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.

Proposal to ensure that the information provided regarding software updates is accessible for use in type approval, conformity of production, market surveillance, recalls and Periodic Technical Inspection (PTI).

32. The expert from UK, Co-Chair of the IWG on CS/OTA, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/29, proposing guidance on how to interpret UN Regulation No. [156] (Software Updates and Software Updates Management Systems). He answered to the question raised by the expert from Spain on the reference to ISO 9001 in the document, which is a very general quality standard.

33. The expert from CITA introduced GRVA-07-44, aimed at clarifying the interpretation of para. 7.1.1.12. GRVA did not support the proposal as it was agreed that the interpretation document should not indirectly introduce additional requirements to the Regulation. GRVA offered the expert of CITA to further discuss the idea proposed in the document at the IWG level.

34. GRVA endorsed ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/29 as amended by GRVA-07-50 (see Annex IV of the session report) and recommended its adoption by WP.29 at its November 2020 session. (GRVA noted the submission by the IWG of GRVA-07-51, which is content-wise identical with GRVA-07-50 but with a different format).

Proposal to amend Annex 8 (Test requirements for Corrective and Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF)), paragraph 3.5. (Tests for ACSF of Category C) in order to clarify that enabling of the system as part of the test procedure is only necessary when the system is not yet enabled.

41. GRVA adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/23 and requested the secretariat to submit it as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1 at their March 2021 sessions.

Provisions to define a reference value for particle number

11. The Chair requested GRPE to have GRPE-81-19 introduced under agenda item 5 as GRPE-81-18 planned under that agenda item dealt with a similar issue.

29. The representative from CITA introduced GRPE-81-18 and GRPE-81-19 proposing the introducing of Particulate Number (PN) reference value tests in UN Regulations Nos. 24 and 83, that could be used, for example, as part of roadworthiness tests during the lifetime of the vehicle. The representative from CITA explained this first introduction to the documents was primarily aiming at gathering the interest of GRPE to work on such issue.

30. The representative from OICA regretted that both informal documents had been submitted soon before GRPE, and therefore limited time was available to carefully study the proposals. He highlighted GRPE-81-19 was not in line with GRPE-81-28 proposed by OICA (para. ‎32). He finally wondered if the proposals from OICA would have an impact on the cost of Periodic Technical Inspections (PTI).

31. The representative from EC deplored a premature proposal given the importance of the issue for assessing Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) deterioration. She stated the EC would be willing to redefine the test included in UN Regulations Nos. 24 and 83 to include PN. The representatives from NL, which is likely to include PN tests during PTI as of 2021, declared his willingness to work on a more refined proposal. The representative of Germany also supported the initiative and stated he would be happy to contribute.

32. The representative from OICA briefly introduced GRPE-81-28 proposing to remove UN Regulation No. 24 from the scope of UN Regulation No. 49. The representative from EC underlined such proposal was not on the table at this stage.

33. The Chair proposed GRPE to consider a full package during the next session of GRPE in January 2021 including the views of stakeholders having shown interest to work on the topic.

Defines a reference value for particle number measurement.

11. The Chair requested GRPE to have GRPE-81-19 introduced under agenda item 5 as GRPE-81-18 planned under that agenda item dealt with a similar issue.

29. The representative from CITA introduced GRPE-81-18 and GRPE-81-19 proposing the introducing of Particulate Number (PN) reference value tests in UN Regulations Nos. 24 and 83, that could be used, for example, as part of roadworthiness tests during the lifetime of the vehicle. The representative from CITA explained this first introduction to the documents was primarily aiming at gathering the interest of GRPE to work on such issue.

30. The representative from OICA regretted that both informal documents had been submitted soon before GRPE, and therefore limited time was available to carefully study the proposals. He highlighted GRPE-81-19 was not in line with GRPE-81-28 proposed by OICA (para. ‎32). He finally wondered if the proposals from OICA would have an impact on the cost of Periodic Technical Inspections (PTI).

31. The representative from EC deplored a premature proposal given the importance of the issue for assessing Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs) deterioration. She stated the EC would be willing to redefine the test included in UN Regulations Nos. 24 and 83 to include PN. The representatives from NL, which is likely to include PN tests during PTI as of 2021, declared his willingness to work on a more refined proposal. The representative of Germany also supported the initiative and stated he would be happy to contribute.

32. The representative from OICA briefly introduced GRPE-81-28 proposing to remove UN Regulation No. 24 from the scope of UN Regulation No. 49. The representative from EC underlined such proposal was not on the table at this stage.

33. The Chair proposed GRPE to consider a full package during the next session of GRPE in January 2021 including the views of stakeholders having shown interest to work on the topic.

The proposal to clarify that enabling the system under the test procedure is only necessary in cases where the system is not already in the enabled state.

47. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-05-52, introducing GRVA-05-30 with amendments to the provisions applicable to ACSF of Category C.

48. The expert from CITA introduced GRVA-05-50 with amendment proposals to Annex 8.

49. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-05-53 with amendment proposals to para. 5.6.4.7. (critical situation).

50. GRVA requested the secretariat to distribute GRVA-05-30, GRVA-05-50 and GRVA-05-53 with official symbols at its September 2020 session.

List of elements that could be left to national/regional determination (i.e., not harmonized at the global level).

Proposal for DSSAD elements for use in the type approval of low-speed, on-highway automated lane-keeping systems.