25. The expert from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Co-Chair of the Task Force (TF) on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air issues (CS/OTA), presented the outcome of the TF. He introduced the proposed draft UN Regulation on Cyber Security and Cyber Security Management System (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/2 (withdrawn), ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/3 amended by GRVA-05-05). He mentioned that the revised proposal entailed a recent proposal from Germany and the European Commission (paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3.) in square brackets. He recalled that the TF was planning to deliver further documents accompanying the UN Regulation: a resolution and an interpretation document. He stated that these documents would be further elaborated during the next session of the TF and would distillate the learnings of the test phase in 2019. He informed GRVA that the work on a UN Global Technical Regulation (GTR) had to start.

26. The expert from Japan introduced GRVA-05-20 proposing amendments to paragraph 7.3.8. on the use of cryptographic modules.

27. The expert from the European Commission introduced GRVA-05-22, aimed at clarifying the consequences of the Cyber Security Management System certificate expiration.

28. The expert from Japan introduced GRVA-05-13, expressing strong objections to the proposed paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. establishing prerequisites to the granting of type approvals not in line with the 1958 Agreement and posing a sovereignty risk. The expert from the Russian Federation expressed a similar position and proposed to draft an alternative proposal.

29. The expert from France introduced, GRVA-05-29 proposing an alternative to the proposed paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. as well as amendments proposal for paragraph 7.4 and Annex 5.

30. The expert from the European Commission introduced a compromise proposal (GRVA-05-42) for paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. aimed at addressing the proposals from Japan and France.

31. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-05-33. He stated that the test phase’s general outcome was the confirmation of the applicability of the former draft. He explained their major concerns with the current text. He mentioned their concerns from the industry point of view regarding the major type approval procedure modifications introduced by paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. and the major delay associated risks.

32. He stated that insufficient considerations were given to existing vehicle architectures and requested the introduction of transitional provisions. He also stated that the reporting provisions were excessive. He called on GRVA to consider these concerns and to resolve them on a consensus basis.

33. The expert from FIGIEFA introduced GRVA-05-15, proposing a process flow for national/regional authorities to define objective minimum compliance criteria for the UNECE cybersecurity regulation and a way forward for aftermarket issues.

34. GRVA reviewed in detail GRVA-05-05, having in mind the presentations received (paragraphs 26-32 above).

1. GRVA discussed the scope of the draft Regulation (keeping vehicles of Categories S, R, T, O in square brackets).
2. GRVA discussed GRVA-05-17 and agreed to keep the proposed paragraph 1.4.
3. GRVA agreed that the Regulation and the 1958 Agreement would not be prescribing the mutual recognition, among Contracting Parties, of CSMS (and Software Update Management System) certificates.
4. The expert from Singapore requested clarifications concerning the reporting obligations according to the draft Regulation and wondered whether any reporting would only be shared among the Contracting Parties of the 1958 Agreement. The Co-Chair of the TF explained that the current draft did not impose reporting on existing cyber security threats. He explained that there were already information sharing platforms such as Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center (AutoISAC) in the United States of America. GRVA invited the TF to address the question raised.
5. GRVA resumed discussion on the paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. The expert from the Russian Federation explained that provisions regarding the competencies of Technical Services should be introduced in Schedule 2 to the 1958 Agreement. He added that GRVA-05-42 was not enough and that not trusting Approval Authorities was not a good idea, as it would be time consuming and expensive. He stated that the Database for Exchange of Type Approval documentation (DETA) could have a useful role to play, that the TF could be entitled to learn from type approvals and propose relevant Regulation amendments to GRVA, as necessary, and he proposed the corresponding regulatory wording (GRVA-05-51). The expert from the Republic of Korea stated that these paragraphs could be misused. The expert from CEN proposed an alternative procedure based on the so-called common criteria approach and referred to WP.29-179-28 and WP.29-179-29. The TF Co-Chair noted that the common criteria approach was not complete. The expert from FIA introduced GRVA-05-16. GRVA requested the TF to provide comments on this document. GRVA noted to availability of GRVA-05-02 reproducing ISO/SAE DIS 21434 addressing aspects of the draft Regulation but not the mutual recognition aspect.

35. The Secretary produced a consolidation of the draft Regulation based on the input received during the session (GRVA-05-05/Rev.1). GRVA agreed to use this consolidation as a basis for further work until the next GRVA session.

