previous meeting next meeting
Web conference
(Latest 31 March 2021)
| Agenda | Formal | Informal | Report |
Attendance

1. The Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) met from 1 to 5 February 2021 online, hosted in Geneva. The meeting was chaired by Mr. R. Damm (Germany). Accredited experts from the following countries participated in the work, following Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) (TRANS/WP.29/690/Rev.2): Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), the United States of America (USA) and Vietnam. An expert from the European Commission (EC) also participated. Experts from the following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international organizations participated: the American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC), European Association for Electric Mobility (AVERE), European Agricultural Machinery Organization (CEMA), International Motor Vehicle Inspection Committee (CITA), International Association of Body and Trailer Building Industry (CLCCR), European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA/MEMA/JAPIA), European Garage Equipment Association (EGEA), European Tyre and Rim Manufacturer Association (ETRMA), European Transport Safety Council (ETSC), European Association of Internal Combustion Engine Manufacturers (EUROMOT), Federation of European Manufacturers of Friction Materials (FEMFM), International Automobile Federation (FIA), International Federation of Automotive Distributors (FIGIEFA), International Motorcycle Manufacturers Association (IMMA), International Road transport Union (IRU), Institute for Security and Safety, Brandenburg University of Applied Sciences (ISS), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA), Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA), SAE International, Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) and World Bicycle Industry Association (WBIA).

2. The Chair opened the meeting by mentioning the new Coronavirus 2019 outbreak context, the reason why the meeting was conducted online.

3. The secretariat invited the delegations that were submitting documents to ensure that any picture and material used in presentations and documents were obtained in accordance with copyright regulations.

1. Adoption of the agenda

4. GRVA considered the provisional agenda prepared for this session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/1) and decided to delete the proposed item 6(c). GRVA adopted the agenda as reproduced in GRVA-09-24/Rev.1, that included the informal documents received before the session started. (All informal documents submitted are listed in Annex I of the session report.) Annex II provides the list of Informal Working Groups (IWG) reporting to GRVA.

5. GRVA also agreed on the running order for the session (GRVA-09-01/Rev.1) and noted the technical information contained in GRVA-09-02 for this online session.

GRVA-09-01/Rev.1 | Running order of the agenda of the 9th (February 2021) GRVA session
GRVA-09-02 | GRVA: 9th session participation guidelines and information
GRVA-09-24/Rev.1 | GRAV: Updated provisional agenda for the 9th (February 2021) session
GRVA/2021/1 | Annotated provisional agenda for the 9th GRVA session
2. Highlights of the November 2020 session of WP.29

6. GRVA recalled the information provided by the secretariat at the December 2020 session of GRVA and the reference made to the session report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1155.

3. Exchange of views on guidelines and relevant national activities

7. The expert from France introduced GRVA-09-03, describing the strategy of France for the development of an automated roads mobility (2020-2021). He highlighted the challenges to be tackled such as remote supervision, connectivity, safety validation and the intention to keep the regulatory framework in alignment with European and International developments.

GRVA-09-03 | French strategy for the development of automated road mobility 2020-2022

8. The expert from IEA presented GRVA-09-21. He presented the activities of the group Human Factors in International Regulations for Automated Driving Systems (HF-IRADS). He explained that they differentiated three types of relevant remote actions: remote assistance, remote management and remote control of an automated driving system (ADS). He concluded that: (a) remote control and operation was complex and that it should not be assumed that remote handling constitutes a viable backup for problems encountered by vehicles under the control of an ADS, (b) thorough investigation of different use cases was needed and a safety case should be prepared for each specific application of remote support and control, (c) there was a lack of evidence that remote vehicle operation on public roads could be performed safely and (d) the proper design of the work environment for remote control and operation was vital.

9. GRVA agreed with the proposal of the expert from the Russian Federation that this matter should be considered by the IWG on Functional Requirements for Automated Vehicles (FRAV).

GRVA-09-21 | Human Factors Challenges of Remote Support and Control
4. Automated/autonomous and connected vehicles
4. (a) Deliverables of the Informal Working Group on Functional Requirements for Automated and Autonomous Vehicles

10. The expert from the United States of America, Co-Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Functional Requirements for Automated and Autonomous Vehicles (FRAV), presented GRVA-09-27 with a status report of the activities of the group and a summary of the white paper prepared by the group (GRVA-09-28). He highlighted that the white paper contained definitions and addressed the development of a structure for ADS safety requirements. He added that the Group’s work followed a top-down approach, based on five mains aspects of ADS performance. He explained that, from these five categories, the group derived 40 inter-related safety topics. He concluded his presentation by stating that the group was collecting data supporting the elaboration of safety requirements and ADS description requirements and was coordinating activities together with the IWG on Validation Methods for Automated Driving (VMAD).

GRVA-09-27 | FRAV status overview to GRVA
GRVA-09-28 | FRAV informal group progress report to GRVA

11. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-09-10, a document tabled by CLEPA and OICA, on certification of automated vehicles. He stated that the ideas proposed in the presentation were suitable for both the 1958 and 1998 Agreements, type approval and self-certification and were not in contradiction with the activities under the IWGs on FRAV and VMAD. He explained that the ADS certification could be based on two tools: (a) the Automated Driving Management System dealing with the capability of a manufacturer to develop, validate, verify and maintain ADS in the field by evaluating its processes regarding risk assessment and treatment, validation and verification, and field monitoring and response; (b) the ADS Validation dealing with scenario based ADS validation approach with flexible testing configurations using virtual, physical and real-world test methods as well as safety assessments to cover the safety aspects of complex electronic ADS. GRVA agreed to further discuss the ideas proposed in this document.

