Proposal for a task force to identify regulatory aspects that can be improved to make tampering more difficult and easier to detect, along with the identification and definition of the most effective methods to detect tampering.

Proposal to ensure the availability of sufficient information on the lighting device for periodic and roadside inspections.

8. The expert of IWG SLR presented draft amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 148, 149 and 150 that introduce summary documents to be placed in the electronic Database for the Exchange of Type Approval documentation (DETA) to support the use of the Unique Identifier (UI) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2022/10, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2022/11 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2022/12). GRE pointed out that a template summary document should be developed by IWG DETA and endorsed by WP.29. Awaiting WP.29 and/or IWG DETA guidance on the matter, GRE decided to continue consideration at the next session.

9. GRE noted that the use of UI for a particular UN Regulation should only be possible when the following two conditions are met:

• the corresponding summary document has been defined in the Regulation; and
• DETA is providing access to the Summary Document.

10. To stress these requirements, the expert from EC proposed an amendment (GRE-87-24-Rev.1). GRE adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it for consideration and vote at the March 2023 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as a draft Supplement to the 00 and 01 series of amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 148, 149 and 150.

11. In the context of possible replacement of traditional approval markings by UI, the expert from CITA presented a proposal with the aim to ensure the availability of sufficient information on the device for periodic and roadside inspections (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2022/13 and GRE-87-07). GRE agreed to revert to this proposal at the next session.

110. The representative from Germany, Chair of the IWG on DETA, presented
(WP.29-187-27) the report (WP.29-187-26) to the World Forum related to the use of DETA and also updating WP.29 on the work of the IWG at its forty-fourth session, held on 9 June 2022. He laid out the current state of play, noting the number of approvals uploaded. He detailed activities of the IWG related to contracting and implementation of Unique Identifier (UI). He conveyed the question from the IWG to WP.29 whether UI provisions should be introduced in UN Regulations that do not specifically prohibit the use of UI, as per para. 3 of Schedule 5 to the Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement and offered the position of the group regarding opening the access to DETA to technical service performing sovereign tasks on behalf of contracting parties.

111. The representative of OICA proposed to postpone the signature of the contract for the development of the UI module as recent questions arose that would need to be clarified before developing the feature.

112. The representative of European Commission offered tentative views according to which all UN Regulations should include, in line with the provisions of the revision 3 of 1958 Agreement, UI related provisions for supporting uniform applications of the Regulations.

113. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland held the view that there could be confusion in the market place, in the absence of provisions supporting uniform implementation of UI.

114. The representative of France recalled that the 1958 Agreement allows the use of UI as an alternative to the approval mark provisions in UN Regulations, unless provision prohibit the use of UI, at the condition that the Approval is uploaded in DETA. He added that, nevertheless, the use of UI could have implications for the contracting parties that would require further guidance and lead-time.

115. The representative of CITA mentioned the potential benefits of UI if details were well considered. He suggested that further work would be performed before making use of UI. Upon invitation by the Chair, he presented WP.29-187-15, showing potential negative impacts of UI if not carefully developed.

116. The representative of OICA stated that there was no intention to hamper sovereign activities and that UI should not replace marking that needs to remain on the products. He added that possibly a horizontal document could be developed to detail the precise UI provisions (e.g. format, size, etc), to which all relevant UN Regulations could refer.

117. The representative of Finland, Chair of GRE recalled the 1958 Agreement provisions related to UI and explained the GRE considerations when introducing UI provisions in UN Regulations Nos. 148, 149 and 150. He recalled that CITA made a presentation at the IWG on SLR and that further discussions would take place in the near term to address concerns raised.

118. The representative of European Commission shared some of the concerns raised by CITA and recalled that:

• the absence of a specific reference to UI in UN Regulations could lead to confusion if the choice of the use of UI or of a traditional marking was left to economic operators;
• IWG on SLR should reflect the inclusion of additional markings to facilitate the periodic checks or roadside verifications;
• if no solution can be found before the UI software become operational, a temporary freeze of UI in the lighting regulations should be considered.

119. The representative of the Republic of South Africa recalled the importance of markings when verifications of vehicles, systems and parts was at stake. He urged WP.29 to make UI and its use user-friendly.