25. The expert from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Co-Chair of the Task Force (TF) on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air issues (CS/OTA), presented the outcome of the TF. He introduced the proposed draft UN Regulation on Cyber Security and Cyber Security Management System (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/2 (withdrawn), ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/3 amended by GRVA-05-05). He mentioned that the revised proposal entailed a recent proposal from Germany and the European Commission (paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3.) in square brackets. He recalled that the TF was planning to deliver further documents accompanying the UN Regulation: a resolution and an interpretation document. He stated that these documents would be further elaborated during the next session of the TF and would distillate the learnings of the test phase in 2019. He informed GRVA that the work on a UN Global Technical Regulation (GTR) had to start.

26. The expert from Japan introduced GRVA-05-20 proposing amendments to paragraph 7.3.8. on the use of cryptographic modules.

27. The expert from the European Commission introduced GRVA-05-22, aimed at clarifying the consequences of the Cyber Security Management System certificate expiration.

28. The expert from Japan introduced GRVA-05-13, expressing strong objections to the proposed paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. establishing prerequisites to the granting of type approvals not in line with the 1958 Agreement and posing a sovereignty risk. The expert from the Russian Federation expressed a similar position and proposed to draft an alternative proposal.

29. The expert from France introduced, GRVA-05-29 proposing an alternative to the proposed paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. as well as amendments proposal for paragraph 7.4 and Annex 5.

30. The expert from the European Commission introduced a compromise proposal (GRVA-05-42) for paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. aimed at addressing the proposals from Japan and France.

31. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-05-33. He stated that the test phase’s general outcome was the confirmation of the applicability of the former draft. He explained their major concerns with the current text. He mentioned their concerns from the industry point of view regarding the major type approval procedure modifications introduced by paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. and the major delay associated risks.

32. He stated that insufficient considerations were given to existing vehicle architectures and requested the introduction of transitional provisions. He also stated that the reporting provisions were excessive. He called on GRVA to consider these concerns and to resolve them on a consensus basis.

33. The expert from FIGIEFA introduced GRVA-05-15, proposing a process flow for national/regional authorities to define objective minimum compliance criteria for the UNECE cybersecurity regulation and a way forward for aftermarket issues.

34. GRVA reviewed in detail GRVA-05-05, having in mind the presentations received (paragraphs 26-32 above).

1. GRVA discussed the scope of the draft Regulation (keeping vehicles of Categories S, R, T, O in square brackets).
2. GRVA discussed GRVA-05-17 and agreed to keep the proposed paragraph 1.4.
3. GRVA agreed that the Regulation and the 1958 Agreement would not be prescribing the mutual recognition, among Contracting Parties, of CSMS (and Software Update Management System) certificates.
4. The expert from Singapore requested clarifications concerning the reporting obligations according to the draft Regulation and wondered whether any reporting would only be shared among the Contracting Parties of the 1958 Agreement. The Co-Chair of the TF explained that the current draft did not impose reporting on existing cyber security threats. He explained that there were already information sharing platforms such as Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center (AutoISAC) in the United States of America. GRVA invited the TF to address the question raised.
5. GRVA resumed discussion on the paragraphs 5.3.1.-5.3.3. The expert from the Russian Federation explained that provisions regarding the competencies of Technical Services should be introduced in Schedule 2 to the 1958 Agreement. He added that GRVA-05-42 was not enough and that not trusting Approval Authorities was not a good idea, as it would be time consuming and expensive. He stated that the Database for Exchange of Type Approval documentation (DETA) could have a useful role to play, that the TF could be entitled to learn from type approvals and propose relevant Regulation amendments to GRVA, as necessary, and he proposed the corresponding regulatory wording (GRVA-05-51). The expert from the Republic of Korea stated that these paragraphs could be misused. The expert from CEN proposed an alternative procedure based on the so-called common criteria approach and referred to WP.29-179-28 and WP.29-179-29. The TF Co-Chair noted that the common criteria approach was not complete. The expert from FIA introduced GRVA-05-16. GRVA requested the TF to provide comments on this document. GRVA noted to availability of GRVA-05-02 reproducing ISO/SAE DIS 21434 addressing aspects of the draft Regulation but not the mutual recognition aspect.

35. The Secretary produced a consolidation of the draft Regulation based on the input received during the session (GRVA-05-05/Rev.1). GRVA agreed to use this consolidation as a basis for further work until the next GRVA session.

36. The expert from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Co-Chair of the group introduced a proposal for a new UN Regulation on Software Updates and Software Updates Management System (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/4 amended by GRVA-05-04 and reproduced in GRVA-05-06 in a consolidated version). He explained that the group would prepare an interpretation document but that no resolution would be necessary.

37. GRVA adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/4 amended by Annex III of the GRVA session report and requested the secretariat to submit it (without square brackets) to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.