GRVA-09-10 | Certification of Automated Vehicles
4. (b) Deliverables of the Informal Working Group on Validation Methods for Automated Driving

12. The expert from Canada, Co-Chair of the IWG on VMAD, presented the progress report of the group (GRVA-09-29) and introduced the proposal for a Master Document on the New Assessment / Test Method (NATM) in GRVA-09-07. He explained that the Master Document provided a clear overview of the NATM and its constituent pillars, outlining the scope and general overview of the scenario catalogue and each of the pillars (simulation/virtual testing, test track, and real-world testing, audit/assessment and in-use monitoring). He added that it described the overall process of the NATM and e.g. how the components of the NATM (for example the scenarios catalogue and pillars) operate together, producing an efficient, comprehensive, and cohesive process. He informed GRVA that this version of the Master Document provided a high-level framework for the NATM reflecting the current status of work of VMAD and that it would still be under further development within the scope of the IWG.

13. The expert from the Netherland, Co-Chair of the IWG on VMAD, explained that the group was aiming to take the use case “motorway” in a first step as an example to verify fitness of the NATM for the safety validation of ADS.

14. GRVA endorsed the progress report of the group and agreed to present the Master Document, as informal document, to WP.29 at its March 2021 session.

4. (c) Deliverables of the Informal Working Group on Event Data Recorder / Data Storage Systems for Automated Driving

15. The expert from the USA, Co-Chair of the IWG on Event Data Recorder (EDR) / Data Storage Systems for Automated Driving (DSSAD), informed GRVA on the achievements of the group on DSSAD for UN Regulation No. 157 and on EDR in the year 2020. She noted that activities on DSSAD were behind schedule as it focused on EDR since March 2020. She mentioned that the group discussed technical considerations on sensors necessary to collect data for ADS of Levels 3 to 5 and storage systems as well as considerations on privacy and security. She announced that the group would organize a next meeting to exchange views on the possible work program for 2021-2022.

16. The expert from the European Commission congratulated the group for its achievements especially related to EDR. He proposed that the next steps for the groups would include considerations related to EDR for Automated Driving, a priority for the European Union as their General Safety Regulation included this item in it.

17. The expert from Germany proposed that the group focused on interactions between DSSAD and EDR.

18. GRVA invited the group to deal with DSSAD issues with priority, noting that the challenge due to the fact that the group was reporting both to GRSG and GRVA.

4. (d) UN Regulation on Automated Lane Keeping System

19. The expert from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland introduced the report of the Special Interest Group on UN Regulation No. 157, provided in GRVA-09-22. He recalled the matters that the group was willing to address. He announced the ambition of the group to meet on a monthly basis and to complete its activities until September 2021. He also mentioned the workshop organized by the industry that discussed emergency vehicles and vehicle categories. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/33 as well as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/4 on the agenda for reference.

20. The expert from USA explained that in his opinion, there were two distinct activities. On one hand, activities related to scope extension to additional vehicle categories, speed increase and lane change for emergency situations. On the other hand, so called convenience lane changes that would fall in the remit of FRAV activities.

21. The expert from Japan supported the ongoing activities. He mentioned that the timeline was ambitious and would have to be adjusted as necessary to allow sufficient time for technical discussions and satisfactory coordination with the IWGs on FRAV and VMAD.

22. The expert from France fully supported the ongoing activities. He also noted that the timeline was ambitious but felt that it was necessary. He mentioned that the group did not discuss some important technical details such as speeds, accelerations, decelerations and the tyre performance. He explained that tyres were replaced in the lifetime of the vehicle and that the performance of tyre could vary, also in case of winter tyres installation, which has to be addressed as a safety risk. He wrote in the messaging system of the meeting that the IWG on FRAV could address this issue.

GRVA-09-22 | UN R157 special interest group: Notes from the 15 January 2021 meeting
GRVA/2020/32 | ALKS: Proposal for amendment Proposal to amend the ALKS UN Regulation provisions to enable approval of systems operating at speeds up to 130 km/h.
GRVA/2020/33 | ALKS: Proposal for an amendment Proposal to introduce additional requirements for a lane change functionality.
GRVA/2021/2 | UN R157: Proposal for amendments Proposal to permit automatic activation of functions providing continuous lateral and/or longitudinal control after ALKS deactivation.
GRVA/2021/4 | UN R157: Proposal for amendments Proposal to permit lane changes during a Minimum Risk Manoeuvre (MRM).

23. The expert from OICA introduced their proposal to extend the scope of UN Regulation No. 157 in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/3 (amended by GRVA-09-19) and invited the GRVA expert to provide views and input on the questions in GRVA-09-34.

23bis. The expert from Korea noted that the time gap values were governed by traffic rules and that UN Regulation No. 157 took the reference deceleration values from UN Regulation No. 13- H. He suggested that the corresponding values in UN Regulation No. 13 should be used for heavy vehicles.

