42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

45. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/10, proposing to include provisions applicable for Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) in UN Regulation No. 79. GRRF welcomed the proposal, noting that some vehicles were already delivered with this feature. GRRF agreed to insert provisions on RCM in UN Regulation No. 79. The proposal received a number of comments from Contracting Parties and from OICA, as reflected in GRRF-86-15.

46. The expert from UK volunteered to submit a revised proposal for consideration at the September 2018 session of GRRF and invited interested experts to contribute to this work stream.

52. The expert from UK mentioned the work done on provisions for Remote Controlled Manoeuvring (RCM) as in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/3 amended by GRVA-01-26. He informed GRVA that he informally consulted GRVA experts and that further work could be needed. GRVA agreed with his proposal to resume consideration of this proposal or consider a revised consolidated proposal at the January 2019 session of GRVA.

56. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/8 and
GRVA-02-08 amending it, proposing to insert technical prescriptions on Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) which were systems that were already installed on vehicles without being regulated to date. The expert from Germany did not support the proposal and suggested to insert one sentence in the Regulation that would forbid RCM in vehicles of category M1 and N1. The expert from OICA explained that such system already existed for vehicles of category M1G and that there would be future applications such as reverse assistant for trailers that would bring quantifiable benefits in terms of safety. Following comments and input from the experts from Australia, France and Sweden, the Chair asked GRVA whether the status quo would be acceptable, i.e. do Contracting Parties accept that such systems are permitted and do not require recognition by Regulation. The expert from the Russian Federation summed-up the discussion and suggested to adopt the proposal. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (Annex VII). GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2019 session. GRVA unanimously agreed with this delayed submission until the November 2019, so that the dissent from the experts from Germany and the Netherlands could be considered again during the September 2019 session of GRVA, in view of reaching a broader consensus.

57. The GRRF chair mentioned that document ECE/TRANS/WP29/2018/35 would still contain square brackets. WP.29 agreed to remove the square brackets and to agree on transitional provision dates (as reflected in para. 92).

92. In ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/35, paragraphs 2.1.4., amend to read:

93. WP.29 noted the concern raised by the representative of OICA on the selection of an early date of application for the transitional provisions in paragraphs 12.2.3. and 12.2.4., which could create serious development difficulties, due to the introduction of new requirements compared to the very recently adopted 02 series of amendments, while vehicles are currently under development for the latter.

29. The expert from OICA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/2, as amended by GRVA-01-22 introducing provisions for ACSF systems of Category C with a so called 2-steps human machine interface for the lane change activation. The expert from France supported the proposal. The expert from the European Commission welcomed this proposal. The proposal received some comments from the experts from Germany, Korea, Netherlands, and Sweden namely on the deletion of some provisions, the proposed amendment to extend the time by which a lane change manoeuvre shall begin and the proposed Annex 9. GRVA invited interested experts to prepare a revised proposal addressing the comments received.

37. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-02-24 (based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/2), proposing to insert in the Regulation some provisions for ACSF of Category C with a two-step Human Machine Interface (HMI) approach. The expert from the Netherlands disagreed with the proposed seven seconds as the time during which the second deliberate action by the driver should take place while this time for the one-step HMI approach (latest time by which an automatic initiation should occur), already in force, is limited to five seconds. The expert from France supported the proposal and showed flexibility on the seven seconds value to reach consensus among CPs. The expert from Germany asked whether this proposal would allow one single vehicle to be equipped with both a one-step HMI and a two-step HMI and how the combination of both would work. GRVA invited OICA to consider the issues raised by the experts and requested the secretariat to distribute the proposal with an official symbol for review at its September 2019 session.

30. The expert from ETRTO introduced draft amendments to UN Regulation No. 117 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/5 and GRB-68-12). The proposal received comments from the experts of Germany, Spain, United States of America and BIPAVER. The Chair invited other experts to transmit their remarks to ETRTO with a view to submitting a revised consolidated proposal to the next session.

14. The expert from ETRTO recalled the postponed proposal for amendments (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/5 and GRB-68-12) and presented complementary modifications (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRBP/2019/19, GRBP-70-21-Rev.2). Various experts posed clarifying questions, in particular, on the use of terms “repeatability” and “reproducibility”. Following an in-depth discussion, GRBP adopted the proposals, as amended by Annex III, and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions as a draft Supplement 11 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 117.

