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.

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.

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.

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.