Proposal to address non-negligible differences in sound performance in cases where COP tests are carried out under conditions that differ from those used for the granting of the type approval. The proposal introduces conditions, procedures, and corrections to be applied to L_urban to account for the difference in test conditions.

11. The expert of OICA raised the issue of uncertainties of sound emission measurements according to UN Regulation No. 51 and some other UN Regulations (GRB-69-15). He pointed out that the uncertainties included variations within the same test laboratory (run-to-run), variations in the ambient conditions and equipment properties (day-to-day) and variations between test laboratories and road surface conditions (site-to-site). The expert from ISO reported on field experience for measuring variations according to ISO 16254 (GRB-69-26). To reduce variations and improve repeatability and reproducibility of the results, he suggested that a single microphone should be replaced with an array of microphones.

12. The experts from Germany and France proposed to address non-negligible differences in sound performance when conformity of production (CoP) tests were not carried out in the same conditions as the type approval tests (GRB-69-05). The proposal introduced conditions and procedures to be followed for test tracks comparison and for corrections to be applied on L_urban. GRB welcomed this initiative as an important starting point for further work and invited GRB experts to support it with real data.

13. GRB stressed the importance of addressing measurement uncertainties and pointed out the need to establish a new task force to this end. While OICA volunteered to provide secretariat support to the task force, GRB was not in a position to identify a governmental expert who would take the lead, due to the limited resources of competent authorities. Nevertheless, GRB was of the view that the task force should start activities as soon as possible, even without a formal leader. GRB requested the ECE secretariat to establish a dedicated website for the task force and suggested that it should meet in conjunction with the meetings of other IWGs, in order to reduce the travel expenses of participants. GRB also invited its Chair to report to the Committee for Coordination of Work (WP.29/AC.2) on the issue.

Draft pursuant to discussions during the 21st ACSF informal group session

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

Proposal to amend the draft text (GRVA/2019/9) submitted to resolve measurement concerns in the test requirements for ACSF of Category B1 and C by introducing provisions for tolerances, including:

1. inclusion of the position at which the lateral acceleration was measured and the position of the centre of gravity of the vehicle for better traceablility,
2. sampling rate of at least 100 Hz for dynamic testing,
3. specification of filters and cut-off frequency for determination of lateral acceleration.

Proposal to allow under specified conditions the use of logos inside the illuminating surface of a signalling lamp.

11. The experts from France and Germany proposed introducing conditions for the use of logos inside the illuminating surface of a signalling lamp in the UN LSD Regulation and UN Regulation No. 48 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/6). Various experts commented and posed questions on the proposal. GRE noted that a clear definition of “logo” would be needed and that technological neutrality should be ensured. The expert from EC was of the view that the underlying issue did not have bearing on road safety and, thus, should not be discussed by GRE. The proponents agreed to revise the proposal in accordance with the comments received. The expert of OICA offered its assistance.

Proposal to introduce requirements for testing the sun load impact to avoid delays in the perception of light signals under certain sunlight conditions.

12. The expert from Germany presented a draft Supplement to the UN LSD Regulation which introduced requirements for testing the sun load impact (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/7). The proposal received comments from the experts of France, Japan (GRE-81-17), Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CLEPA, OICA and SAE. The expert from IMMA made a study reservation. The Chair invited the expert from Germany to update the proposal, based on the comments received, for consideration at the next session.

Proposal to introduce provisions:

1. For vehicles intended for use by the armed services and forces responsible for maintaining public order: the manual switching off of all lighting devices in all circumstances;
2. In the absence of a “vehicle door assistance and warning system”: the mandatory application of the hazard warning lights to reduce the safety risks in the case a door is opened to the traffic side.

17. The expert from Germany proposed to allow (a) the manual switch-off of all lighting devices in vehicles used by special forces and (b) the activation of hazard warning lights when opening a door in vehicles not equipped with a door assistance and warning system (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/8). The experts from France, Japan and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were not in a position to support the derogation (a) and indicated that such exceptions should be done in the national or regional legislation, rather than in a UN Regulation. For proposal (b), the expert from EC pointed out that it constitutes a new requirement and, thus, should be introduced by a new series of amendments. The experts from Czechia, Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and OICA were of the view that proposal (b) goes beyond the scope of GRE and should be addressed by the Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG). The Chair requested the secretariat to bring the issue to the attention of GRSG.

75. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/8 proposing the activation of hazard warning lights when opening a door in vehicles not equipped with a door assistance and warning system, which had been forwarded to GRSG for consideration.

76. GRSG agreed that the proposed solution was not favoured by the group as it was not clear whom to warn, persons inside the vehicle or those outside, whether the warning would come too late anyhow or whether other solutions such as sensors would be more effective.

Germany is requesting GRSG guidance regarding the approval of CMS that adapt the field of view under certain conditions (e.g., to compensate when a vehicle and trailer combination moves along a curve).

31. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-116-04 on the different interpretations by type approval authorities of the provisions of UN Regulation No. 46 on a possible automatic modification of the field of vision for the driver while driving (at the request of the driver). He sought the advice of GRSG on the need to amend UN Regulation No. 46 accordingly. The expert from France supported an amendment to allow devices to modify views for the driver.

Proposal to improve the specifications for LPG multi-valves in response to an LPG vehicle fire that resulted in injuries to first responders. A German Type Approval Authority (KBA) analysis concluded that the hose connecting the PRV/PRD of the multi-valve to the gaseous phase was damaged and hose-fragments blocked both PRV and PRD such that pressure could not be adequately reduced. The PRV and PRD were activated, but the fragments considerably reduced the effective section of the relevant tubing and prevented the release of pressure. This proposal aims to prevent such occurrences.

38. The expert from OICA recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/2 and informed GRSG that parts of the proposal had been adopted and that the remaining parts had recently been reviewed by TF on gas-fuelled vehicle regulations. The expert from Germany reported on the good TF work progress force. He presented GRSG-116-05 on the outcome of TF discussions on UN Regulation No. 67. The expert from LG Europe proposed to remove the requirements for the use of an odorant in n-pentane: such requirements were not necessary and not requested in any test in the UN Regulations or in international standards (GRSG-116-39). After discussion, GRSG agreed on the revised proposal GRSG-116-05-Rev.1 and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/2 as reproduced in Annex III to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the revised proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 2 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67 for consideration at their November 2019 sessions.

Proposal to introduce “temporary modified view” provisions per ISO 16505:2015 which describes a possibility for a field of view to be temporarily modified for special driving situations in order to compensate for limits of the static class II field of vision.

32. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-116-20 to amend the provisions for approval and installation of devices for indirect vision with temporarily modified views on motor vehicles. A presentation (GRSG-116-37) also justified the need to amend the UN Regulation and showed the safety improvements of devices using magnification and resolution in image processing. GRSG welcomed GRSG-116-20 and noted several comments from the experts of Canada, France, Sweden and EC on the need to clarify the proposal. The expert from Japan raised a study reservation, stating that the current provisions of the regulation already cover such devices and that an amendment was superfluous. Finally, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of GRSG-116-20 at its next session on the basis of an official document. The Chair invited the expert from Germany to submit in due time, a revised proposal taking into account the comments received.

32. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-116-20 to amend the provisions for approval and installation of devices for indirect vision with temporarily modified views on motor vehicles. A presentation (GRSG-116-37) also justified the need to amend the UN Regulation and showed the safety improvements of devices using magnification and resolution in image processing. GRSG welcomed GRSG-116-20 and noted several comments from the experts of Canada, France, Sweden and EC on the need to clarify the proposal. The expert from Japan raised a study reservation, stating that the current provisions of the regulation already cover such devices and that an amendment was superfluous. Finally, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of GRSG-116-20 at its next session on the basis of an official document. The Chair invited the expert from Germany to submit in due time, a revised proposal taking into account the comments received.

Proposal to introduce a tolerance for the position of the loading device during the test. The loading device is required to be parallel to the x-y plane of the chassis. This proposal would add a z dimension to the x-y plane and set a tolerance such that the loading device may not deviate by more than 5° along the z-axis.

24. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/2, proposing tolerances for the position of the loading device during the test. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/2, not amended. The secretariat was requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/2 as Supplement 5 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 29, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Proposal to ensure pedestrian safety across the vehicle height variations that may be produced by active suspensions.

8. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-17, explaining that the intention of the pedestrian protection test procedures as described in UN GTR No. 9 and UN Regulation No. 127 was to deliver an adequate level of protection for pedestrians in accidents up to an impact velocity of 40 km/h. International Harmonized Research Agenda research has shown that the cumulative frequency curves versus vehicle impact speed for pedestrian injuries and their respective injury causing parts showed that 58 per cent of the child head abbreviated injury scale (AIS) 2+ injuries were addressed to a vehicle impact speed up to 40 km/h, 40 per cent to adult head AIS2+ injuries and 50 per cent of the adult leg AIS2+ injuries respectively. He added that test procedures described in UN Regulation No. 127 and UN GTR No. 9 were meant to represent worst case scenarios. However, it was agreed that this was not the case for all possible scenarios and that also at lower impact speeds higher injury risk could occur due for example to different heights of the vehicle because of adjustable suspension systems. The representative from OICA reminded that during the type approval process the worst case scenario will be considered. GRSP agreed to keep GRSP-65-17 as an informal document for the December 2019 session of GRSP, awaiting further rationales to develop a proposal of amendments.