20. The expert from Poland introduced GRRF-86-34 proposing a clarification of item 9.3 in Annex 1 to UN Regulation No. 55. GRRF requested the secretariat to distribute this proposal with an official symbol at its September 2018 session.

16. The Chair of the IWG on UN Regulation No. 55 introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2014/28 (based on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2014/14) and deleting references to the standard ISO 7641/1‑2012 as contained in the original proposal.

18. GRRF adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2014/28 and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2015 sessions as draft Supplement 4 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 55.

19. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRRF-86-03 proposing a Corrigendum to UN Regulation No. 55. GRRF invited the expert from CLEPA to submit a revised proposal for consideration at the September 2018 session.

23. The expert from Spain recalled the purpose of the Special Interest Group of Experts on UN Regulation No. 90 and presented the status report of the group (GRRF-86-39).

24. The expert mentioned that UN Regulation No. 90 was not aligned with corresponding provisions in UN Regulation No. 78 and proposed amendments to Annex 7 (GRRF-86-41). GRRF requested the secretariat to keep this document on the agenda for its September 2018 session.

29. The expert from ETRTO presented GRRF-86-04, introducing GRRF-86-05, and announcing the intention of ETRTO to propose provisions for extended mobility tyres in UN Regulations Nos. 30 and 64, on the basis of initial work done by the tyre industry at the International Standardization Organization (ISO). GRRF noted the reference to ISO documentation and invited the expert from ETRTO to prepare a more detailed proposal for consideration at the next GRRF session, both concerning UN Regulations Nos. 30 and 64.

17. GRB resumed consideration of the ETRTO proposals for amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 30 and 64 which introduce provisions on extended mobility tyres (EMT) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/7 and GRB-68-14). In reply to the questions raised at the previous session, the expert of ETRTO presented GRB-69-12. GRB adopted the proposals and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions as a draft Supplement 21 to the 02 series of amendments UN Regulation No. 30 and a draft Supplement 1 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 64.

17. GRB resumed consideration of the ETRTO proposals for amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 30 and 64 which introduce provisions on extended mobility tyres (EMT) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/7 and GRB-68-14). In reply to the questions raised at the previous session, the expert of ETRTO presented GRB-69-12. GRB adopted the proposals and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions as a draft Supplement 21 to the 02 series of amendments UN Regulation No. 30 and a draft Supplement 1 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 64.

18. The expert from Italy introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/15 with provisions aimed at aligning the text of UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 especially on tri-cycles Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS), Emergency Stop Signal and means to disable the ABS function (‘ABS switch’), prepared in collaboration with the expert from IMMA. The expert from Canada answered to the proposal (GRRF-84-10). The expert from Italy presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2017/16 with the report on the activities related to the amendment proposal to UN GTR No.3. The expert from India informed GRRF about regulatory activities in his Country on the obligation to install ABS on new motorcycle with an engine capacity of 125 cm3 and more.

19. GRRF recommended the expert from Italy to keep the draft amendment to GTR No. 3 as harmonized as possible with UN Regulation No. 78 especially with regard to the ABS switch to avoid subsequent amendments to UN Regulation No. 78.

20. The expert from Italy agreed to submit a revised proposal for the February 2018 session of GRRF.

21. The expert from Italy withdrew GRRF-86-10 and GRRF-86-11.

54. The expert from Italy introduced GRVA-02-07 proposing amendments to the original proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/9) for amendments to UN GTR No. 3 for harmonization of the GTR and UN Regulation No. 78. The proposal received some comments. The expert from the Netherlands asked why the proposal contained technical requirements that differed from those in UN Regulation No. 78. The expert from Canada highlighted some formulations that could be better defined to facilitate the implementation of the UN GTR into Self Certification regulations.

62. The expert from Italy introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/23, proposing amendments to UN GTR No. 3 as per the mandate adopted by A.C.3 (ECE/TRANS/WP29/AC.3/47). He also introduced GRVA-04-23 including amendments addressing comments received on the proposal. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended with the below correction and requested the secretariat to submit it to the Executive Committee AC.3 for consideration at vote at its March 2020 session.

In ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/23, para 10, for 5.1.17, read 3.1.17.

63. The expert from Italy also introduced GRVA-04-24, containing the technical report associated to the proposal. GRVA adopted it and requested the secretariat to submit it to the Executive Committee AC.3 for consideration at vote at its March 2020 session.

64. The expert from IMMA stated his satisfaction concerning the adoption of the amendment proposal to UN GTR No. 3. He mentioned that the outcome of this work was not fully harmonized, especially concerning Electromagnetic Compatibility and defeat device requirements.

