed that the workstream on the framework document was strategic and that further work needed to be further discussed in view of March 2019 session of WP.29. Therefore, GRVA requested the Secretary to organize a series of virtual meetings of the Contracting Parties to discuss this matter.

Document prepared by the GRVA secretariat pursuant to discussions held during the 2nd GRVA session (originally posted on 3 February and reissued on 21 February 2019).

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

Outcomes from the discussion of the proposal from France to clarify requirements of the optical signal for a CSF intervention to ensure sufficient flashing tell-tale visibility for the driver, to specify the duration of such ACSF signals, to ensure a safe hierarchy of signals (e.g., ESF over CSF) by priority, to clarify that deactivation when departing an ODD means the “off mode”, and to add a cross-reference pointing to paragraphs that define cases of manual and automatic deactivation.

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.

Proposal from the GRVA chair.

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

67. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Chair of GRVA, reported to WP.29 on the results achieved by GRVA during its second session (for more details see the report of the session ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2).

68. WP.29 requested that a special session of GRVA be organized in May or June 2019 according to room availabilities. The secretariat had been informed that no meeting room was available in the Palais des Nations from the mid-May to the mid-July period. The expert from the European Union offered to host the meeting in Brussels. The secretariat mentioned that this would require the establishment of a Host Country Agreement. The expert from Germany informed that this process was cumbersome and not feasible to conclude within a few weeks. The representative of OICA also offered to host, if deemed desirable, an informal meeting (without interpretation) in their office in Paris. WP.29 requested the secretariat (i) to verify the information provided on the room availability in the Palais des Nations, then (ii) to explore the possibility to host a meeting in one of the UN agencies in Geneva (as it was done for the GRPE session in June 2014 at the World Trade Organization), then (iii) to explore the possibility to host the meeting in one of the UN premises such as Bonn in Germany or New York City in the United States of America.

69. WP.29 approved the proposed mandate extensions for the IWGs on Modular Vehicle Combination (MVC) and on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) until February 2020, as well as for the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air software updates until March 2020.

70. WP.29 noted the election of Mrs. C. Chen (China) and Mr. T. Onoda (Japan) as Vice-Chairpersons for the GRVA sessions in 2019.

43. The World Forum recalled the report of the Chair of GRVA on its second session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2) and approved the report.

2. GRVA considered the provisional agenda prepared for this first session and adopted it (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/1 and Add.1). The adopted agenda is reproduced in GRVA-02-15-Rev.1, 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-02-01. The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I of the session report.

2. GRVA considered the provisional agenda prepared for this first session and adopted it (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/1 and Add.1). The adopted agenda is reproduced in GRVA-02-15-Rev.1, 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-02-01. The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I of the session report.

Proposal from the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air Software Update Issues to provide recommendations for the mitigation of risks of unauthorized access to critical automated vehicle software systems, including a proposal for a new UN Regulation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal from the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air Software Update Issues for recommendations on requirements for the certification of software updates and processes to ensure their safe execution, including proposals for a new UN Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of software updates processes and for the establishment of software identification numbers (RXSWIN).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to clarify the assessments to be conducted by a technical service for complex electronic systems, particularly with regard to advanced driver assistance systems. The proposal includes a new definition to ensure the assessment includes system response to changes in the ambient and/or operating conditions, provisions to ensure that any disabled functions intended for use on a production vehicle are declared and assessed, and a footnote to clarify that the assessment must be reviewed and signed by the same type approval authority as the one responsible for issuing the approval to UN R79.

38. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/4 as amended by GRVA-02-19, proposing clarifications to Annex 6 of UN Regulation No. 79. The expert from OICA stated that the amendments proposed would require too much work for the approval of simple braking systems. He added that these amendments would make sense to properly assess Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS). The expert from EC stated that this proposal would be suitable as an amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 but would not be enough for the assessment of ALKS and ADAS. The expert from Spain mentioned that the Type Approval Authority signature provisions’ implications were too far-reaching to be mentioned in a footnote. Spain also observed that the proposal placed too much responsibility on the Type Approval Authority to identify risks and stated that the manufacturer should have that responsibility. The expert from the Netherlands explained that this work initially started for the purpose of ACSF of Category B2 defined in UN Regulation No. 79 and that this explained why the document was titled “Proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79”. The expert from UK volunteered to submit a revised proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, addressing the comment received. GRVA agreed that similar provisions should be specifically developed for ALKS and systems with higher levels of autonomy. The Chair noted the implications that this would have on the delivery of a regulatory provision for ALKS.

40. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/20, proposing amendments to Annex 6. He referred to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/4 and reported on the progress made since then. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-04-29 with amendment proposals to the official document. GRVA discussed and then adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/20, amended by Annex V, as a draft supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

51. No information was provided under this agenda item.

Document prepared by Japan and the European Commission on behalf of the Informal Working Group on Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS). It provides the status of the proposed regulation through November 2018 in order to provide a basis for review and discussion during the January 2019 GRVA session.

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to clarify that UN R140 does not mandate the installation of electronic stability control systems (ESC) on vehicles but rather specifies requirements for the approval of vehicles should they be equipped with an ESC system.

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

Proposal to introduce provisions relevant to the activation of stop lamps under more conditions than application of the service brake only, e.g. also by regenerative braking.

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.

Proposal to introduce provisions for the approval of Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) systems.

56. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/8 and
GRVA-02-08 amending it, proposing to insert technical prescriptions on Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) which were systems that were already installed on vehicles without being regulated to date. The expert from Germany did not support the proposal and suggested to insert one sentence in the Regulation that would forbid RCM in vehicles of category M1 and N1. The expert from OICA explained that such system already existed for vehicles of category M1G and that there would be future applications such as reverse assistant for trailers that would bring quantifiable benefits in terms of safety. Following comments and input from the experts from Australia, France and Sweden, the Chair asked GRVA whether the status quo would be acceptable, i.e. do Contracting Parties accept that such systems are permitted and do not require recognition by Regulation. The expert from the Russian Federation summed-up the discussion and suggested to adopt the proposal. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (Annex VII). GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2019 session. GRVA unanimously agreed with this delayed submission until the November 2019, so that the dissent from the experts from Germany and the Netherlands could be considered again during the September 2019 session of GRVA, in view of reaching a broader consensus.

Proposal, based on document GRRF-86-13, to resolve measurement concerns in the test requirements for ACSF of Category B1 and C. The proposal addresses issues identified in Annex 8, improves reproducibility and robustness of the procedures, fills in gaps in the test cases, and provides additional details on measuring equipment and test execution.

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.

Proposal to clarify requirements of the optical signal for a CSF intervention to ensure sufficient flashing tell-tale visibility for the driver, to specify the duration of such ACSF signals, to ensure a safe hierarchy of signals (e.g., ESF over CSF) by priority, to clarify that deactivation when departing an ODD means the “off mode”, and to add a cross-reference pointing to paragraphs that define cases of manual and automatic deactivation.

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.

Proposal to align the provisions of UN R90 related to approval numbers and markings with the provisions of Schedule 4 to the 1958 Agreement.

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.

Proposal to clarify that UN R139 does not mandate the installation of brake assist systems (BAS) on vehicles but rather specifies requirements for the approval of vehicles should they be equipped with a BAS system.

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

Document to provide information on the proposed “3-pillar approach” certification scheme to demonstrate the level of safety and reliability which allows for safe market introduction of automated/autonomous vehicles.