4. The expert from Germany reiterated his intention to find a solution (GRSP-65-17) to represent worst case scenarios, due to, for example, different heights of the vehicle from adjustable suspension systems. He also indicated that a concrete proposal had been submitted under agenda item 11 on UN Regulation No. 127. GRSP agreed to defer discussion to its December 2020 session, pending consideration of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its November 2020 session.

4. Concerning the issue of different heights of the vehicle from adjustable suspension systems, the expert from Germany requested to resume consideration on this issue (GRSP-65-17) at the May 2021 session of GRSP. GRSP agreed with the request from the expert from Germany and noted that amendment 3 would be completed at the March 2021 session of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) with the incorporation of provisions concerning the revised headform test. Thus, GRSP noted that a possible amendment incorporating the adjustable suspension systems would be a new one following the endorsement of a new request of authorization to develop the work submitted by a Technical Sponsor.

5. Concerning the issue of different heights of the vehicle from adjustable suspension systems, the expert from Germany withdrew GRSP-65-17 and informed GRSP that a revised proposal would be submitted at the December 2021 session.

Proposal to clarify the definitions of integrated and detachable head restraints.

19. The expert from Finland introduced GRSP-65-04 to raise concerns on head-restraint installation, testing and other interpretations issues. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-18-Rev.1, proposing an amendment to the definition of integrated, detachable and separate head-restraints. The expert from OICA noted that Amendment 1 to UN GTR No. 7 dealt with definitions of such head-restraints and suggested that the transposition of UN GTR No. 7, Phase 2 into the UN Regulation would solve the issue. [At] the same time, he urged that cross references between the UN Regulation and the UN GTR be consistent. So, he proposed to establish a Task Force (TF) to complete harmonization of the two Regulations. The expert from Germany endorsed the establishment of TF but proposed to keep GRSP-65-18-Rev.1 separated from other proposals of alignment to the UN GTR.

20. Finally, GRSP agreed with the proposal of the expert from OICA to establish a TF and to combine GRSP-65-18-Rev.1 once the proposal of amendments to align UN Regulation No. 17 with UN GTR No. 7 were finalized. In the meantime, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/7 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/9 to its December 2019 session. Moreover, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-65-18-Rev.1, as a new series of amendments with an official symbol at its December 2019 session.

Proposal to correct the cross-reference to paragraph 5.11. in paragraph 6.4.3.5. The text should refer to paragraph 5.12.

21. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-19, proposing a Corrigendum to the UN Regulation. GRSP adopted GRSP-65-19, as reproduced in Annex II to the session report and requested the secretariat to submit it as Corrigendum 2 to Revision 5 and as Corrigendum 1 to the 09 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 17, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Request for guidance in order to resolve conflicting interpretations of paragraph 7.1.4.2.2. The paragraphs reads, " The vertical component of the acceleration from the abdomen towards the head shall not exceed 30 g except during periods whose sum does not exceed 3 ms.” However, an explanatory note for Technical Services on performing the tests under Annex 15 adds, "The wording of this paragraph [7.1.4.2.2.] refers to accelerations representing tensile loads in the spine of the dummy.” Differing interpretations have resulted in a CRS being approved but then rejected during Conformity of Production review by a separate Technical Service.

25. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-20 aimed at introducing clarifications on the direction of the vertical component of the chest acceleration, to provide consistency on the test performed by different Technical Services on Child Restraint Systems in accordance to paragraph 7.1.4.2.2. of the UN Regulation. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-65-28 which superseded GRSP-65-20. Finally, GRSP adopted GRSP-65-28 as reproduced in Annex III of the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit GRSP-65-28 as Supplement 17 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

14. Referring to the request made by the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work of WP.29 (WP.29/AC.2) (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1155, para. 30), GRSP resumed discussion on the belt-guide device type approved as Child Restraint System (CRS) according to UN Regulation No. 44 by the Type Approval Authority of Poland. The expert from the Netherlands introduced a presentation (GRSP-68-24), showing additional test results performed on the belt-guide. He added that the tests confirmed the conclusion laid out in document GRSP-67-05, introduced at the July 2020 session of GRSP and in addition showed that the device does not conform to the dynamic test requirements when tested with the P10 dummy. Therefore, he stated:

1. The belt-guide was not in the scope of the UN Regulation and could not be type approved; as such, the type approval should be withdrawn.
2. The device did not meet several requirements, both technical and with regard to instructions for users and therefore approval should not have been granted.
3. The car design determines the level of protection for a great deal of cases and may result in submarining and/or in injuries in the abdominal area, since the device sold as a child restraint does not offer adequate protection or guidance in this respect.
4. The device could offer better protection than the adult belt itself but lacks the additional protection of a CRS.
5. Since approval of this device was issued erroneously, it shall be withdrawn, and Market Surveillance Authorities should be informed.