GRVA-09-19 | UN R157: Proposal to amend document GRVA/2021/3 Given that UN R94, 95 and 137 refer only to vehicle categories M<sub>1</sub> and N<sub>1</<sub>, the proposal would add references to UN R29 and 66 to specify an impact severity level for heavier vehicle categories for data retrieval performance limits.
GRVA-09-34 | Automated Lane-Keeping Systems for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
GRVA/2021/3 | UN R157: Proposal for amendments Proposal to expand the scope to include N category vehicles and to apply the minimum performance for service braking systems (5 m/s²) as required in the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13, for vehicles of the Categories M2, M3, N2 and N3. The overall objective of the former Informal Working Group (IWG) on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) was to develop technical requirements for Automated Lane Keeping Systems (ALKS). The initial limitation to passenger cars (M1 category vehicles) was agreed in order to deliver within the given timeline. After having successfully accomplished the work for the system in a first step, the automotive industry has now reviewed and examined the existing requirements under the premise of including all vehicle categories M and N.

24. GRVA thanked the secretariat for having provided an interactive schedule of meetings that helps coordination in the organization of informal working group meetings.

25. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/17, which aimed at clarifying the requirements in case an alternative to the Software Identification Number (SWIN) is used. The expert from OICA provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-09-09). The expert from UK supported the proposal. He inquired about the reason why long transitional provisions would be needed. The expert from Germany commented that the French proposal was logic and consistent. He stated that Germany did not insist on the possibility of an alternative to SWIN. The expert from AVERE supported the French proposal. GRVA continued discussions in the course of the week.

26. Following consultations, GRVA adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/17 as amended by Annex III (GRVA-09-40) and requested the secretariat to submit it as draft supplement to UN Regulation No. 157 to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) for consideration and vote at their June 2021 sessions.

GRVA-09-09 | UN R156 and UN R157: Comments on documents GRVA/2021/6 and GRVA/2021/17
GRVA-09-40 | UN R156 and UN R157: Alternative proposal to document GRVA-09-09
GRVA/2021/17 | UN R157: Proposal for amendments Proposal to permit the use of a software identification system that differs from the RxSWIN established under UN R156 on software updates. (This proposal corresponds with a proposal to amend UN R156).

27. The expert from UK introduced GRVA-09-33, providing information on the discussions in his country regarding the implementation of UN Regulation No. 157, also related to traffic rules. The expert from ITU mentioned the complexity of traffic rules and the existing nuances regarding traffic rules something within the same country. He mentioned that he learned about activities of the Group of Expert reporting to WP.1 on the development of a database for traffic signs and asked if it was accessible.

28. GRVA noted the local nuances in traffic rules that had to be properly taken into account and inquired whether the Type Approval of a foreign Country would have enough knowledge about nuances in other countries. The expert from the Netherlands suggested that this discussion could be held at the level of the Executive Task Force of WP.1/WP.29. GRVA agreed that this point would require coordination among the GRVA IWGs.

GRVA-09-33 | UN R157: Considerations in the implementation of ALKS
5. Connected vehicles
5. (a) Cyber security and data protection

29. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the IWG on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air issues (CS/OTA) reported on the activities of the group (GRVA-09-11). He proposed that the group would focus with high priority on the development of a guidance document for the purpose of the 1998 Agreement in order to develop a harmonized approach for both the 1958 and 1998 Agreement. GRVA supported the proposal.

GRVA-09-11 | Status report of the Cyber Security/OTA Software Updates informal group

30. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/5. He recalled the discussion at the seventh session of GRVA on para. 5.3.5 in UN Regulation No. 155. The expert from OICA provided comments (GRVA-09-08). The expert from Germany advised to not paraphrase Schedule 6 or add requirements that would differ from those in the 1958 Agreement. The expert from Japan expressed concerns related to the implementation of the provisions in the 1958 Agreement and therefore proposed to keep the text unchanged. The expert from France supported the position expressed by the expert from Japan. The experts from Italy and UK expressed similar positions. The expert from the Russian Federation explained that the case was not related to disputes as in Schedule 6. He proposed to withdraw his proposal and to discuss it at a meeting of the IWG on International Whole Vehicle Type Approval.

GRVA-09-08 | UN R155: Comments on document GRVA/2021/5
GRVA/2021/5 | UN R155: Proposal for amendments The provision in paragraph 5.3.5. may need clarification on what the granting Approval Authority should do, if that Authority can't take into account the comments received as per paragraph 5.3.4. Should it continue processing with granting the approval or postpone granting? The proposal is to clarify that the Approval Authority should postpone granting the approval until the agreement on the common interpretation of the questioned issue is reached.

31. The expert from the European Commission suggested that the IWG considered developing provisions for agricultural vehicles and for L-category vehicles. The Co-Chair of the group explained that the group only focused on Categories M and N, that the group would need some opinion from IMMA and that more discussions would be needed to include them in UN Regulation No. 155. GRVA discussed whether this reflection would take place during this session or at the next session.

32. The expert from IMMA explained that IMMA supported to focus on the cyber security of L-category vehicles, that IMMA was continuing examining the matter and that therefore the discussion was premature since the level of automation of L-category vehicles was not the same as for cars.

33. GRVA agreed to resume discussion on this matter at the next session of GRVA.

5. (b) Software updates and Over-the-Air issues

34. GRVA dealt with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/6 when discussing the parallel proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/17 under the agenda item 4(d). Following discussions and consultations, GRVA agreed to resume consideration of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/6 or to consider a revised proposal at its next session.

GRVA/2021/6 | UN R156: Proposal for a supplement Proposal to clarify requirements applicable to alternatives software identifications systems differing from the Regulation No. X Software Identification Number (RxSWIN) defined in the Regulation.