36. The expert from EC, Co-Chair of the IWG on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) presented GRVA-01-10 with a status report on the activities of the group on the drafting of a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to M1 and N1 vehicles as reproduced in GRVA-01-02. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB) systems and highlighted the open issues discussed by the group on provision for manual AEB deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

37. The expert from UK, supported by the expert from the Netherlands, questioned the proposed value of the maximum differential test speed (42 km/h) that targets collision avoidance. He suggested 50 km/h instead of 42 km/h. He expressed doubts that a staged approach for vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-bicycle AEB systems would be appropriate. The expert from OICA justified the value of the maximum differential speed for collision avoidance noting that Euro NCAP was requesting less than this value and justified the staged requirements especially for vehicle-to-bicycle AEBS systems because of the ongoing development process of such systems.

38. The expert from Canada suggested to specify performance-based requirements for all aspects to be tested, including the adhesion criteria of the track surface used for testing. GRVA noted the existing relevant precedent in UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 and the corresponding value proposed in the draft.

39. The expert from Italy mentioned the risk related to false positive AEB system activation and the need of a manual AEBS deactivation function. The experts from Germany and UK expressed support for provisions on automatic deactivation function in limited cases. They disagreed with the proposal for provisions allowing the manual deactivation of AEB systems.

40. The Chair highlighted the provisions related to the AEBS performance outside of the testing conditions.

40. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the IWG on AEBS presented GRVA-02-28 with a status report on the activities of the group drafting a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to vehicles of category M1 and N1 and introduced the corresponding proposal in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/5. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians AEBS. He mentioned that some provisions were contained in square brackets indicating that decisions by GRVA were needed, e.g. the provisions for manual AEBS deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

41. GRVA discussed provisions allowing for the manual deactivation of an AEBS. The expert from Australia informed that according to their survey, 93 per cent of respondents answered that they never deactivated their AEBS. GRVA, taking into account the risks in case of a misalignment of sensors, agreed to include provisions allowing manual deactivation on the basis that the provisions in the proposal ensured that the process required more than one action to complete.

42. GRVA reviewed the proposal and agreed with the text as reproduced in GRVA-02-39-Corr.1.

43. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit the proposal as amended in para. 42 as draft UN Regulation on Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles for consideration and vote by WP.29 and the Administrative Committee AC.1 at their June 2019 sessions.

46. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-02-22, proposing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/5. GRVA recommended that the proposal be reviewed by the IWG on AEBS and that this proposal would either be included in the submission of the IWG for the September 2019 session or be submitted as a separate proposal for review in September 2019, if no consensus would be reached on this proposal by the IWG on AEBS.

36. The expert from EC, Co-Chair of the IWG on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) presented GRVA-01-10 with a status report on the activities of the group on the drafting of a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to M1 and N1 vehicles as reproduced in GRVA-01-02. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB) systems and highlighted the open issues discussed by the group on provision for manual AEB deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

37. The expert from UK, supported by the expert from the Netherlands, questioned the proposed value of the maximum differential test speed (42 km/h) that targets collision avoidance. He suggested 50 km/h instead of 42 km/h. He expressed doubts that a staged approach for vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-bicycle AEB systems would be appropriate. The expert from OICA justified the value of the maximum differential speed for collision avoidance noting that Euro NCAP was requesting less than this value and justified the staged requirements especially for vehicle-to-bicycle AEBS systems because of the ongoing development process of such systems.

38. The expert from Canada suggested to specify performance-based requirements for all aspects to be tested, including the adhesion criteria of the track surface used for testing. GRVA noted the existing relevant precedent in UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 and the corresponding value proposed in the draft.

39. The expert from Italy mentioned the risk related to false positive AEB system activation and the need of a manual AEBS deactivation function. The experts from Germany and UK expressed support for provisions on automatic deactivation function in limited cases. They disagreed with the proposal for provisions allowing the manual deactivation of AEB systems.

40. The Chair highlighted the provisions related to the AEBS performance outside of the testing conditions.

26. The expert from Italy presented GRRF-80-31, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2014/23/Rev.2 and GRRF-80-37 and proposing requirements for the approval of replacement brake discs for L‑category vehicles, taking into consideration the latest technologies available in the market as well as comments received during the previous session of GRRF. GRRF adopted the proposal with the following amendments:

(a) the proposed transitional provisions (paras 12.1 to 12.6) shall be deleted;
(b) The note under Table A15/2.9 shall read: “There are no groups…”

27. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2015/22 proposing to enable the approval according to Regulation No. 90 of test groups instead of single variants. GRRF adopted the proposal with an amendment below:

In paragraph 4.2.3.(b), for “approval document” read “communication document”

28. GRRF adopted the proposal as amended and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2016 sessions, as Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 90.