1. During last year there had been numerous different unsubstantiated allegations against the belt guide, e.g.: submarining (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25), vertical component (GRSP-65-20), risk of abdominal injury. However, he added these allegations were not demonstrated.
2. Type-approval tests according to the UN Regulation requirements were conducted by Polish technical service – PIMOT in 2017, which conducted more than 160 tests by using dummies required by the UN regulation (P3, P6 and P10 type), showing satisfactory results.

He concluded that in December 2019, after comparative tests with other CRS showed problems with other type-approved CRS, the discussion in GRSP should be broadened to focus on other CRS as well. The expert from Spain, stated that the focus should be on the interpretation that a belt-guide and similar devices cannot be separately approved as a CRS.

Proposal to ensure pedestrian protection across the vehicle height variations that may be produced by an active suspension system.

33. Referring to agenda item 3(b) (see paragraph 8 above), the expert from Germany suggested postponing discussion on GRSP-65-21 to allow careful consideration of the new provisions of the General Safety Regulation of the European Union, which had proposed an extension of the head impact zone. GRSP agreed to defer discussion of GRSP-65-21 to its December 2019 session and to distribute it with an official symbol.

4. The Chair informed GRVA that WP.29 agreed the general approach outlined in the draft framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (WP.29-177-19) and directed GRVA to use the issues, topics and deliverables from the document as guidance to inform its further discussions on structuring its work and delivery plans. He noted that WP.29-177-19 was distributed by the secretariat with an official symbol (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34) for consideration at the June 2019 session of the World Forum. He also noted that World Forum expected GRVA to report at the June 2019 session on its proposed structure, and to propose Terms of Reference (ToRs) for IWGs in this respect.

5. The Chair mentioned that some Contracting Parties expressed the need to amend the table in the framework document and the Secretary introduced a note by the secretariat GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 capturing positions expressed during the three virtual meetings with the Contracting Parties organized by the Chair aimed at facilitating the development of the ToRs.

6. The expert from EC thanked the secretariat for the preparation of document GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He asked whether the content of Annex II was necessary as it was also contained in GRVA-03-10. The expert from the United States of America proposed to keep this Annex in square brackets.

7. The expert from Germany welcomed the document. He considered that the list of items in Annex 2 was not exhaustive and therefore should only be provided to the IWG as ideas for consideration. He also noted the ambitious deadlines proposed.

8. The expert from OICA noted the late availability of this document and highlighted the need to ensure the completion of current activities when considering future IWGs.

9. The expert from AAPC requested some clarifications on the scope of activities on Functional Requirements and on VMAD. GRVA agreed to consider this when drafting the ToRs.

10. The expert from ITU highlighted some industrial priorities on localization, data storage for automated driving, driver monitoring and transition demands. He noted the need to make progress on these activities as they could have costly hardware implications in case of delay.

11. The expert from Sweden inquired about the work on Roadworthiness of Automated Vehicles. GRVA responded that these activities were essentially a task of the ACSF group and remained current under the ACSF activities.

12. Following the interventions from the European Commission, Japan, United States of America, GRVA agreed that the work to be done on the drafting of Terms of Reference for IWGs would be performed on the basis of Table 1 in this document.

13. The Chair introduced GRVA-03-10, a draft document containing Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures for four Informal Working Groups. He explained that he drafted one single document aimed to support the drafting of ToR by providing an overview of all activities to avoid unnecessary overlaps.

14. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-03-11, GRVA-03-12 and GRVA-03-13 with separate Terms of Reference for each of the new IWGs. He stated that he proposed less ambitious deadlines than those of the Framework document.

15. The expert from Spain proposed to merge the approach presented.

16. GRVA noted that the mandate for the Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues had been extended by one year by WP.29 in March 2019 and deferred discussion on further activity for this group.

17. The expert from the European Commission preferred to work on the basis of Table 1 in GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He noted that the work could be done in phases e.g. prioritizing activities on highway, urban and then interurban conditions. He stated that short terms deliveries could be defined without explicitly defining mid-term deliveries at this stage.

18. The expert from OICA preferred a use case approach and a function approach. He stated that priorities should be carefully defined. He recalled as an example that the work on ALKS was prioritizing passenger cars over those for heavy-duty vehicles. He opined that this would not be acceptable for the industry on longer terms.

19. ToRs for the Functional Requirements, Vehicle Test Methods and Data Storage Systems/Event Data Recorders were developed during the session.