38. The expert from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/5, proposing provisions for software identification numbers. GRVA adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to consult WP.29 on the best way to implement these provisions in existing regulations.

39. GRVA noted the report of the test phase prepared by the TF (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/6) and discussed that the TF on CS/OTA should be renamed IWG on CS/OTA.

36. The expert from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Co-Chair of the group introduced a proposal for a new UN Regulation on Software Updates and Software Updates Management System (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/4 amended by GRVA-05-04 and reproduced in GRVA-05-06 in a consolidated version). He explained that the group would prepare an interpretation document but that no resolution would be necessary.

37. GRVA adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/4 amended by Annex III of the GRVA session report and requested the secretariat to submit it (without square brackets) to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.

38. The expert from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/5, proposing provisions for software identification numbers. GRVA adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to consult WP.29 on the best way to implement these provisions in existing regulations.

39. GRVA noted the report of the test phase prepared by the TF (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/6) and discussed that the TF on CS/OTA should be renamed IWG on CS/OTA.

40. The World Forum adopted the amendments to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3).

36. The expert from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Co-Chair of the group introduced a proposal for a new UN Regulation on Software Updates and Software Updates Management System (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/4 amended by GRVA-05-04 and reproduced in GRVA-05-06 in a consolidated version). He explained that the group would prepare an interpretation document but that no resolution would be necessary.

37. GRVA adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/4 amended by Annex III of the GRVA session report and requested the secretariat to submit it (without square brackets) to WP.29 and the Administrative Committee AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.

38. The expert from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/5, proposing provisions for software identification numbers. GRVA adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to consult WP.29 on the best way to implement these provisions in existing regulations.

39. GRVA noted the report of the test phase prepared by the TF (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/6) and discussed that the TF on CS/OTA should be renamed IWG on CS/OTA.

43. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/7 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/8 (and their respective amendments in GRVA-05-08 and GRVA-05-24), proposing amendments to the ACSF provisions, resuming the discussion started in September 2019. He mentioned the support provided by the expert from the United Kingdom. The experts from Sweden and France provided comments. The experts from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway expressed concerns. The expert from the Netherlands explained that the dynamics problems reported by the manufacturer, member of AVERE, were not due to the provisions in the Regulation but were due to design choices made by this manufacturer. The experts from the European Commission, Korea and United Kingdom and Northern Ireland supported the proposals; the expert from OICA, too. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed alternative proposals (GRVA-05-59) improving the text. The expert from the United Kingdom proposed GRVA-05-57 aimed at addressing the comments expressed by the expert from Sweden. GRVA reviewed all revised proposals produced by the expert from AVERE during the week but remained divided. GRVA agreed to review a revised proposal at the sixth session of GRVA, if time allows.

44. The Chair of GRVA noted the division of GRVA on this matter. He proposed that GRVA performs a general review of the Regulation at its September 2020 session.

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.

39. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/22, amended by GRVA-07-20 with proposed amendments to the provisions on ACSF of Category C. He explained that GRVA-07-20 also incorporated GRVA-07-15, GRVA-07-16 and GRVA-07-19. He withdrew GRVA-07-18. The expert from AVERE supported the OICA proposal. GRVA-07-29 superseded by GRVA-07-32. GRVA had remained divided on such amendments since its fourth session.

44. The expert from AVERE introduced GRVA-07-15. GRVA requested the secretariat to distribute this document with an official symbol at its next session. He also introduced GRVA-07-16 amendment proposals to ACSF of Category C. The experts from the Netherlands and Denmark expressed reservations with the document. GRVA could not reach consensus.

24. The Chair regretted that GRVA did not have enough time for reviewing the proposal submitted by the expert from AVERE and also for the proposal submitted by the expert from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GRVA agreed to consider these two items at its September 2020 session.

47. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/7, a revised amendment proposal to the Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF) of Category B1 provisions in UN Regulation No. 79 (maximum lateral acceleration ay_max). The expert from the Netherlands opposed to the proposal, as it could generate mode confusion and overreliance on the market. The experts from France, the European Commission and UK supported the proposal. The expert from Germany suggested that the proposal is further discussed by a task force. GRVA agreed to keep the proposal on hold.

50. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/10 proposing revised amendments to the ACSF of Category C provisions (time range during which the lane change manoeuvre is initiated) in UN Regulation No. 79. The experts from UK, European Commissions and Japan supported the proposal. The expert from Korea supported the proposal and indicated that a longer time than the one proposed would be preferable. The expert from the Netherlands opposed to the proposal for the same reasons as the one expressed in September 2020. The expert from Norway also opposed to the proposal. He wondered about the possible benefits of stretching the limits. The expert from France supported the proposal but pointed out inconsistencies in the drawing compared to the provisions in the text. The expert from OICA supported the proposal. The expert from AVERE provided answers to the statements and questions raised. The Chair asked if all doubts were cleared. The experts from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Finland still had reservations to the proposal but agreed that it could be further discussed at a task force meeting.

43. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/7 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/8 (and their respective amendments in GRVA-05-08 and GRVA-05-24), proposing amendments to the ACSF provisions, resuming the discussion started in September 2019. He mentioned the support provided by the expert from the United Kingdom. The experts from Sweden and France provided comments. The experts from Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway expressed concerns. The expert from the Netherlands explained that the dynamics problems reported by the manufacturer, member of AVERE, were not due to the provisions in the Regulation but were due to design choices made by this manufacturer. The experts from the European Commission, Korea and United Kingdom and Northern Ireland supported the proposals; the expert from OICA, too. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed alternative proposals (GRVA-05-59) improving the text. The expert from the United Kingdom proposed GRVA-05-57 aimed at addressing the comments expressed by the expert from Sweden. GRVA reviewed all revised proposals produced by the expert from AVERE during the week but remained divided. GRVA agreed to review a revised proposal at the sixth session of GRVA, if time allows.

44. The Chair of GRVA noted the division of GRVA on this matter. He proposed that GRVA performs a general review of the Regulation at its September 2020 session.

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.

45. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/9 as amended by GRVA-05-09. The proposal received comments (GRVA-05-58). The expert from the Netherlands expressed concerns with the proposal as the proposed amendment did not improve safety. GRVA adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex IV of the session report (based on GRVA-05-09-Rev.3) and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as a supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote at their June 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.

36. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-04-03, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/24 proposing an alternative Human Machine Interface (HMI) for ACSF of Category C. The proposal received comments (and GRVA extended the discussion after the end of the official meeting time, without interpretation and without decisions or conclusions).

37. Following further discussion, GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-04-43) and reproduced in Annex IV. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2020 sessions.

46. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/10, proposing amendments to the provisions applicable to ACSF of Category B. GRVA adopted the proposal as draft supplements to the 02 and the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 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.

52. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/11, proposing amendments to the warning provisions applicable to Corrective Steering Function for buses equipped with Lane Warning Departure Warning (LDWS). GRVA adopted the proposal as draft supplements for the 02 and 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 and requested the secretariat to submit it for consideration and vote to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2020 sessions.

44. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-04-31, proposing amendments to the warning requirements for Corrective Steering Functions. GRVA requested the secretariat to distribute the document with an official symbol for consideration at the next session.

61. The expert from OICA, recalling the purpose of GRVA-04-44, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/12 with an amendment proposal of the normalized angle (A) amplitude requirement when performing the “sine with dwell” test procedure described in UN Regulation No. 140. He explained that this amendment would be necessary as the current requirement was not suitable for some future steering equipment which would have significantly lower steering gear ratios.

62. The expert from the Republic of Korea introduced GRVA-05-11 proposing to keep the text of UN Regulation No. 140 and UN GTR No. 8 aligned. The experts from the United States of America and Canada offered comments and agreed to review the proposal.

63. GRVA adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/12 as amended by Annex V of the session report (based on GRVA-05-56) and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft supplement to UN Regulation No. 140 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions. GRVA supported the initiative of the Republic of Korea. GRVA invited the representative of the Republic of Korea to proceed with the submission of an authorization request to amend UN GTR No. 8 at the next session of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3).

55. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/22 with amendments to the testing provisions to accommodate the latest innovations for steering systems. The expert from the Republic of Korea proposed clarifications. GRVA noted that this work stream may impact UN GTR No. 8. GRVA agreed to keep UN Regulation No. 140 and UN GTR No. 8 aligned.

56. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-04-44 drafted together with the secretariat, incorporating the proposal of the expert from the Republic of Korea and also identifying the corresponding paragraphs in UN GTR No. 8. The expert from Korea supported the document and announced that his country can volunteer to sponsor an amendment to UN GTR No. 8. GRVA requested the secretariat to distribute this document with an official symbol at its next session.

67. The expert from the Russian Federation, recalling previous discussions on this item at the last GRVA session, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/13, proposing clarifications regarding the application of test procedures in Annex 7 to UN Regulation No. 13. GRVA adopted this proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as supplement to the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.