25. The expert from CLEPA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/22 based on GRRF-80-12 proposing amendments to provisions defined for equivalent brake discs and drums and a relaxation of the requirement on the thickness variation for interchangeable replacement discs or drums. The expert presented a revised proposal GRRF-81-04 limiting the thickness variation requirement modification to vehicles of category O2, O3, N3 and M3. The expert from Italy expressed his concern with the proposed requirement relaxation. After discussion, GRRF agreed on the revised document GRRF-81-04-Rev.1. GRRF adopted the proposal amended by Annex IV to the report and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2016 sessions, as Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 90.

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.

58. The secretariat briefly informed GRVA on the activities of the IWG on International Whole Vehicle Type Approval and especially the discussion on the new format of approval numbers specified in Schedule 4 of the 1958 Agreement. The expert from the Russian Federation tabled a proposal aimed at addressing this issue for UN Regulation No. 90 (GRVA-01-15). The expert from CLEPA tabled an alternative proposal (GRVA-01-41). GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its next session.

62. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/11 aimed at addressing the issue raised in WP.29-176-19. The expert from CLEPA expressed reservations because customs could be confused by the introduction of differences between the Approval Number and the Approval Code proposed in this document. The expert from Spain mentioned that UN Regulation No. 90 was used in various countries not being Contracting Party to the 1958 Agreement and that therefore the issue raised concerning customs could be valid. The expert from Spain stated that Transitional Provisions could be added to the document. The expert from CLEPA stated the need to first test the markets with this new approach and agreed to undertake a study. The expert from the Russian Federation agreed to submit a revised proposal for consideration at the September 2019 session of GRVA.

40. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/20, proposing amendments to Annex 6. He referred to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/4 and reported on the progress made since then. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-04-29 with amendment proposals to the official document. GRVA discussed and then adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/20, amended by Annex V, as a draft supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

71. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-05-39-Rev.1 introducing GRVA-05-38-Rev.1 with a revised proposal for a new endurance braking testing procedure (proposed Type IV test) for Battery Electric and Hybrid Electric heavy Vehicles (including vehicle of Category M3 and N3) not coping with the existing Type II-A test when the traction battery is fully charged.

72. GRVA requested the secretariat to distribute the OICA proposal with an official symbol at it September 2020 session.

42. The expert from Germany referred to UN Regulation No. 131 and presented GRVA-01-30 (and GRVA-01-31 with a calculation tool), introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/4 which addressed the issues presented during the last two sessions of GRRF concerning the performance of AEBS for heavy vehicles. He explained that this revised proposal was more far reaching than the previous one, not only addressing the manual deactivation switch provisions but also other provisions that would contribute to make AEBS requirements for heavy vehicles corresponding to state of the art vehicle technologies, by changing “the structure” of the Regulation, “the vehicle target” requirements, the “overriding requirements” and the “warning strategy”. He concluded his presentation stating that these changes would help to minimize the false positive activation risks mentioned by the experts from Nordic countries as initial reaction on the German proposals at the last sessions of GRRF.

43. The experts from OICA presented (GRVA-01-21) comments on ECE/TRANS/
WP.29/GRVA/2018/4. The experts from Sweden and Japan expressed reservations on the proposal as they were not in the position at this stage to assess the implications of such far reaching changes on the performance of AEBS systems for heavy vehicles. The experts from Australia, Japan, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden agreed to work with the expert from Germany to review the proposal until the next session of GRVA. The experts agreed to work on this item via virtual meetings and physical meetings around the meetings of the IWG on AEBS.

29. The expert from OICA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/2, as amended by GRVA-01-22 introducing provisions for ACSF systems of Category C with a so called 2-steps human machine interface for the lane change activation. The expert from France supported the proposal. The expert from the European Commission welcomed this proposal. The proposal received some comments from the experts from Germany, Korea, Netherlands, and Sweden namely on the deletion of some provisions, the proposed amendment to extend the time by which a lane change manoeuvre shall begin and the proposed Annex 9. GRVA invited interested experts to prepare a revised proposal addressing the comments received.

