21. AC.2 discussed and confirmed the need to continue the general discussion on the performance of automotive systems in conditions other than those tested in the framework of type-approval or self-certification at WP.29 based on WP.29-169-13.

33. GRB was informed that WP.29, at its March and June 2016 sessions, had had a discussion on the performance of automotive systems, in particular the ones relying on software, in conditions other than those tested during the type approval test procedures (WP.29-168-15 and WP.29-169-13). WP.29 had requested its subsidiary Working Parties to give feedback on the issue. GRB invited its experts to provide comments and decided to revert to this matter at the next session.

42. GRE was informed that WP.29, at its March and June 2016 sessions, had had a discussion on the performance of automotive systems, in particular the ones relying on software, in conditions other than those tested during the type approval test procedures (WP.29-168-15 and WP.29-169-13). WP.29 had requested its subsidiary Working Parties to give feedback on the issue. GRE invited its experts to provide comments and decided to revert to this matter at the next session.

51. The secretariat presented informal document WP.29-169-13 regarding cycle beating by software based systems, with TPMS as an example. The expert from EC noted a general concern about test optimisation, not only linked to software-based systems, but instead from the utilisation of certain tolerances or corridors that were provided in testing provisions for conventional product performance checks. He added that, for instance, a type-approval test should be considered valid when a deceleration pulse trace was close to the lower boundary of a corridor, but this should not mean that a re-test would be invalid for conformity of production or for market surveillance checks when a product fails performance requirements if the deceleration pulse trace would be toward the upper boundary of the corridor. Thus, he concluded that the requirements should be met regardless of the tolerances provided (e.g. deceleration, temperature, pressure, speed).

67. The Secretary informed GRRF, as recommended by WP.29, about discussions that took place at WP.29 in March and June 2016 on the performance of automotive systems (especially those relying on software) in conditions other than those tested according to the regulated test procedures. He presented WP.29-168-15 and WP.29-169-13 and highlighted some parts of the documents (a) providing some examples showing the relevance of the question and compelling experts to be vigilant when reviewing, amending or drafting technical regulations, (b) listing existing regulatory instruments available to experts when drafting regulations applicable for such software-based systems.

68. The Chair of GRRF stated the importance of being vigilant to this matter and encouraged experts to keep it in mind when reviewing, amending or drafting technical regulations.

92. The secretariat introduced WP.29-169-13, recalling the discussion that took place at GRRF in the context of IWVTA (WP.29-168-15) and, separately, on the issue of the performance of automotive systems in conditions other than those tested according to the regulated test procedures as well as the fact that the new regulation on TPMS systems could serve as a case study for consideration by the Working Parties. He added that the document had listed the existing tools used to regulate the performance of automotive systems in conditions other than those tested in the framework of type-approval or self-certification.

93. The representative of the Russian Federation supported the document and noted that the importance of taking into consideration the wide variety of intelligent systems in vehicles. In his opinion, there should be requirements for the reliability of the vehicles and components and requirements for the performance of the vehicles in use. The first group of requirements could be covered by the methodology applied by the manufacturer to the design process and the information, which should be disclosed to the technical service, for type approval purposes.

94. He noted that the performance of vehicles “in service” differs from performance prescribed for a new motor vehicle in UN Regulations and referred to R.E.3, paragraphs. 8.1.1.1. and 8.1.1.2. According to these paragraphs, the braking performance may be verified by methods and at speeds different from those prescribed in the relevant UN Regulations No. 13 and 13-H. The representative of the Russian Federation proposed an approach to install limits for decreasing performance of vehicles in use and verify them in the frame of the 1997 Agreement Rules. He proposed that the task could be reviewed by IWG on PTI to develop related proposals.

95. The representative of the EU welcomes a discussion on this important topic on the basis of this document yet sees the need for further horizontal reflections at the level of WP.29.

96. The representative of the United Kingdom, Chair of GRRF stated that the matter might be considered under the PTI view point, but that the first priority would be to verify the fitness of UN Regulations with regard to the points raised in the document.

97. Following the intervention of the representative of EU, WP.29 welcomed the document and agreed that the Chairs of Working Parties should check the suitability of Regulations dealing with complex electronic systems and software and, specifically focus on the responsibilities of the approval applicant, the technical service and the Type Approval Authorities, the precision of the requirements and identify, if needed, provisions that could provide clarification to avoid ambiguity.