20. GRVA reviewed GRVA-03-17 and revised the draft during the session to include references to existing standards and guidelines as proposed by Spain and the United States of America respectively. This approach formed the template for drafting ToRs for the Test Methods group (VMAD) and a revision of the GRSG proposal for an IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

21. GRVA agreed that the draft Terms of Reference as reproduced in GRVA-03-20, GRVA-03-21 and GRVA-03-22 should be transmitted to WP.29 for consideration at the June 2019 session (see Annexes III to V of the session report). GRVA agreed that the work on the items proposed in Table 1 of GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 already started, subject to final endorsement by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

22. GRVA agreed that the existing objectives of the IWG on ACSF should not be affected by the new IWG on FRAV. GRVA agreed that the IWG on FRAV should structure its activities to allow the leadership of the IWG on ACSF to finish its work e.g. common timing and venues for ACSF and FRAV sessions.

23. GRVA briefly discussed the leadership of the IWG. GRVA agreed on the need for a global representation including Asia/Pacific, Europe and North America. GRVA was informed of Countries willing to contribute to the leadership of the IWGs (see Annex II of the session report). GRVA concluded that the leadership question would be decided by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

This document is based upon a CS/OTA task force document (TFCS-03-04) and is also available with tracked changes against this original task force draft in pdf format and docx format.

Proposal to transpose the modified requirements for non-original replacement exhaust silencing systems (NORESS) from UN R92 (Replacement exhaust silencing systems for motorcycles) into UN R59.

9. The expert from Germany introduced a proposal for a new series of amendments aimed at transposing the modified requirements for non-original replacement exhaust silencing systems (NORESS) from UN Regulation No. 92 (Replacement exhaust silencing systems for motorcycles) into UN Regulation No. 59. GRBP adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions as a draft 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 59.

42. The GRBP chair mentioned that GRBP had adopted a new series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 59 (Replacement silencing systems) and a draft technical report and Amendment No. 2 to UN GTR No. 16 (Tyres). He also indicated that the recently established Informal Working Group on Wet Grip Performance for Tyres in a Worn State (IWG WGWT) would be co-chaired by France and the European Commission.

47. Finally, he briefed WP.29 on the GRE considerations of the signalling requirements for automated/autonomous vehicles (AV) and the establishment of a task force (TF) on this topic. On behalf of the TF Chair, the representative of Germany pointed out that TF had considered two main questions:

(a) Is there a safety requirement for AVs to provide signals to indicate their status and to communicate their next intended actions?

(b) If so, shall such signals (i) be visual, (ii) audible, (iii) or a combination of both?

48. The representative of Germany indicated that TF had come to the conclusion that replying to question (a) was not within its mandate and requested for WP.29 and/or WP.1 guidance. For question (b), on the assumption of a positive answer to (a), he reported that TF felt that AV signals should be visible, while recognizing a further task of addressing the needs of people with impaired vision.

49. The representatives of France and Japan advocated the need for AVs to have special signals for safety reasons, interaction with police and for the sake of general public acceptance of AV. The representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that the conditions for using such signals (speed, traffic conditions, level of automation, etc.) should be clearly defined and that WP.1 should be consulted on those issues. The representative of Finland recalled the general position of WP.1 that all vehicles, irrespective of their technology, should follow the traffic rules. He was of the view that, if AV signals were deemed necessary, they should be as simple as possible. The representative of China reported on the ongoing industry survey on this matter and agreed to inform WP.29 about its outcome. The EU representative stressed that TF should provide evidence for safety risks associated with use of AVs without signals. The representative of OICA warned WP.29 about the possible misuse of AV signals and behavioural issues with drivers of “conventional” vehicles. The representative of IMMA stated that in addition to the capability of AV-systems to detect motorcyclists, research may be needed to study the behaviour of other road users, such as motorcyclists, in response to AV signalling on motor vehicles.

50. The Chair thanked GRE and its TF for the work done and was of the view that WP.1 should be invited to address the concerns raised by WP.29 representatives and to provide recommendations on the use of AV signals, possibly in the framework of the WP.29/WP.1 Executive Task Force (ETF).

Proposal to amend the draft text (GRVA/2019/9) submitted to resolve measurement concerns in the test requirements for ACSF of Category B1 and C by introducing provisions for tolerances, including:

1. inclusion of the position at which the lateral acceleration was measured and the position of the centre of gravity of the vehicle for better traceablility,
2. sampling rate of at least 100 Hz for dynamic testing,
3. specification of filters and cut-off frequency for determination of lateral acceleration,
4. option to measure “overriding force” torque via an internal sensor or an external device (e.g., steering robot).

33. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/19 proposing amendments to UN Regulation No.79 based on experience gathered by France, Germany and the Republic of Korea since the entry into force of the 03 series. The proposal received comments (see GRVA-04-09, GRVA-04-46). GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-04-47) as reproduced in Annex III, as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No.79 and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

Proposal to reconcile UN R138 with UN R51 with regard to maximum sound pressure levels at speeds greater than 20 km/h by clarifying that the 75 dB(A) limit for AVAS under UN R138 concerns only the 0-20 km/h speed range.