52. The expert from UK mentioned the work done on provisions for Remote Controlled Manoeuvring (RCM) as in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/3 amended by GRVA-01-26. He informed GRVA that he informally consulted GRVA experts and that further work could be needed. GRVA agreed with his proposal to resume consideration of this proposal or consider a revised consolidated proposal at the January 2019 session of GRVA.

48. The expert from Germany presented GRRF-86-13 tabled by the experts from Germany and from the Republic of Korea with a proposal for amendments to the ACSF testing provisions in Annex 8 of UN Regulation No. 79, based on the first experience gathered since the 02 series of amendments of UN Regulation No. 79 entered into force. GRRF welcomed the proposal and provided comments. The experts from Germany and the Republic of Korea volunteered to prepare a revised proposal aimed to avoid prescriptive requirements on the measurement instruments and providing more detailed justification e.g. on the sample rate and the filtering of the lateral acceleration data.

35. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/9 based on GRRF-86-13 proposing clarifications of the Annex 8 testing provisions. The proposal received some comments from Japan, France, Germany and OICA. The expert from France agreed with the suggestion of GRVA to submit a revised proposal with more data for consideration at the September 2019 session. The experts from Japan, Germany and OICA were invited to share with GRVA their test data, supporting their positions.

36. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/10, proposing clarifications to the tall-tell requirements for Corrective Steering Function (CSF), Emergency steering Function (ESF) and ACSF. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended and reproduced in Annex III. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit Annex III to the report as draft Supplement 1 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee of the 1958 Agreement (AC. 1) for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

22. The expert from IMMA introduced GRRF-86-35 with provisions allowing additional conditions for the activation of the stop lamp. The proposal received some comments. GRRF noted that some conditions were related to regenerative braking and, therefore, GRRF recommended to explore corresponding provisions in UN Regulations Nos. 13 and 13-H on the braking performance of regenerative braking and to complement the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 78 with corresponding provision, not only addressing brake light activation requirements. GRRF noted the potential need to clarify the need of the word “instantaneous” in para. 5.1.16. The expert from IMMA agreed to submit a revised proposal for the September 2018 session of GRRF.

55. The expert from IMMA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/7, introducing revised provisions on the stop lamps activation under more conditions than the application of the service brake only (e.g. regenerative braking). GRVA adopted the proposal as amended and reproduced in Annex VI to the report. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit Annex VI to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 1 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 78 for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

58. The secretariat briefly informed GRVA on the activities of the IWG on International Whole Vehicle Type Approval and especially the discussion on the new format of approval numbers specified in Schedule 4 of the 1958 Agreement. The expert from the Russian Federation tabled a proposal aimed at addressing this issue for UN Regulation No. 90 (GRVA-01-15). The expert from CLEPA tabled an alternative proposal (GRVA-01-41). GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its next session.

62. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/11 aimed at addressing the issue raised in WP.29-176-19. The expert from CLEPA expressed reservations because customs could be confused by the introduction of differences between the Approval Number and the Approval Code proposed in this document. The expert from Spain mentioned that UN Regulation No. 90 was used in various countries not being Contracting Party to the 1958 Agreement and that therefore the issue raised concerning customs could be valid. The expert from Spain stated that Transitional Provisions could be added to the document. The expert from CLEPA stated the need to first test the markets with this new approach and agreed to undertake a study. The expert from the Russian Federation agreed to submit a revised proposal for consideration at the September 2019 session of GRVA.

17. Due to lack of time, GRVA did not consider ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/13, describing the principles of the “Three-Pillar Approach”, proposed by the experts from OICA (see GRVA-02-09 and GRVA-02-27).

85. The representative of the United Kingdom, Co-Chair of the IWG on Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) presented to the World Forum for consideration the proposal titled “Guideline on cyber security and data protection” (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/46), for amendment to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3).

86. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/46 without objections or abstentions and requested the secretariat to remove the word draft from the title and to include it as an annex in the R.E.3.

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.

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.

27. GRVA noted that the presentation of GRVA-02-03 also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3, that the proposal for a test phase would also apply to the software updates work stream. The expert from Japan also supported the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3. He indicated Japan’s support for the earliest adoption (during this session), since the issue was important and a UN Regulation was needed for the improvement of vehicle safety.

28. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

29. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of Category L from the scope of the document.