35. The expert from CEMA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/14 proposing to correct UN Regulation No. 156 by deleting the agricultural vehicle categories from the scope of UN Regulation No. 156.

36. The experts from Italy, Spain and Czech Republic agreed with the proposal.

37. The expert from the European Commission proposed to postpone this discussion.

38. The expert from UK invited GRVA to reflect on the safety and environmental matters of relevance in the present case. He stated that this was a fundamental question. The expert from the Netherlands and France agreed with this statement.

39. The expert from CEMA explained that CEMA would join these activities as soon as possible and that CEMA was requesting a temporary exclusion from the scope. He mentioned that CEMA member were already regulated by the Machinery Regulation in the European Union and that they preferred one regulation only.

40. The expert from the European Commission stated that time was needed to further discuss. He stated that this should be one item for discussion at the IWG on CS/OTA.

41. GRVA did not adopt ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/14 and invited the experts from CEMA to participate in the meetings of the IWG on CS/OTA. GRVA invited the IWG on CS/OTA to add an agenda item on its agenda to discuss this matter.

GRVA/2021/14 | UN R156: Proposal for a Corrigendum Proposal to remove Category R, S, and T vehicles unintentionally included in the scope of the regulation.
5. (c) Legal considerations regarding technical provisions over the vehicle lifetime

42. GRVA noted that WP.29-180-18 was provided for reference.

WP.29-180-18 | 1958 Agreement and lifetime/lifecycle considerations Consideration of terms such as "lifetime" and "lifecycle" in UN Regulations under the 1958 Agreement.
5. (d) Other business

43. The expert from ISO introduced GRVA-09-12, with a description of the Extended Vehicle concepts and the corresponding ISO standards. GRVA noted that ISO provided copies of ISO 20077-1 and ISO 20077-2 developed by the ISO Technical Committee (TC) 22 (GRVA-09-13 and GRVA-09-14).

44. The expert from CITA mentioned the existence of alternative models to the one presented by the expert from ISO (Extended Vehicle as in GRVA-09-12) and the Open Telematic Platform (OTP), mentioned in WP.29-178-10, also based on the ISO standards, developed by the ISO TC 204. He volunteered to present a comparison and an alternative, if other CITA members would also agree.

45. The expert from CEN (also member of ISO stated that he did not underestimate the work done on Extended Vehicles but asked whether there was a unique Extended Vehicle or one per manufacturer and, in that case, if they would be interoperable. He explained that this concept implied that the data is generated by the vehicle. He stressed that in fact, the vehicle was only one actor out of more than twenty in an Intelligent Transport System, that the vehicle was not the controller of that system, that the regulator and road operator determined the static road regulations and controlled the dynamic flow and management of traffic. He added that, the vehicle did not control its operating environment, that the vehicle could only achieve its journey within the control of the regulator and the dynamic control of the road operator. He wondered what involvement the extended vehicle had with the great intelligent transport system paradigm and its standards and controls. He asked it the extended vehicle functions within that paradigm or if it believed that the vehicle was the controlling element.

46. The expert from ISO explained that the Extended Vehicle concepts of the vehicle manufacturers were interoperable and that with this concept, the process of data exchange was initiated with a request issued by any stakeholder. He added that data would be made available to any kind of stakeholder independently from the service itself, in a safe and secure way and that the manufacturer would only check that data can be provided in a safe and secure way. He concluded that therefore the Extended Vehicle was not opposing to any type of system paradigm shift. GRVA agreed that further detailed exchange would be helpful, but GRVA could not further discuss this proposal, due to time constraints.

6. UN Regulation No. 79 (Steering equipment)
6. (a) Automatically Commanded Steering Function

47. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/7, a revised amendment proposal to the Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) of Category B1 provisions in UN Regulation No. 79 (maximum lateral acceleration aymax). The expert from the Netherlands opposed to the proposal, as it could generate mode confusion and overreliance on the market. The experts from France, the European Commission and UK supported the proposal. The expert from Germany suggested that the proposal is further discussed by a task force. GRVA agreed to keep the proposal on hold.

GRVA/2021/7 | UN R79: Proposal for a Supplement to the 03 series of amendments Proposal to allow a grace time in order to deal with unexpected changes in the radius of the curvature of a bend by permitting the system to exceed the ay<sub>smax</sub> limit of 3 m/s² by a maximum of 40 per cent for up to two seconds.

48. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/8 as amended by GRVA-09-37 on continued support of ACSF of Category B1 when the boundary conditions are exceeded. The proposal received comments from the experts from France and UK. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this proposal at its next session.

GRVA-09-37 | UN R79: Proposal to amend document GRVA/2021/8 Proposal of improvements to the draft text regarding limitations on continued ACSF support after exceeding the system boundary conditions.
GRVA/2021/8 | UN R79: Proposal for a supplement to the 03 series of amendments Proposal to clarify that a continuation of support by a Category B1 ACSF after its boundary conditions have been exceeded may not be possible under conditions as outlined in the manufacturer's safety concept.

49. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/9 as amended by GRVA-09-30. She announced that the amendment to the tolerance in square bracket was withdrawn. GRVA adopted the proposal (without the amendment to the tolerance in para. 5.6.4.7.) and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2021 sessions.