31. The expert from Germany proposed amendments to UN Regulation No. 138 with the aim to introduce a maximum sound level for the acoustic vehicle alerting system (AVAS) at speeds greater than 20 km/h (GRBP-70-04). Following a brief discussion, the Chair invited the expert to submit a working document for consideration at the next session.

Proposal to introduce provisions for activation of a “temporary modified view” (such as change in image magnification or resolution) per ISO 16505:2015 to complement the static Class II field of vision using a Camera Monitoring System (CMS).

29. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 on possibility for a temporary modified view and based on GRSG-117-40 highlighted the difference between the relevant field of view and the required field of view. The expert from France, in principle, welcomed the proposal however raised questions on conditions for activation or de-activation of temporary modified view by the driver and requested a better definition of ‘temporary manoeuvre’. The expert from the United Kingdom engaged in the discussion by supporting concerns raised by his French colleague and adding that the modified view could end up with new blind spot areas.

30. Following detailed technical discussions and adjustment of language used, GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 as amended by reproduced GRSG-117-40-Rev.3. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 7 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 46 for consideration at their March 2020 sessions.

Proposal to introduce requirements for testing the sun load impact, which can delay the perception of a signal in such a way that it may became a serious safety issue, if the sun load impact goes above a defined ratio.

18. The expert from Germany presented an updated proposal which introduces requirements for testing the sun load impact into UN Regulation No. [148] (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/22). He further indicated that these amendments should be introduced by a new 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. [148], together with transitional provisions. The proposal received comments from Japan (GRE-82-38). The experts from the United Kingdom, CLEPA and OICA requested justification for additional testing in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/22. Finally, GRE invited the expert from Germany, in cooperation with Japan, CLEPA and OICA, to complement the document with transitional provisions and research justification.

Proposal to allow the manual switching off all lighting devices in all circumstances for vehicles intended for use by the armed services and forces responsible for maintaining public order.

26. The expert from Germany tabled a proposal that allows the manual switch-off of all lighting devices in vehicles used by authorities responsible for maintaining public order (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/14 and GRE-82-41-Rev.1). Some experts were of the view that such a derogation should be addressed in the framework of national or regional rather than international law. Several experts indicated practical difficulties in identifying those vehicles when at the stage of type approval and manufacturing. GRE agreed to revert to the issue at the next session.

Proposal to allow the use of logos inside the illuminating surface of a signalling lamp under certain conditions.

16. The experts from France and Germany presented an updated proposal for amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 48 and 148, which introduce conditions for the use of logos of the vehicle or body manufacturer inside the illuminating surface of a signalling lamp (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/28 and GRE-82-32). The expert from CLEPA proposed adding the logo of the lamp manufacturer (GRE-82-20). The expert from OICA suggested a modified definition of “manufacturer logo” (GRE-82-36).

17. Several experts expressed their preference to completely prohibit the use of logos inside the lamps on safety concerns, while some others pointed out that road safety would not be compromised, as the lamps should meet all requirements in the respective UN Regulations. Some experts wondered whether the use of letters inside the logos was allowed. Following an in-depth discussion, GRE agreed that the “manufacturer logo” definition would need further clarification and invited the experts from France and Germany to submit a revised proposal for consideration at the next session. Pending the outcome of this discussion, GRE invited type approval authorities to refrain from granting type approvals to signalling lamps with logos inside the illuminating surface.

Proposal from Germany to introduce additional definitions, clarify the management system certification process, enable the withdrawal (revocation) of a vehicle type approval, to require the vehicle manufacturer to maintain an Information Security Operations Centre (ISOC) to handle servicing of its vehicle fleet, and to improve the processes for identification of risks and threats and their mitigation.

21. 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 on the activities of the group since June 2019. (Details are provided in GRVA-04-45.) He explained the activities of the test phase and reported that it was positive. He stated that the draft proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 as amended) worked and provided value. He mentioned that the experience gathered during this phase would be reflected in an interpretation document and that the documents under development would be improved for consideration at the next session of GRVA.

22. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-04-25, proposing amendments to the scope of the draft regulation. GRVA referred the proposal to the Task Force.

23. The expert from Germany provided comments in GRVA-04-22. GRVA agreed to refer them to the Task Force.

24. The expert from the European Commission recalled that a report would have to be prepared for review at the next session of WP.29. He presented a proposal to clarify the scope of the draft UN Regulation on cyber security (GRVA-04-32). He noted that the challenges of the group were similar to those that the IWG on VMAD would face, when working on audits.

25. The expert from the USA commended the Task Force for its work. But she requested that the technical requirements be prepared (as previously agreed) in a document that could serve the 1998 Agreement as well.

26. The expert from Sweden informed that his country had now established a Cyber Security authority. GRVA welcomed the participation of Cyber Security authorities at the Task Force meetings.