30. The expert from ITU stated that regulating communication would require specific expertise and that the precedent at the Working Party on General Safety provisions with the UN Regulation No. 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems) ignored communication aspects and durability provisions. He raised the question whether a vehicle equipped with safety systems based on communication would still be roadworthy in case the communication would no longer function e.g. when the communication system would be obsolete. GRVA agreed that the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates was a good example demonstrating that WP.29 was able to attract the required experts with the right expertise and to make very quick progress on such strategic issues. GRVA agreed about the need to discuss the roadworthiness of vehicles in case of the vehicle communication unit obsolescence would impact the well performing of safety systems.

31. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3 and GRVA-01-18 on the agenda of the next GRVA session.

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.

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.

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.

27. GRVA noted that the presentation of GRVA-02-03 also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3, that the proposal for a test phase would also apply to the software updates work stream. The expert from Japan also supported the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3. He indicated Japan’s support for the earliest adoption (during this session), since the issue was important and a UN Regulation was needed for the improvement of vehicle safety.

28. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

29. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of Category L from the scope of the document.

30. The expert from ITU stated that regulating communication would require specific expertise and that the precedent at the Working Party on General Safety provisions with the UN Regulation No. 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems) ignored communication aspects and durability provisions. He raised the question whether a vehicle equipped with safety systems based on communication would still be roadworthy in case the communication would no longer function e.g. when the communication system would be obsolete. GRVA agreed that the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates was a good example demonstrating that WP.29 was able to attract the required experts with the right expertise and to make very quick progress on such strategic issues. GRVA agreed about the need to discuss the roadworthiness of vehicles in case of the vehicle communication unit obsolescence would impact the well performing of safety systems.

31. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3 and GRVA-01-18 on the agenda of the next GRVA session.

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.

36. The expert from EC, Co-Chair of the IWG on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) presented GRVA-01-10 with a status report on the activities of the group on the drafting of a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to M1 and N1 vehicles as reproduced in GRVA-01-02. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB) systems and highlighted the open issues discussed by the group on provision for manual AEB deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

37. The expert from UK, supported by the expert from the Netherlands, questioned the proposed value of the maximum differential test speed (42 km/h) that targets collision avoidance. He suggested 50 km/h instead of 42 km/h. He expressed doubts that a staged approach for vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-bicycle AEB systems would be appropriate. The expert from OICA justified the value of the maximum differential speed for collision avoidance noting that Euro NCAP was requesting less than this value and justified the staged requirements especially for vehicle-to-bicycle AEBS systems because of the ongoing development process of such systems.

38. The expert from Canada suggested to specify performance-based requirements for all aspects to be tested, including the adhesion criteria of the track surface used for testing. GRVA noted the existing relevant precedent in UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78 and the corresponding value proposed in the draft.

39. The expert from Italy mentioned the risk related to false positive AEB system activation and the need of a manual AEBS deactivation function. The experts from Germany and UK expressed support for provisions on automatic deactivation function in limited cases. They disagreed with the proposal for provisions allowing the manual deactivation of AEB systems.

40. The Chair highlighted the provisions related to the AEBS performance outside of the testing conditions.

40. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the IWG on AEBS presented GRVA-02-28 with a status report on the activities of the group drafting a new UN Regulation with provisions applicable to vehicles of category M1 and N1 and introduced the corresponding proposal in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/5. He presented the key performance requirements defined for so called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-pedestrians AEBS. He mentioned that some provisions were contained in square brackets indicating that decisions by GRVA were needed, e.g. the provisions for manual AEBS deactivation and the definition of performance requirements for vehicle-to-bicycle systems.

41. GRVA discussed provisions allowing for the manual deactivation of an AEBS. The expert from Australia informed that according to their survey, 93 per cent of respondents answered that they never deactivated their AEBS. GRVA, taking into account the risks in case of a misalignment of sensors, agreed to include provisions allowing manual deactivation on the basis that the provisions in the proposal ensured that the process required more than one action to complete.

42. GRVA reviewed the proposal and agreed with the text as reproduced in GRVA-02-39-Corr.1.

43. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit the proposal as amended in para. 42 as draft UN Regulation on Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles for consideration and vote by WP.29 and the Administrative Committee AC.1 at their June 2019 sessions.

46. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-02-22, proposing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/5. GRVA recommended that the proposal be reviewed by the IWG on AEBS and that this proposal would either be included in the submission of the IWG for the September 2019 session or be submitted as a separate proposal for review in September 2019, if no consensus would be reached on this proposal by the IWG on AEBS.