GRVA-09-30 | UN R79: Proposal to amend document GRVA/2021/9
GRVA/2021/9 | UN R79: Proposal for a Supplement to the 03 series of amendments Proposal to<ol class="alpha"><li>Align lane-centering provisions with principles applied to UN R157 (ALKS)</li><li>Permit Category C ACSF to remain in stand-by during temporary roadway transitions</li><li>Clarify overriding provision (para. 5.6.4.3) reference to stand-by mode</li><li>Introduce a tolerance factor for "critical situation" lane changes</li><li>clarification to test conditions</li><li>Align direction indicator deactivation under a pass conditions with previously adopted provisions.</li></ol>

50. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/10 proposing revised amendments to the ACSF of Category C provisions (time range during which the lane change manoeuvre is initiated) in UN Regulation No. 79. The experts from UK, European Commissions and Japan supported the proposal. The expert from Korea supported the proposal and indicated that a longer time than the one proposed would be preferable. The expert from the Netherlands opposed to the proposal for the same reasons as the one expressed in September 2020. The expert from Norway also opposed to the proposal. He wondered about the possible benefits of stretching the limits. The expert from France supported the proposal but pointed out inconsistencies in the drawing compared to the provisions in the text. The expert from OICA supported the proposal. The expert from AVERE provided answers to the statements and questions raised. The Chair asked if all doubts were cleared. The experts from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Finland still had reservations to the proposal but agreed that it could be further discussed at a task force meeting.

GRVA/2021/10 | UN R79: Proposal for a supplement to the 03 series of amendments Proposal to allow up to seven seconds to start and perform a lane change.

51. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/11, an amendment proposal to the ACSF of Category C provisions, with the main aim to include a truck-trailer data transmission. He proposed that the industry would invite for a specific workshop to discuss this until June 2021. He announced that OICA was targeting the adoption of an amendment proposal on this matter at the September 2021 session of GRVA.

GRVA/2021/11 | UN R79: Proposal for a Supplement to the 03 series of amendments Proposal to introduce provisions for truck/trailer data transmission for Category C ACSF.

52. The expert from the European Commission introduced GRVA-09-15, proposing revised Terms of Reference for the Task Force (TF) on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). He explained that the TF would work on amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 or a new Regulation as needed, that it would consider the use cases expected in the next years, that it would envisage a generic approach as well as Human Machine Interface (HMI), mode confusion, overreliance and misuse related concerns, in full coordination with the IWGs on FRAV and VMAD. He mentioned that the outcome of this work would be delivered in three phases, in September 2021 (finalization of pending proposals), in 2022 (second phase) and in 2023 (work under the 1998 Agreement).

53. The expert from AAPC recalled that UN Regulation No. 79 was only dealing with Advanced Driver Assistance Steering Systems (ADASS).

54. The expert from Japan expressed support for the ToR and committed to contribute to the work. He agreed about the importance to address HMI and social acceptance aspects and to review technical data and accidentology data. He mentioned that the USA, Canada and China included other systems than those covered in UN Regulation No. 79 on their markets and stated that 1998 Contracting Parties should participate to that work and provide data.

55. The expert from AVERE provided comments and expressed support for these activities. He presented GRVA-09-16, providing a report of the preliminary meeting of the Task Force on ADAS that developed the revised Terms of Reference.

56. The expert from Sweden expressed a positive position about the document. He mentioned that the scope of the TF would be complex and that the timing proposed was unsure. He wondered if the task force could work without ToR.

57. The expert from UK supported that work. He mentioned that the ToR established a plan and that they could be revisited as needed.

58. The expert from China agreed to join the meetings of the TF.

59. The expert from the Netherlands highlighted the challenging timeline proposed.

60. The expert from Germany supported the proposal.

61. The expert from China mentioned their readiness to work on ADAS including items beyond ADASS.

62. The expert from OICA recalled the aim of this workstream, that was to address the limitations of UN Regulation No. 79 e.g. new functions not fitting in existing definitions in UN Regulation No. 79 or longitudinal requirements that would not really fit in a steering regulation. He supported, for this reason, that the task force would focus on ADASS.

63. The expert from the United States of America expressed reservations. He recalled that UN Regulation No. 79 was about steering; going beyond that scope would get the work of the task force close to the one of the IWG on FRAV. He mentioned that there might be areas where ADAS and ADS are well separated by clear lines but that others don’t, such as HMI. He mentioned that if the group deliver a new UN Regulation by September 2021, then the group would be well ahead of the IWG on FRAV, so that it could prejudice the IWG’s work. He also mentioned that anticipating work on a UN GTR derived from a UN Regulation did not make sense.

64. The expert from OICA stated that ADAS and ADS had different scopes and recalled that their respective scopes had been defined at WP.29 level in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/2.

65. The expert from Canada expressed support to the position expressed by the United States of America. He requested that the session report reflected the concerns expressed in terms of organization, overlap and realistic timeframes.

66. GRVA took note of the reservations expressed, of the importance of coordination and adopted the proposal with the deletion of paragraph 2 in part C of the document, as reproduced in Annex IV to this report.

GRVA-09-15 | Revised proposal for a new task force on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)
GRVA-09-16 | Draft minutes of the ADAS task force preparatory session
WP.29/2018/2 | Proposal for the Definitions of Automated Driving under WP.29 and the General Principles for developing a UN Regulation on automated vehicles

67. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 proposing an alternative HMI for remote control parking in UN Regulation No. 79.

68. The expert from UK noted that, under the current provisions, a remote served as interface and, that in the alternative HMI proposed, the human would serve as interface. He inquired about the safety mechanism in place to make sure that the driver knows how to stop controlling and moving the vehicle.

