58. The expert from FSD presented GRVA-11-15 (also on behalf of CITA). He recalled the existing regulatory activities on remote access to in-vehicle data within the Motor Vehicles Working Group of the European Commission and within GRVA. He described the current situation with regard to remote access to in-vehicle data and explored, in the case GRVA would be willing to deal with this item, the implications of relying on ISO 20077 (extended vehicle), which only allows data transfer via Business to Business (B2B) transactions. He highlighted that such system would not be appropriate for sovereign use cases, including Market Surveillance Activities and Periodic Technical Inspections. He advocated for a trust centre to be developed that would manage access to in-vehicle data. He based his explanation on an example (DSSAD) and highlighted the importance of the separation of duties in that context and the importance for authorities to get access to these data.

59. The expert from AAPC noted that this matter was touching on EDR/DSSAD. He raised the question: who owns the data? He suggested that access to data would be best managed at regional level. He noted that courts had the right to ask for data.

60. The expert from FIA mentioned that the CITA/FSD presentation was close to what FIA presented at previous sessions.

61. The expert from Norway thanked CITA/FSD for the informative presentation.

62. The expert from Germany asked what was the role and the place of the citizens in the model presented.

63. The expert from FSD answered that the consumers were recognized, and that consent could be managed, being a part of the trust centre role. He answered to the comment from AAPC that the model presented was referring, as an example, to DSSAD but that it was not exclusive. He explained that the trust centre would be a governance tool and that other examples could have been chosen, such as in-service monitoring. He stressed the importance of a trusted storage that is needed for courts as well as all other stakeholders, including authorities and citizens. He also recognized the value of the concept presented by FIA.

64. The expert from FIGIEFA supported the approach presented. She noted the diverging technical aspect but the converging overall goals. She stated that the discussions should continue, also at regional level with the European Commission Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW). Their technical expert mentioned that the technical approach would not be sufficient; both “write” and “read” access and further clarification could be discussed at the European level.

65. The experts from CLEPA and OICA promised to review the presentation in detail and to send comments.

66. GRVA invited the Chair and the secretariat to approach the Committee on the Coordination of Work (WP.29/AC.2). GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this agenda item at its next session to discuss the role of GRVA. GRVA noted that the IWG on EDR/DSSAD could perform a first review of the topic presented by CITA (related to EDR/DSSAD) at one of its next sessions, as time allows.

66. The representative from CITA introduced GRPE-85-30 and GRPE-85-31 presenting the main outcomes of a report on emissions tampering using an urea emulator installed in an Euro VI A heavy truck. The representative from OICA stated that they fully oppose the sale and use of emulators, which is bad for the reputation of car manufacturers; He called for a holistic picture to be considered to mitigate the potential for tampering, highlighting that increased stringency during PTI tests might not be sufficient, with some actors proposing to temporarily revert the tampering to pass PTI tests. The representative from CITA agreed and supported the statement from the representative from OICA, and insisted that tampering is a technical and also behavioural issue, and recalled that inspection and approval performed in isolation were not effective to fully prevent tampering.

67. The representative from the EC called for the existing provision on anti-tampering to be effectively enforced, inviting countries to forbid the sale and use of such emulators. The representative from OICA gave the example of the Swiss law which seemed effective with high penalties and strong enforcement.

68. The Co-Chair from the IWG on PTI called for more expertise needed in the IWG on PTI and suggested to create a task force between GRPE and the IWG on PTI to initiate activities on the issue. The Chair highlighted the need for more collaboration between type approval, certification and PTI, and supported the proposal for the Co-Chair from the IWG on PTI to put together ideas towards the creation of a task force during the next session of GRPE.