27. The expert from FIGIEFA introduced GRVA-04-04 proposing amendments to the scope as well as new proposals related to access to data by authorized parties. She announced that she would support the alternative proposal concerning the scope presented in
GRVA-04-32. The expert from OICA also supported amendments to the scope but not the other amendments proposed in GRVA-04-32. The expert from EC stated the importance to remain vigilant concerning the access to data in vehicles. GRVA transmitted the amendment proposals to the task force.

28. The expert from FIA introduced GRVA-04-40 proposing to clarify the lifecycle and lifetime definitions. He suggested that the lifetime definition should also include the time after a vehicle is deregistered and until it is scrapped. GRVA did not conclude on this item and transmitted the document to the Task Force.

29. GRVA invited the Task Force to prepare the proposal for a new UN Regulation on cyber security, a draft guidance document, a draft resolution with recommendations together with draft requirements in a document that can serve the 1998 Agreement and a report on the test phase.

30. GRVA agreed to request an extension of the mandate of the Task Force for two years.

Proposal to amend the text for consistency.

Proposal to amend the definition of integrated, detachable and separate head restraint.

Proposal to ensure pedestrian protection across the vehicle height variations that may be produced by an active suspension system.

20. The expert from Germany reiterated his proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/18) and referred to agenda item 3(a) (see paragraph 4). The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-67-07 as a counterproposal, aimed at clarifying the issue that vehicle height has an influence on the test results of headform and legform tests, and consequentially all possible vehicle heights up to a driving speed of 11.1 m/s (40 km/h) should be considered to be relevant for impact with a pedestrian. Germany stated its agreement, in general, with the OICA proposal but suggested further clarifications. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2020 session on the basis of a potentially revised proposal from the experts of Germany, the United Kingdom and OICA.

20. The expert from Germany reiterated his proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/18) and referred to agenda item 3(a) (see paragraph 4). The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-68-18 as a counterproposal of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/18, tabled by the expert from Germany. He explained that the proposal was reflecting the latest stage of discussions aimed at clarifying the issue that vehicle height has an influence on the test results of headform and legform tests. He also suggested to encompass this issue with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2020/9. GRSP recalled that this last proposal was prepared by the experts of the Drafting Task Force to align the UN Regulation with the revised General Safety Regulation of the European Union that would enlarge the head impact zone to include the windscreen area. The expert from Republic of Korea suggested that the impact test speed ratio should be aligned to that one identified by the IWG-DPPS (see para. 5 above). Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion to the proposals of amendments to the UN Regulation at its May 2021 session.

19. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-70-17 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/18), concerning new provisions to cope with Adjustable Ride Height Suspension System (ARHSS). GRSP agreed to distribute GRSP-70-17 with an official symbol at its May 2022 session, as draft 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 127.

Proposal to correct a typo: “Class II to IV VI exterior device”

34. The expert of Germany introduced GRSG-117-41 and GRSG-117-42 proposing corrections to the text of UN Regulation No. 46. Experts from France and Netherlands engaged in discussion on different needs for corrections in the text of the regulation. GRSG agreed to resume discussions on corrections to the text of the regulation based on a proposal to be submitted by experts from France and Germany at its next session. The secretariat reminded GRSG on the strict understanding of corrigenda by the Office for Legal Affairs and invited the experts considering a supplement in case of substantive changes to the text.

Proposal to align requirements for conventional mirrors and camera-monitor systems. In the latest revision (where mirror and CMS provisions were split into separate sections), the phrase “including those parts remaining attached to the
support after the test provided for in paragraph 6.3.2. below” was omitted from the CMS section.

34. The expert of Germany introduced GRSG-117-41 and GRSG-117-42 proposing corrections to the text of UN Regulation No. 46. Experts from France and Netherlands engaged in discussion on different needs for corrections in the text of the regulation. GRSG agreed to resume discussions on corrections to the text of the regulation based on a proposal to be submitted by experts from France and Germany at its next session. The secretariat reminded GRSG on the strict understanding of corrigenda by the Office for Legal Affairs and invited the experts considering a supplement in case of substantive changes to the text.

29. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 on possibility for a temporary modified view and based on GRSG-117-40 highlighted the difference between the relevant field of view and the required field of view. The expert from France, in principle, welcomed the proposal however raised questions on conditions for activation or de-activation of temporary modified view by the driver and requested a better definition of ‘temporary manoeuvre’. The expert from the United Kingdom engaged in the discussion by supporting concerns raised by his French colleague and adding that the modified view could end up with new blind spot areas.

30. Following detailed technical discussions and adjustment of language used, GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 as amended by reproduced GRSG-117-40-Rev.3. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 7 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 46 for consideration at their March 2020 sessions.

29. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 on possibility for a temporary modified view and based on GRSG-117-40 highlighted the difference between the relevant field of view and the required field of view. The expert from France, in principle, welcomed the proposal however raised questions on conditions for activation or de-activation of temporary modified view by the driver and requested a better definition of ‘temporary manoeuvre’. The expert from the United Kingdom engaged in the discussion by supporting concerns raised by his French colleague and adding that the modified view could end up with new blind spot areas.

30. Following detailed technical discussions and adjustment of language used, GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 as amended by reproduced GRSG-117-40-Rev.3. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 7 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 46 for consideration at their March 2020 sessions.

29. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 on possibility for a temporary modified view and based on GRSG-117-40 highlighted the difference between the relevant field of view and the required field of view. The expert from France, in principle, welcomed the proposal however raised questions on conditions for activation or de-activation of temporary modified view by the driver and requested a better definition of ‘temporary manoeuvre’. The expert from the United Kingdom engaged in the discussion by supporting concerns raised by his French colleague and adding that the modified view could end up with new blind spot areas.

30. Following detailed technical discussions and adjustment of language used, GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 as amended by reproduced GRSG-117-40-Rev.3. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 7 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 46 for consideration at their March 2020 sessions.

29. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 on possibility for a temporary modified view and based on GRSG-117-40 highlighted the difference between the relevant field of view and the required field of view. The expert from France, in principle, welcomed the proposal however raised questions on conditions for activation or de-activation of temporary modified view by the driver and requested a better definition of ‘temporary manoeuvre’. The expert from the United Kingdom engaged in the discussion by supporting concerns raised by his French colleague and adding that the modified view could end up with new blind spot areas.

30. Following detailed technical discussions and adjustment of language used, GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/27 as amended by reproduced GRSG-117-40-Rev.3. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 7 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 46 for consideration at their March 2020 sessions.

This document is also available in German.

16. The experts from France and Germany presented an updated proposal for amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 48 and 148, which introduce conditions for the use of logos of the vehicle or body manufacturer inside the illuminating surface of a signalling lamp (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/28 and GRE-82-32). The expert from CLEPA proposed adding the logo of the lamp manufacturer (GRE-82-20). The expert from OICA suggested a modified definition of “manufacturer logo” (GRE-82-36).

17. Several experts expressed their preference to completely prohibit the use of logos inside the lamps on safety concerns, while some others pointed out that road safety would not be compromised, as the lamps should meet all requirements in the respective UN Regulations. Some experts wondered whether the use of letters inside the logos was allowed. Following an in-depth discussion, GRE agreed that the “manufacturer logo” definition would need further clarification and invited the experts from France and Germany to submit a revised proposal for consideration at the next session. Pending the outcome of this discussion, GRE invited type approval authorities to refrain from granting type approvals to signalling lamps with logos inside the illuminating surface.

This proposal base on document GRE/2019/20 and is an alternative to document GRE/2019/14.
Currently, UN Regulation No. 48 does not allow the manual switching off all lighting devices under all circumstances. This feature is necessary for armed services and forces responsible for maintaining public order and is requested by them. It is limited only to vehicles intended for use by the armed services and forces responsible for maintaining public order. This proposal aims to reduce disadvantages and can increase safety.

26. The expert from Germany tabled a proposal that allows the manual switch-off of all lighting devices in vehicles used by authorities responsible for maintaining public order (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2019/14 and GRE-82-41-Rev.1). Some experts were of the view that such a derogation should be addressed in the framework of national or regional rather than international law. Several experts indicated practical difficulties in identifying those vehicles when at the stage of type approval and manufacturing. GRE agreed to revert to the issue at the next session.

41. The Secretary of the Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) reported on the outcome of its session in September 2019. WP.1 had extensively discussed the amendments and decided to resume at the next session with the points (i), (j), (r), (t), 34, 35 and 36 in ECE/TRANS/WP.1/2017/1/Rev.1, and take into account Informal document No. 8 (March 2019), ECE/TRANS/WP.1/2019/10 (submitted by Slovakia) and ECE/TRANS/WP.1/2019/11 (submitted by Laser Europe).

42. He suggested that GRE should appoint a resource person who could participate in WP.1 sessions and would reply to technical questions from WP.1 participants. He also briefed GRE on the WP.1 activity on highly and fully automated vehicles. The Chair recalled the GRE and WP.29 discussions on the signalling requirements for automated/autonomous vehicles (see para. 53 below) and sought the opinion of WP.1 on this matter. To this end, the WP.1 Secretary invited an expert from a contracting party to the Convention on Road Traffic (Vienna, 1968) to submit to the next session of WP.1 in March 2020, a short informal document on the pros and cons of different positions. The expert from Germany volunteered to prepare the paper.

This document proposes a draft text for a resolution on “activities other than those related to driving” that the driver of a vehicle equipped with an automated driving system could undertake when the automated driving system is engaged.