69. The expert from Germany proposed that the Task Force could review the proposal and the question raised. The experts from France and the Netherlands supported Germany.

70. GRVA invited the expert from OICA to liaise with France, Germany and the Netherlands, and also to discuss the proposal at the task force meetings.

GRVA/2021/12 | UN R79: Proposal for amendments Proposal to allow continuous movement of the driver as an alternative to the continuous actuation of the remote-control device as a means to assure driver attentiveness.
6. (b) Steering equipment

71. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/13. He recalled that Risk Mitigation Functions related provisions would need to be adopted because safety systems that were type-approved in the past could no longer being able to receive a type approval under the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. He explained that the proposed lane change related provisions were still under discussion and could be deleted as an interim solution, if deemed necessary by GRVA.

72. The expert from Japan stated than Risk Mitigation Functions were important systems for the sake of safety, he added that Japan contributed to the proposal, that Japan supported it as an interim solution and that Japan would contribute to further activities, as necessary.

73. The expert from France expressed support for the working document. He stated that he would need more time to study the informal document amending it, as it had been recently submitted. He proposed to finalize the discussion at the next session.

74. The expert from Germany inquired whether systems already type-approved under the 02 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 were including lane changing features.

75. The expert from OICA explained that existing systems could already perform a lane change. He recalled that the date B (as defined in the guidelines for transitional provisions in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1044/Rev.2) of the transitional provisions for the 03 series was 1 September 2021 and that, therefore, the adoption should not be delayed.

76. The expert from CLEPA confirmed this information.

77. The expert from UK stated the benefits of such functions but also the lack of clarity on the HMI robustness.

78. The expert from Sweden stated that he had no clear position as he was still considering traffic safety impact of such systems.

79. The expert from Norway stated that he supported these emergency systems. He asked to OICA whether there would be risks associated to Risk Mitigation Function (RMF) that GRVA should know about.

80. The expert from OICA explained that zero risk did not exist but that OICA was not aware of any critical situation or crash induced by these systems: OICA was not aware of any police report giving a hint in that situation. He responded to the expert from UK that paragraph 6.1.6.3.2. would address the statement made on HMI.

81. The expert from Germany explained that systems without lane change were type approved as corrective steering function, which was not really intended like this. Therefore, she could support provisions for RMF without lane change. She stated that allowing systems with lane change was a precedent, a situation that wasn’t clear. She wondered if this should be allowed for all vehicle categories, on all road types. She inquired about pedestrian safety implications. OICA responded that these elements would be clarified through the assessment imposed by Annex 6, on the fault and non-fault conditions. Following the consultations held during the week, the expert from OICA introduced GRVA-09-43, aimed at addressing the comments received.

82. Following the discussion and positions expressed by the experts from the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, UK, GRVA concluded that removing such systems from the market was an issue.

83. GRVA agreed to forward the proposal in GRVA-09-43 as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1, subject to reconfirmation by GRVA at its next session, in order to allow a potential solution to be developed until June 2021. GRVA noted the reservations expressed by some delegations due to the fact that the technical discussion was not completed and agreed that the document could be amended until June 2021.

GRVA-09-35 | UN R79: Proposal for amendments to document GRVA/2021/13
GRVA-09-43 | UN R79: Proposal to amend document GRVA/2021/13
GRVA/2021/13 | UN R79: Proposal for a new 04 series of amendments Proposal to introduce a Risk Mitigation Function designed to bring a vehicle to a safe stop in the event of fallback driver unavailability.
6. (c) Remote Control Manoeuvring

84. This provisional agenda item was deleted from the agenda.

6. (d) Other business

85. GRVA-09-04 and GRVA-09-20 were considered under agenda item 8©. No new information was provided under this agenda item.

7. Advanced Emergency Braking Systems

86. The expert from Japan, co-chair of the IWG on AEBS (for M1 and N1) presented a progress report to GRVA (GRVA-09 26). He explained their activities on virtual testing, on the performance of AEBS to detect big animals and the discussion on Peak Break Coefficient (PBC) reference in UN Regulation No. 152.

87. GRVA inquired whether virtual testing should be addressed by this IWG. The expert from OICA mentioned the importance of virtual testing for this matter. The expert from the European Commission, Co-Chair of the group, explained that he consulted the subgroup 2 of the IWG on VMAD, which answered that their activities were different as AEBS was not an ADS. He added that the mandate of the group was still running and that it had capacity to deal with this item. The expert from France supported these activities.

88. The expert from the European Commission asked the expert from Sweden if information would be available concerning the detection of big animals. The expert from Sweden explained that further thoughts were needed on this matter. GRVA agreed that this issue was not a high priority but that it should be further discussed.

GRVA-09-26 | Report of the AEBS informal working group

89. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-09-18 and mentioned GRVA-09-17 explaining an issue related to the PBC reference in UN Regulation No. 152. She explained that deceleration of nine m/s2 were the basis for calculation of performance criteria and that therefore a PBC value of 0.9 was not sufficient. She mentioned a revised proposal contained in GRVA-09-18/Rev.1 (document not available) to be discussed until the next session of GRVA.

90. The expert from Germany supported the proposed way forward. The expert from Canada raised a study reservation. The experts from Korea and the European Commission supported the OICA proposal.

91. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its next session.