120. The representative of Sweden announced that he would perform an analysis of the situation in his country to evaluate the potential negative impact of DETA as presented by CITA.

121. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland mentioned the importance of approval marking, not only for periodic technical inspection and roadside inspections but also in other cases. He mentioned as an example the existing requirements at the point of sale and felt that a large number of national regulations could be impacted by UI and could require amendments.

122. WP.29 agreed that further work was needed within the IWGs on DETA and SLR. WP.29 recalled the use of markings beyond the context of vehicle approval, having importance at all stages of the vehicle lifetimes, from approval to registration and down to decommissioning. WP.29 noted the crucial importance of the access to information and also to consider modern technology such as XML formats as PDF files were no longer state of the art.

123. WP.29 could not provide a final answer to the question raised by the IWG on DETA related to UI but expressed support for further work for the sake of simplification, uniform implementation of UI.

124. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2022/62 (under agenda item 4.5.1).

125. The Secretary proposed to WP.29 to consider marrying the Document of Conformance (DOC) and UI for further benefits to citizens. He mentioned as an example the difficulties experiences by citizens in order to receive e.g. stickers as required in order to enter Low Emission Zones.

126. The Secretary confirmed that there was no new development regarding the budget for hosting DETA at UNECE. WP.29 thanked Germany for hosting DETA for the time being.

54. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-13-42 (introducing GRVA-13-41), proposing the establishment of a new informal working group to develop a harmonized way to deal with in-vehicle data for sovereign tasks.

55. The expert from Canada felt that the proposal was to regulate the commercialization of in-vehicle data. He stated that the proposal by CITA was confusing, as GRVA already had established an IWG dealing with data, namely the IWG on EDR/DSSAD. He highlighted that the focus should be on data related to safety and that there was no need to regulate infotainment.

56. The expert from CITA clarified that their proposal focused on the transmission of data, not the collection of data points as developed by the group on EDR/DSSAD.

57. The expert from Canada asked whether there would be a value to have a separate group dealing with this point.

58. The expert from AAPC shared the views of Canada. He recalled that national laws existed and wondered how this would fit in the mandate of WP.29. The expert from ITU felt that this proposal was aimed to use WP.29 to get access to vehicle data for the purpose of CITA members.

59. The expert from CLEPA pointed at the activities of the IWG on DETA.

60. The expert from FIA stated that the priority should not be the commercialization of data. He suggested to remove blockages created by UN Regulation No. 155, instead.

61. The expert from FIGIEFA preferred to address this concern at the European Union level.

62. The expert from CITA clarified that the use case envisaged was only related to sovereign use cases such as periodic technical inspection, as defined in the 1997 Agreement.

63. The expert from the United States of America, Co-Chair of the IWG on EDR/DSSAD, invited the expert from CITA to join the meetings of the IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

64. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this matter, based on a revised proposal from CITA to clarify their position.

54. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-13-42 (introducing GRVA-13-41), proposing the establishment of a new informal working group to develop a harmonized way to deal with in-vehicle data for sovereign tasks.

55. The expert from Canada felt that the proposal was to regulate the commercialization of in-vehicle data. He stated that the proposal by CITA was confusing, as GRVA already had established an IWG dealing with data, namely the IWG on EDR/DSSAD. He highlighted that the focus should be on data related to safety and that there was no need to regulate infotainment.

56. The expert from CITA clarified that their proposal focused on the transmission of data, not the collection of data points as developed by the group on EDR/DSSAD.

57. The expert from Canada asked whether there would be a value to have a separate group dealing with this point.

58. The expert from AAPC shared the views of Canada. He recalled that national laws existed and wondered how this would fit in the mandate of WP.29. The expert from ITU felt that this proposal was aimed to use WP.29 to get access to vehicle data for the purpose of CITA members.

59. The expert from CLEPA pointed at the activities of the IWG on DETA.

60. The expert from FIA stated that the priority should not be the commercialization of data. He suggested to remove blockages created by UN Regulation No. 155, instead.

61. The expert from FIGIEFA preferred to address this concern at the European Union level.

62. The expert from CITA clarified that the use case envisaged was only related to sovereign use cases such as periodic technical inspection, as defined in the 1997 Agreement.

