46. GRSP noted GRSP-64-45 on the decision of WP.29 to convert the Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) into the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) and to reallocate certain tasks of GRRF to other GRs (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1139, para. 33). GRSP also noted the recommendation of WP.29 that GRSP should insert UN Regulation No. 111 into its programme of work. The Chair of GRSP suggested that the group start exploring which areas under the responsibility of GRSP should be revised by developing vehicle automation. Thus, he indicatively mentioned topics such as safety-belts, frontal impact and seat strength and volunteered to provide a more complete list at the May 2019 session of GRSP.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15. AC.2 considered different proposals regarding the creation of a dedicated Groupe de Rapporteurs (GR) on automated vehicles implementing ITC decision No. 19. Deliberations focused on three different options:

1. renaming existing GRRF to Groupe de Rapporteurs pour les Véhicules Autonomes (GRVA) and transferring certain tasks such as tyres and coupling devices to other existing GRs;


2. renaming GRRF into GRVA, transferring tasks not related to automated vehicles to other GRs and tasking GRVA with a coordinating role as an intermediate layer between WP.29 and the remaining five GRs; and


3. establishment of an additional new GR, GRVA and maintain the existing six GRs.

16. AC.2 agreed to submit the informal document WP.29-175-25, presenting and assessing the three options as a discussion document from AC.2 to WP.29 for further consideration and possible adoption of one of the options.

22. The Chair of the IWG on Intelligent Transport Systems and Automated Driving (ITS/AD) recalled the activities of the World Forum related to the definition of its priorities that resulted in a main focus on vehicle automation and environmental protection. The importance of vehicle automation had been highlighted within the ITC decision No. 19 requesting WP.29 to consider establishing a dedicated GR on this topic. He presented the three options emerging from the discussions at AC.2 (WP.29-175-25). He continued by highlighting the importance for WP.29 to quickly take a decision, as it was a growing topic of importance for governments, industry and society at large.

23. He stated that when exploring the three different options, it is important to keep in mind that a final solution should take into account the resource constraints.

24. The Chair of ITS, the Chair of WP.29 and the Chair of GRRF recalled the coordinating role of WP.29 and especially of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) given by its composition as defined in Chapter IX of the Rules of Procedure for WP.29.

25. The representative of China stated that the priority for the country is to set up a new seventh GR. If it is not possible in the short term, the restructuration of GRRF into GRVA can be a temporary solution, while a new seventh GR should be established as the long-term solution. He also stressed the importance to harmonize regulations under both the 1958 and 1998 agreements, or at least under the 1998 agreement.

26. The representative of Australia noted the progress made through this proposal and stated that Australia supports the reshaping of GRRF as developed in the first option.

27. The representative of India welcomed the proposal of the first option as an immediate step, stating that all GRs are of equal importance, and that over the long term the most convenient solution would be the creation of a new GR.

28. The representatives of France, Japan and Switzerland supported the proposal of the first option, at this stage.

29. The representative of the Russian Federation mentioned that he did not have any principal objections against strengthening efforts to regulate autonomous transport in the Working Party that is suggested to be established on the basis of GRRF.  At the same time, the Russian Federation noted that the overall coordination between all the Working Parties was held by AC.2. Nevertheless, a more detailed study of the issue would require domestic discussions between the Russian authorities and other public bodies. In that respect, the Russian Federation reserved its final position on the issue.

30. The representative of the United States of America, concerned about the need to ensure clear coordination between the GRs, opposed adoption of Option 1 because it did not have a coordination role.

31. WP.29 delegates noted that, at the current stage of the process, the adoption of the document was a first step, subject to review within 12 months. WP.29 decided to monitor and review the functioning of the new structure, including the issues of coordination and allocation of resources.

32. The representative of the European Union called for a swift introduction of the revised structure as described in the first option and reiterated that, via the monitoring and review, a safeguard was given to adjust the structure, if necessary.

33. WP.29 adopted, in implementation of ITC decision No. 19, the conversion of GRRF into GRVA and the reallocation of certain tasks such as tyres and coupling devices to other existing GRs as outlined in the first option of informal document WP.29-175-25. GRVA will oversee the remaining topics from GRRF and encompass activities for autonomous, automated and connected vehicles and incorporate current activities, other than coordination, of the IWG ITS/AD. This decision will take effect immediately.

34. The representative of the United States of America reiterated her concern that the decision was made too quickly and on the basis of an informal document. The United States of America expressed concerns that this decision on an informal document appears to be inconsistent with the Rules under the Terms of Reference and Rules of procedure of the World Forum for Harmonization and Vehicle Regulations. The United States of America also did not agree that GRRF was transformed to GRVA.

35. To address her concern for coordination, WP.29 agreed to add the topic of automated activities management between the GRs to its agenda.

3. GRSG also adopted the running order (GRSG-115-01) as proposed by the Chair. GRSG noted GRSG-115-02 on the main decisions and recommendations of the World Forum taken during its June 2018 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1139 and Add.1). Upon the request by the Inland Transport Committee (ITC) to consider establishing a dedicated working party on vehicle automation, WP.29 had agreed to convert the Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) into the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) and to reallocate certain tasks such as tyres to the Working Party on Noise (GRB) and coupling devices to GRSG (WP.29-175-25). GRVA would oversee the remaining topics from GRRF and encompass activities on vehicle automation. The coordination between the working parties (GRs) on the different vehicle automation activities would remain with WP.29. The WP.29 decision had taken effect immediately, but would have to be confirmed by ITC in February 2019.

47. The Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) and GRRF held a joint session to exchange information on the activities of common interest. The event this time was focused on the topics of “secondary activities” and cybersecurity. The participants agreed that these joint sessions are constructive and contribute to a better understanding of the role of the driver in highly and fully automated vehicles. Both chairs agreed to explore possibilities at ITC session in 2018 for holding additional joint sessions in the future.