GRVA-09-17 | UN R152: Proposal to amend the Peak Braking Coefficient reference Argument for revising the PBC values used in the regulation based on technological progress in tyres and impact on road-friction parameters.
GRVA-09-18 | UN R152: Proposal for amendments Proposal to amend the peak braking coefficient and related test method provisions.

92. The expert from Germany, Co-Chair of the IWG on AEBS for heavy vehicles reported on the outcome of the first meeting, a market review, an accidentology data review and a proposal for Terms of Reference, reproduced in GRVA-09-32. He explained that the document contained two options for consideration by GRVA.

93. The expert from Japan noted the very good progress already made by the group and expressed support for the proposal for Terms of Reference. He mentioned the importance of the detection of vulnerable road users as more than 50 per cent of the fatalities heavy duty vehicles were pedestrian and bicycles. He acknowledged the technical challenge of the task. He did not express preference of any options.

94. Following discussion, also on the two options in the document, GRVA adopted the Terms of Reference reproduced in Annex V of the session report (based on GRVA-09-32/Rev.1).

GRVA-09-32/Rev.1 | Draft terms of reference for the Heavy-Duty Vehicle AEBS informal group
8. UN Regulations Nos. 13, 13-H, 139, 140 and UN GTR No. 8
8. (a) Electronic Stability Control

95. The expert from Korea, technical sponsor to the amendment to UN GTR No. 8 (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/99), introduced GRVA-09-36 amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/34, a revised proposal for amendment to UN GTR No. 8 aimed at accommodating new types of steering equipment, low gear systems, not being able to reach the 270 degree request in the sine with dwell test.

96. The expert from Canada expressed reservation with the revised proposal as it would still open the door to safety issues. He explained that the last paragraph of the amendment proposal should only belong to the test procedure and not to the requirement. He explained that this was up to the test facility or manufacturer to perform the test to reach the maximum operable steering angle without overshoot and not for the regulation to accommodate such overshooting risk with a tolerance.

97. GRVA requested the expert from Canada to work together with the expert from Korea so that progress could be achieved until the next session.

GRVA-09-36 | GTR 8: Proposal for amendments Proposal to align requirements with technological progress to address steering systems with low steering gear ratios.
GRVA/2020/34 | GTR 8: Proposal for Amendment 1 Proposal to introduce provisions for recently developed steering systems that have significantly lower steering gear ratios (i.e. quick steering characteristics).
WP.29/2020/99 | GTR 8: Request for authorization to develop an amendment Request to develop an amendment to the GTR 8 testing provisions to accommodate the latest innovations for steering systems which have significantly low steering gear ratio (i.e. quick steering characteristics).
8. (b) Electromechanical Brakes

98. The expert from CLEPA presented GRVA-09-06, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/21, as amended by GRVA-09-05, providing provisions for the type approval of trucks equipped with electromechanical brakes. He clarified that no trailer with electromechanical brakes was considered in the proposal. He explained the benefits of such system for hybrid electric and electric vehicles. He acknowledged that further work was needed to develop Periodic Technical Inspection and electric storage devices requirements.

99. GRVA agreed to review a revised proposal based on GRVA-09-05, as formal document, at its next session.

GRVA-09-05 | UN R13: Proposal for amendments to GRVA/2020/21 Proposal for amendments to the proposal to introduce provisions for electro-mechanical braking systems (submitted to WP.29 as document WP.29/2021/12).
GRVA-09-06 | UN R13 and Electro-Mechanical Brakes
GRVA/2020/21 | UN R13: Proposal for Supplement 17 to the 11 series of amendments Proposal to introduce requirements for the type approval of Electro-Mechanical Braking (EMB) systems.
8. (c) Clarifications

100. The expert from Poland withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/16.

101. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-09-04 proposing amendments to the parking brake requirements, justified by the fact that Germany registers three fatalities per year involving trucks or buses and inadequate parking brake operation.

102. The expert from OICA responded (GRVA-09-20) to the proposal of the expert from Germany. OICA agreed that the proposal could help to increase safety. He provided comments on the implementation of the requirement modification as well as editorial comments.

103. The expert from UK supported the intention of the proposal. He mentioned possible editorial corrections to the proposal. He highlighted the importance of balanced requirements to avoid unnecessary user frustration.

104. The expert from Germany agreed with the comments provided and volunteered to resume consideration of this item at its next session.

GRVA-09-04 | UN R13: Proposal for amendments Proposal to require electrically operated parking brake systems to automatically activate when the driver leaves the vehicle cabin and/or the motor is stopped.
GRVA-09-20 | UN R13: Comments on document GRVA-09-04 Comments on the proposal from Germany to require electrically operated parking brake systems to automatically activate when the driver leaves the vehicle cabin and/or the motor is stopped.
9. Motorcycle braking
9. (a) UN Global Technical Regulation No. 3

105. No discussion took place under this agenda item.

9. (b) UN Regulation No. 78

106. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-09-25, recalling the adoption of stop lamp activation criteria at the last session of GRVA. He proposed that GRVA would harmonise stop lamp activation thresholds for regenerative braking in UN Regulation No. 78 with new provisions in UN Regulation No. 13-H. He announced the submission of a working document for the May or September 2021 session of GRVA.

GRVA-09-25 | UN R78: Proposal to harmonize stop lamp activation for regenerative braking
10. UN Regulation No. 90

107. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/15 as amended by GRVA-09-41. The expert from Germany explained that he could only support parts of the proposal and stressed the need for the type approval authority to be able to check the setup used for the Conformity of Production (CoP) tests. The expert from CLEPA explained that he could not agree with the position expressed by the expert from Germany.