63. The expert from the United States of America, Co-Chair of the IWG on EDR/DSSAD, invited the expert from CITA to join the meetings of the IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

64. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this matter, based on a revised proposal from CITA to clarify their position.

49. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-12-14/Rev.1, giving an overview of the content in GRVA-12-11/Rev.1 and GRVA-12-40, regarding remote access to in-vehicle data. He recalled various models and technical solutions presented to WP.29 and GRVA to enable such access, e.g. to third parties and for sovereign use cases such as Periodic Technical Inspection or Market Surveillance. He proposed a role for GRVA in that field, i.e. to prepare the design of vehicles so as to enable data collection, transmission and guaranty authenticity (no repudiation) of the data. He called on for the establishment of an ad hoc group that would perform a full assessment, possibly using the assessment template proposed in GRVA-12-40.

50. The expert from FIA explained that he was more in favour to have this matter addressed in Brussels by the European Commission. He explained that GRVA should not negatively influence the access to in-vehicle data because of UN Regulations Nos. 155 and 156.

51. The expert from ITU explained that all models listed in the document would create an unnecessary cyber security risk. He claimed that the role of regulations was to create the conditions under which the vehicle manufacturers should make data available as per the terms of that regulation.

52. The expert from OICA felt that this topic was relevant to national or regional levels and was not sure if the United Nations had a role to play in this. He explained, even though OICA was not fundamentally against a new group, the current workload associated with GRVA activities was already high and therefore explaining the defensive position expressed.

53. The expert from AAPC echoed the positions expressed by ITU and OICA.

54. The expert from CLEPA stated that there was a value for GRVA to host this conversation.

55. The expert from the United States of America supported the position expressed by AAPC. He felt that it was premature to create a group on this matter.

56. The expert from Germany proposed to distinguish two aspects of this matter: (a) the technical aspects related to data transmission and cyber security and (b) the national and regional laws on data privacy.

57. The expert from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agreed that there were challenges related to national laws, but he also supported a harmonized approach on how to share data, as data would not only benefit the vehicle owner but also the whole transport system.

58. The expert from Austria supported a discussion at GRVA on this matter.

59. The expert from CITA welcomed the comments received and stated the importance of cyber security, of national and regional laws but also the need for harmonization activities at GRVA level to avoid the situation where potential national laws would lead to different technical solutions that would impair the aim of data sharing.

60. GRVA agreed to further discuss the role of GRVA with regards to remote access to in-vehicle data at its May 2022 session and consider approaching AC.2 and WP.29 in June 2022 for further guidance regarding future proceedings concerning that matter.

49. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-12-14/Rev.1, giving an overview of the content in GRVA-12-11/Rev.1 and GRVA-12-40, regarding remote access to in-vehicle data. He recalled various models and technical solutions presented to WP.29 and GRVA to enable such access, e.g. to third parties and for sovereign use cases such as Periodic Technical Inspection or Market Surveillance. He proposed a role for GRVA in that field, i.e. to prepare the design of vehicles so as to enable data collection, transmission and guaranty authenticity (no repudiation) of the data. He called on for the establishment of an ad hoc group that would perform a full assessment, possibly using the assessment template proposed in GRVA-12-40.

50. The expert from FIA explained that he was more in favour to have this matter addressed in Brussels by the European Commission. He explained that GRVA should not negatively influence the access to in-vehicle data because of UN Regulations Nos. 155 and 156.

51. The expert from ITU explained that all models listed in the document would create an unnecessary cyber security risk. He claimed that the role of regulations was to create the conditions under which the vehicle manufacturers should make data available as per the terms of that regulation.

52. The expert from OICA felt that this topic was relevant to national or regional levels and was not sure if the United Nations had a role to play in this. He explained, even though OICA was not fundamentally against a new group, the current workload associated with GRVA activities was already high and therefore explaining the defensive position expressed.

53. The expert from AAPC echoed the positions expressed by ITU and OICA.

54. The expert from CLEPA stated that there was a value for GRVA to host this conversation.

55. The expert from the United States of America supported the position expressed by AAPC. He felt that it was premature to create a group on this matter.

56. The expert from Germany proposed to distinguish two aspects of this matter: (a) the technical aspects related to data transmission and cyber security and (b) the national and regional laws on data privacy.