93. The World Forum considered the proposal for a new UN Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/61) under agenda item 4.12.1.

94. The representative of OICA stated that they did not fully support the proposal. The Chair of GRVA acknowledged the position of the representative from OICA and proposed to review amendment proposals at the group’s upcoming sessions.

95. The representative of Japan thanked GRVA experts involved in the development of the draft new UN Regulation on AEBS and and expressed his strong expectation that the new UN Regulation on AEBS would be adopted, taking into consideration its recent national situation where serious traffic accidents caused by elderly drivers occur frequently. He added that Japan had started to consider mandating the fitting of AEBS at an appropriate timing.

96. The World Forum considered the proposal and recommended its submission to AC.1 for voting.

83. The World Forum considered the draft amendments under agenda items 4.8.1 to 4.8.9 and recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting, subject to the following corrections:

In ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/53, page 2: for “Supplement 15” read “Supplement 16”,
In ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/59/Add.1, correct to read:
Insert the missing amendment to former paragraph 3.2.10, to read:

84. WP.29 referred informal documents WP.29-175-04 and WP.29-175-05 to the appropriate GR for further consideration.

47. The expert from Australia introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/6 addressing the concern expressed during the 175th WP.29 session. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-02-30) and reproduced in Annex IV. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 3 to UN Regulation No. 140 for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

38. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/4 as amended by GRVA-02-19, proposing clarifications to Annex 6 of UN Regulation No. 79. The expert from OICA stated that the amendments proposed would require too much work for the approval of simple braking systems. He added that these amendments would make sense to properly assess Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS). The expert from EC stated that this proposal would be suitable as an amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 but would not be enough for the assessment of ALKS and ADAS. The expert from Spain mentioned that the Type Approval Authority signature provisions’ implications were too far-reaching to be mentioned in a footnote. Spain also observed that the proposal placed too much responsibility on the Type Approval Authority to identify risks and stated that the manufacturer should have that responsibility. The expert from the Netherlands explained that this work initially started for the purpose of ACSF of Category B2 defined in UN Regulation No. 79 and that this explained why the document was titled “Proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79”. The expert from UK volunteered to submit a revised proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, addressing the comment received. GRVA agreed that similar provisions should be specifically developed for ALKS and systems with higher levels of autonomy. The Chair noted the implications that this would have on the delivery of a regulatory provision for ALKS.

40. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/20, proposing amendments to Annex 6. He referred to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/4 and reported on the progress made since then. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-04-29 with amendment proposals to the official document. GRVA discussed and then adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/20, amended by Annex V, as a draft supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

83. The World Forum considered the draft amendments under agenda items 4.8.1 to 4.8.9 and recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting, subject to the following corrections:

In ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/53, page 2: for “Supplement 15” read “Supplement 16”,
In ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/59/Add.1, correct to read:
Insert the missing amendment to former paragraph 3.2.10, to read:

84. WP.29 referred informal documents WP.29-175-04 and WP.29-175-05 to the appropriate GR for further consideration.

50. GRVA considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/12 (together with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/6) under agenda item 7 (a) above. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-02-29) and reproduced in Annex V. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 139 (BAS) for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

58. The secretariat briefly informed GRVA on the activities of the IWG on International Whole Vehicle Type Approval and especially the discussion on the new format of approval numbers specified in Schedule 4 of the 1958 Agreement. The expert from the Russian Federation tabled a proposal aimed at addressing this issue for UN Regulation No. 90 (GRVA-01-15). The expert from CLEPA tabled an alternative proposal (GRVA-01-41). GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its next session.

53. The expert from France introduced GRVA-01-38 (based on GRRF-86-13) addressing the accuracy of interpretation of data produced during system assessment. The expert from Germany welcomed the document and proposed to consider the filtering provisions together with the tolerances. Other experts welcomed the document and agreed to study it until the next session. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its January 2019 session.

48. The expert from Germany presented GRRF-86-13 tabled by the experts from Germany and from the Republic of Korea with a proposal for amendments to the ACSF testing provisions in Annex 8 of UN Regulation No. 79, based on the first experience gathered since the 02 series of amendments of UN Regulation No. 79 entered into force. GRRF welcomed the proposal and provided comments. The experts from Germany and the Republic of Korea volunteered to prepare a revised proposal aimed to avoid prescriptive requirements on the measurement instruments and providing more detailed justification e.g. on the sample rate and the filtering of the lateral acceleration data.

35. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/9 based on GRRF-86-13 proposing clarifications of the Annex 8 testing provisions. The proposal received some comments from Japan, France, Germany and OICA. The expert from France agreed with the suggestion of GRVA to submit a revised proposal with more data for consideration at the September 2019 session. The experts from Japan, Germany and OICA were invited to share with GRVA their test data, supporting their positions.

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.

34. The expert from AVERA presented GRVA-04-53, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/26, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/27 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/28. The presentation contained videos, simulations and fleet data supporting the proposals for amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. The presenters referred to a driving demonstration organized by Tesla in conjunction with GRVA to justify their statements. The proposal received some comments. The contracting parties were not opposed to an evolution of the regulatory provisions based on experience, if the assurance of safety is provided. The expert from AVERE presented revised proposals GRVA-04-41 and GRVA-04-42 aimed at addressing comments received. GRVA noted that some parts of the proposals were also addressed by the proposal submitted by the expert from OICA and agreed to review it.

35. GRVA welcomed the proposal from the expert from the United Kingdom, who volunteered to lead activities on the review of the three AVERE proposals as well as the amendment proposal tabled by OICA in GRVA-04-08 with the aim to prepare a formal proposal until November 2019 in order to meet the deadline for submission of documents for the February 2020 session of GRVA.

51. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-01-42 as a follow-up proposal of
GRRF-86-35 aiming to specify the stop lamp activation criteria for conditions other than only on application of the service brake (e.g. regenerative braking). She explained that the proposal is based on the provisions laid down in UN Regulation No.13-H. The expert of OICA mentioned that they were working on amendments to these criteria. GRVA encouraged the experts from IMMA and OICA to come up with harmonized provisions for UN Regulations Nos. 78 and 13-H and requested the secretariat to distribute the proposal with an official symbol at the next session of GRVA unless an alternative proposal would be submitted by the experts from CLEPA and OICA.

88. The Chair of GRVA presented the amendment proposal in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/46 under agenda item 4.8.1, to amend UN Regulation No. 78. The World Forum recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting. The representative of IMMA recalled the associated GRE proposal for UN Regulation No. 53 that allows the use of different stop lamp activation methods (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2018/29). WP.29 noted that the GRE proposal would be submitted to the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

52. The expert from UK mentioned the work done on provisions for Remote Controlled Manoeuvring (RCM) as in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2018/3 amended by GRVA-01-26. He informed GRVA that he informally consulted GRVA experts and that further work could be needed. GRVA agreed with his proposal to resume consideration of this proposal or consider a revised consolidated proposal at the January 2019 session of GRVA.

56. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/8 and
GRVA-02-08 amending it, proposing to insert technical prescriptions on Remote Control Manoeuvring (RCM) which were systems that were already installed on vehicles without being regulated to date. The expert from Germany did not support the proposal and suggested to insert one sentence in the Regulation that would forbid RCM in vehicles of category M1 and N1. The expert from OICA explained that such system already existed for vehicles of category M1G and that there would be future applications such as reverse assistant for trailers that would bring quantifiable benefits in terms of safety. Following comments and input from the experts from Australia, France and Sweden, the Chair asked GRVA whether the status quo would be acceptable, i.e. do Contracting Parties accept that such systems are permitted and do not require recognition by Regulation. The expert from the Russian Federation summed-up the discussion and suggested to adopt the proposal. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (Annex VII). GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2019 session. GRVA unanimously agreed with this delayed submission until the November 2019, so that the dissent from the experts from Germany and the Netherlands could be considered again during the September 2019 session of GRVA, in view of reaching a broader consensus.

41. The expert from UK introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/21 with provisions on Remote Control Manoeuvring. GRVA recalled that it had already adopted provisions on a majority basis during its second session but had agreed to review them at this session to seek full consensus. The expert introduced GRVA-04-19 with further amendments introducing clarifications.

42. The expert from Germany requested that the session report reflect their statement: “Germany does not see the necessity to regulate this function at UNECE level”. Other experts mentioned that similar provisions could be developed for heavy duty vehicles, too.

43. GRVA agreed to work on similar provisions for other vehicle categories. GRVA also agreed with the amendments to the submitted proposal, reproduced in GRVA-04-19. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit the latest version of the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for review and vote at their November 2019 session.

73. Following the recommendation by the Chair of GRVA, WP.29 deferred adoption of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/114 to its March 2020 session and requested the secretariat to issue it as a revised version incorporating the proposed amendments of WP.29-179-15.