108. The expert from Germany stated his readiness to further discuss this matter. The expert from France explained that he could support the text marked in red in the document. The expert from FEMFM supported this discussion. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its next session.

GRVA-09-41 | UN R90: Proposal to amend document GRVA/2021/15 Proposal to address difficulty in Conformity of Production (CoP) routine obligations caused by unavailability of specifically prescribed hardware.
GRVA/2021/15 | UN R90: Proposal for a new Supplement to the 01 and 02 Series of Amendments Proposal to replace the specification of the type and size of brake caliper and brake disc for brake lining CoP assessment with specifications for a pad area and thickness of the original approval. The original specification corresponds to obsolete caliper and rotor configurations no longer in widespread use.
11. Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement
11. (a) Implementation of relevant provisions in Revision 3 to the 1958 Agreement

109. No document had been submitted under this agenda item.

11. (b) International Whole Vehicle Type Approval

110. No document had been submitted under this agenda item.

12. Other business
12. (a) List of priorities concerning GRVA activities

111. GRVA reviewed GRVA-08-13/Rev.1, proposing GRVA priorities for 2021. Following consultations and discussion during the week, GRVA adopted the priorities for 2021 proposed in GRVA-09-39, with the addition of a category for UN Regulation No. 131 (AEBS for heavy vehicles) at the request of Germany, as reproduced in Annex VI to the session report.

GRVA-08-13/Rev.1 | Proposal for GRVA priorities for 2021

112. The expert from the European Commission introduced GRVA-09-38/Rev.1 aimed at unifying the activities on the definition of work priorities for GRVA and the activities related to the update of the Framework Document on Automated Vehicles to increase the level of details and to clarify the expectations from GRVA for the year 2021. GRVA proposed that this document be reviewed by the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2).

GRVA-09-38/Rev.1 | Proposal for GRVA work programme for 2021-2022
12. (b) Artificial Intelligence

113. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRVA-09-23 suggesting definitions (taken from the International Standard Organization) for Artificial Intelligence (AI) with relevance for wheel vehicles, their subsystems and parts. He proposed to consider that AI is considered as a software i.e. a design feature of an automotive product and that therefore no design requirements should be developed. He mentioned the impossibility to verify the performance of AI systems. He also suggested that any risk mitigation may be part of the audit as defined in the NATM.

114. The expert from CLEPA explained that methods to validate the performance of AI agent were existing. He mentions methods such as blackbox testing, statistical approaches and therefore disputed the word “impossible” as GRVA could rely on methods developed by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for this purpose. He mentioned existing issues to be addressed at the regulatory level, such as the use of continuous learning features at “Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) level” (i.e. individual vehicle level, opposed to vehicle fleet level).

115. GRVA could not further discuss this proposal, due to time constraints, but agreed to prioritize this item at its May 2021 session.

GRVA-09-23 | Artificial intelligence definition and specifics of its application for automated road vehicles

116. The expert from Israel, Chief Operating Officer of Ride Vision, presented GRVA-09-44 complementing the information already provided at the September 2020 session about the potential benefits of a AI powered collision warning system that can be retrofitted to motorcycles.

GRVA-09-44 | Collision aversion technology for motorcycles
12. (c) Any other business

117. The Chair of GRVA noted the effort made during the last 12 months from the delegations in Asia and in the Americas, due to numerous meetings taking place at unfavourable times outside regular business hours. He informed that he consulted these delegations and that it would be a clear signal of global collaboration and a promotion of the WP.29 work if GRVA meetings would take place in other regions of the world, too. He invited GRVA to consider organizing sessions in Asia and in America in 2022. The expert from Canada expressed strong support for this idea.

118. The secretariat announced that the adoption of a list of decision would take place via a silence procedure, following the recommendations of the Executive Committee of UNECE. He explained that the next session of GRVA would be organized in May or June 2021 but that no information on the precise date and duration was available to date.

n.a. | GRVA-09: Decisions submitted to silence procedure following formal meetings with remote participation
12. (d) Framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (FDAV)

119. The Chair recalled the purpose of GRVA-08-26/Rev.1 and asked for comments. Following the consultations held during the week, he introduced GRVA-09-31, proposing amendments to the current version of the Framework Document for Automated Vehicles. The expert from the European Commission explained that he would welcome clarity on the nature of the deliveries: discussion papers, guidelines or regulatory text. GRVA exchanged views on the proposal. Consultations took place during the week and interested experts participating in these informal consultations produced GRVA-09-42 and then GRVA-09-42/Rev.1, which could not be fully reviewed by GRVA due to the lack of time.

120. The experts from USA noted that GRVA-09-42 and GRVA-09-42/Rev.1 were submitted by the expert from OICA. He explained that the online informal consultation meetings, which took place during that week and which lead to the drafting of GRVA-09-42 and Rev.1, included not only industry members but also representatives of Contracting Parties. He expressed support for these documents, as expert from USA and as Co-Chair of the IWG on FRAV.

GRVA-08-26/Rev.1 | Proposal for amendments to the annex of the WP.29 AV Framework Document
GRVA-09-31 | Proposal to amend the WP.29 AV Framework Document Proposal from the GRVA leadership to update Table 1 concerning AV-related informal group tasks and deliverables.
GRVA-09-42/Rev.1 | Automated vehicles framework: Proposal for amendments to WP.29/2019/34/Rev.2