57. The expert from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agreed that there were challenges related to national laws, but he also supported a harmonized approach on how to share data, as data would not only benefit the vehicle owner but also the whole transport system.

58. The expert from Austria supported a discussion at GRVA on this matter.

59. The expert from CITA welcomed the comments received and stated the importance of cyber security, of national and regional laws but also the need for harmonization activities at GRVA level to avoid the situation where potential national laws would lead to different technical solutions that would impair the aim of data sharing.

60. GRVA agreed to further discuss the role of GRVA with regards to remote access to in-vehicle data at its May 2022 session and consider approaching AC.2 and WP.29 in June 2022 for further guidance regarding future proceedings concerning that matter.

49. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-12-14/Rev.1, giving an overview of the content in GRVA-12-11/Rev.1 and GRVA-12-40, regarding remote access to in-vehicle data. He recalled various models and technical solutions presented to WP.29 and GRVA to enable such access, e.g. to third parties and for sovereign use cases such as Periodic Technical Inspection or Market Surveillance. He proposed a role for GRVA in that field, i.e. to prepare the design of vehicles so as to enable data collection, transmission and guaranty authenticity (no repudiation) of the data. He called on for the establishment of an ad hoc group that would perform a full assessment, possibly using the assessment template proposed in GRVA-12-40.

50. The expert from FIA explained that he was more in favour to have this matter addressed in Brussels by the European Commission. He explained that GRVA should not negatively influence the access to in-vehicle data because of UN Regulations Nos. 155 and 156.

51. The expert from ITU explained that all models listed in the document would create an unnecessary cyber security risk. He claimed that the role of regulations was to create the conditions under which the vehicle manufacturers should make data available as per the terms of that regulation.

52. The expert from OICA felt that this topic was relevant to national or regional levels and was not sure if the United Nations had a role to play in this. He explained, even though OICA was not fundamentally against a new group, the current workload associated with GRVA activities was already high and therefore explaining the defensive position expressed.

53. The expert from AAPC echoed the positions expressed by ITU and OICA.

54. The expert from CLEPA stated that there was a value for GRVA to host this conversation.

55. The expert from the United States of America supported the position expressed by AAPC. He felt that it was premature to create a group on this matter.

56. The expert from Germany proposed to distinguish two aspects of this matter: (a) the technical aspects related to data transmission and cyber security and (b) the national and regional laws on data privacy.

57. The expert from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agreed that there were challenges related to national laws, but he also supported a harmonized approach on how to share data, as data would not only benefit the vehicle owner but also the whole transport system.

58. The expert from Austria supported a discussion at GRVA on this matter.

59. The expert from CITA welcomed the comments received and stated the importance of cyber security, of national and regional laws but also the need for harmonization activities at GRVA level to avoid the situation where potential national laws would lead to different technical solutions that would impair the aim of data sharing.

60. GRVA agreed to further discuss the role of GRVA with regards to remote access to in-vehicle data at its May 2022 session and consider approaching AC.2 and WP.29 in June 2022 for further guidance regarding future proceedings concerning that matter.

Presentation by IWG PTI on their proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/148

69. The Co-Chair of the IWG on PTI introduced GRPE-85-40 introducing the draft Framework Document on Vehicle Whole-Life Compliance (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/148). The representative from CITA supported the proposal. The representative from the EC highlighted some inconsistencies in the diagram shown and sought clarifications on the intention of the document. The Chair also highlighted some differences between EU and UN legislative framework which might lead to misinterpretation of the document.

70. The Co-Chair of the IWG on PTI agreed the document could be improved and agreed that it would be beneficial to present the discrepancies between different countries/regions to improve the harmonization offered by the activities developed within WP.2929 and its subsidiary bodies.

71. The secretariat proposed to report to WP.29 that GRPE identified potential improvements to the draft Framework Document on Vehicle Whole-Life Compliance, and that a proposal for improvement would be formalized during the next session of GRPE in June 2022 and communicated to WP.29 during its June 2022 session. The representatives from Sweden, the UK, and OICA as well as the Co-Chair of the IWG on PTI supported that approach. GRPE agreed to keep this item on the agenda for its next session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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