59. The expert from the Russian Federation presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/18, proposing clarifications on Annex 7 of UN Regulation No. 13. The expert from OICA declared that the clarification was not necessary, as it would have no impact on the test results. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed a compromise including transitional provisions (GRVA-04-50). The expert from the Czech Republic supported the proposal and mentioned that a similar clarification should be provided for similar provisions in Part C of Annex 7. GRVA took note of a notice issued by the European Type Approval Authorities Meeting on this matter, supporting the Russian proposal. GRVA agreed to consider this matter at its next session.

68. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/14/Rev.1, proposing corrections to the Russian version of UN Regulation No. 13. GRVA adopted this proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it as Corrigendum (Russian only) to the 11 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 13 to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.

74. The expert from IMMA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/15, proposing to align UN Regulation No. 78 (Motorcycle braking) with the last amendment to UN GTR No. 3 adopted by GRVA at its September 2019 session.

75. GRVA adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it (without square brackets) to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft 05 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 78 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.

65. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-04-05 and GRVA-04-06, analysing discrepancies between UN GTR No. 3 and UN Regulation No. 78. GRVA invited the expert from IMMA to submit an amendment proposal to UN Regulation No. 78 for review at the next session.

53. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-05-63, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/16 inserting provisions for a new category of Emergency Steering Function (ESF) aimed to allow for the type approval of emergency assistance systems (e.g. in case of driver’s health problem). GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this proposal at its September 2020 session.

46. The expert from OICA recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/16 and presented GRVA-07-22, inserting provisions in the Regulation for the approval of Risk Mitigation Function. He recalled that existing systems could no longer be approved according to the 03 series of amendments. GRVA agreed to resume discussion on this item and requested the secretariat to insert a corresponding agenda item in the provisional agenda for the next GRVA session.

71. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/13. He recalled that Risk Mitigation Functions related provisions would need to be adopted because safety systems that were type-approved in the past could no longer being able to receive a type approval under the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. He explained that the proposed lane change related provisions were still under discussion and could be deleted as an interim solution, if deemed necessary by GRVA.

72. The expert from Japan stated than Risk Mitigation Functions were important systems for the sake of safety, he added that Japan contributed to the proposal, that Japan supported it as an interim solution and that Japan would contribute to further activities, as necessary.

73. The expert from France expressed support for the working document. He stated that he would need more time to study the informal document amending it, as it had been recently submitted. He proposed to finalize the discussion at the next session.

74. The expert from Germany inquired whether systems already type-approved under the 02 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 were including lane changing features.

75. The expert from OICA explained that existing systems could already perform a lane change. He recalled that the date B (as defined in the guidelines for transitional provisions in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1044/Rev.2) of the transitional provisions for the 03 series was 1 September 2021 and that, therefore, the adoption should not be delayed.

76. The expert from CLEPA confirmed this information.

77. The expert from UK stated the benefits of such functions but also the lack of clarity on the HMI robustness.

78. The expert from Sweden stated that he had no clear position as he was still considering traffic safety impact of such systems.

79. The expert from Norway stated that he supported these emergency systems. He asked to OICA whether there would be risks associated to Risk Mitigation Function (RMF) that GRVA should know about.

80. The expert from OICA explained that zero risk did not exist but that OICA was not aware of any critical situation or crash induced by these systems: OICA was not aware of any police report giving a hint in that situation. He responded to the expert from UK that paragraph 6.1.6.3.2. would address the statement made on HMI.

81. The expert from Germany explained that systems without lane change were type approved as corrective steering function, which was not really intended like this. Therefore, she could support provisions for RMF without lane change. She stated that allowing systems with lane change was a precedent, a situation that wasn’t clear. She wondered if this should be allowed for all vehicle categories, on all road types. She inquired about pedestrian safety implications. OICA responded that these elements would be clarified through the assessment imposed by Annex 6, on the fault and non-fault conditions. Following the consultations held during the week, the expert from OICA introduced GRVA-09-43, aimed at addressing the comments received.

82. Following the discussion and positions expressed by the experts from the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, UK, GRVA concluded that removing such systems from the market was an issue.

83. GRVA agreed to forward the proposal in GRVA-09-43 as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1, subject to reconfirmation by GRVA at its next session, in order to allow a potential solution to be developed until June 2021. GRVA noted the reservations expressed by some delegations due to the fact that the technical discussion was not completed and agreed that the document could be amended until June 2021.

56. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the IWG on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS), presented (GRVA-05-55) the outcome of the group. He introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/17 (amended by GRVA-05-35), with provisions on the evaluation of the AEBS robustness.

59. GRVA adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/17 as amended by Annex VI of the session report (based on GRVA-05-60) as draft supplements to the 00 and 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 152 and requested the secretariat to submit to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2020 sessions.