37. The expert from CEMA presented GRVA-12-05, recalling the CEMA position regarding UN Regulations Nos. 155 and 156. He also recalled the request of CEMA to remove the Categories S, R and T from the scope of UN Regulation No. 156. He claimed that the vehicles of these categories, even though similar, were different from other vehicle categories (such as trucks). He acknowledged that over-the-air software updates were performed by vehicle types of these three categories. He pointed at the case of all-terrain vehicles, that were either belonging to the Category L (and as such not being subject to UN Regulation No. 156), or to the Category T (and be subject to UN Regulation No. 156).

38. The expert from Germany mentioned that a market analysis exercise showed that vehicles of Categories S, R and T included automated driving systems on field; such equipment was mature and well developed. She noted that such vehicles were also driven on public roads and that, even though their maximum speed was lower than the one of other vehicles, they were characterized by their high torque and were therefore hard to stop. These vehicles, as such, were therefore posing a risk in traffic that could be addressed by that regulation. She supported the inclusion of these vehicle categories in the scope of UN Regulation No. 155 and to keep them in UN Regulation No. 156. She added that lead-time could be envisaged, and she suggested a transition period of five years.

39. The expert from Italy suggested to remove these three vehicle categories from the scope of UN Regulation No. 156, until appropriate work is conducted.

40. The expert from the European Commission confirmed that the European Union did not mandate the application of UN Regulation No. 156 and that this topic was not considered as a priority for the region. He recalled that the Category L was included in the scope of UN Regulation No. 155, but limited to automated vehicles.

41. The expert from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland recalled that vehicles of Category L were exempted because they were unlikely to be connected vehicles. He stressed that many new vehicles of the Category T were connected and automated. He therefore supported that they were subject to cyber security requirements. He added that he struggled to understand why Category T vehicle manufacturers would struggle to implement UN Regulation No. 156, as its provisions were primarily about software management. He assumed that reputable firms would already comply with such requirements.

42. The experts from Luxembourg and the Netherlands supported the experts from Germany and from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

43. The expert from Denmark stated that he was not in the position to express any position on this matter as such matters would be relevant for another ministry in his country.

44. The expert from Spain agreed with the expert from Italy.

45. GRVA agreed to keep the three Categories S, R and T in the scope of UN Regulation No. 156 and to resume consideration of this item at the next session in order to develop a road map for their future inclusion in UN Regulation No. 155.

Proposal to introduce into the 01 and 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 86 references to the headlamp Classes in the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 149.

Proposal concerning Adaptive Front Lighting System (AFS) provisions and application to category T agricultural vehicles.

Proposal to improve lateral lighting on vehicles of more than 4.6 m, address asymmetric vehicle designs, make editorial corrections and to harmonize certain requirements with UN R48.

30. GRE addressed a revised proposal for a new series of amendments by the experts from CEMA that improved lateral lighting on vehicles, which were longer than 4.6 m, and took into account asymmetric vehicles designs. Subject to deletion of “between” in paragraph 6.12.1., GRE adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2020/7/Rev.1 and requested the secretariat to submit it for consideration and vote at the November 2021 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as a new 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 86.

Proposal to remove Category R, S, and T vehicles unintentionally included in the scope of the regulation.

35. The expert from CEMA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/14 proposing to correct UN Regulation No. 156 by deleting the agricultural vehicle categories from the scope of UN Regulation No. 156.

36. The experts from Italy, Spain and Czech Republic agreed with the proposal.

37. The expert from the European Commission proposed to postpone this discussion.

38. The expert from UK invited GRVA to reflect on the safety and environmental matters of relevance in the present case. He stated that this was a fundamental question. The expert from the Netherlands and France agreed with this statement.

39. The expert from CEMA explained that CEMA would join these activities as soon as possible and that CEMA was requesting a temporary exclusion from the scope. He mentioned that CEMA member were already regulated by the Machinery Regulation in the European Union and that they preferred one regulation only.

40. The expert from the European Commission stated that time was needed to further discuss. He stated that this should be one item for discussion at the IWG on CS/OTA.

41. GRVA did not adopt ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/14 and invited the experts from CEMA to participate in the meetings of the IWG on CS/OTA. GRVA invited the IWG on CS/OTA to add an agenda item on its agenda to discuss this matter.

Proposal for a Supplement to the 01 series of amendments to UN R86

Proposal to exclude vehicles of categories R, S and T from the initial scope of the draft UN Regulations.

17. The expert from CEMA introduced GRVA-06-03 proposing to remove the vehicle categories S, R and T from the scope of the draft Regulation on Cyber Security and Cyber Security Management Systems. GRVA noted the concern expressed by the expert from Austria about the fact that modern vehicles of these categories were highly connected and automated and were also involved in road traffic. GRVA agreed with the position expressed by CEMA at this stage, as these vehicle categories were not specifically considered when drafting the regulation. GRVA invited the experts from CEMA to review the draft regulation.

Proposal to improve lateral lighting on vehicles of more than 4,6 m and to take into account asymmetric vehicles designs.

40. The experts from CEMA introduced a proposal that improves lateral lighting on agricultural vehicles, which are longer than 4.6 m, and takes into account asymmetric vehicles designs (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2020/7). GRE generally supported the proposal but invited CEMA to re-submit it in the form of a new series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 86 for consideration at the next session.

CEMA proposal to update the regulation on agricultural vehicle lighting (document GRE/2013/12) reproduced for discussion during the first AVLI informal group session.

VDMA presentation submitted by CEMA as document GRE-69-03 to open a discussion on amending the UN Regulation on tractor lighting to reduce accidents involving agricultural machinery reproduced for presentation during the first AVLI informal group session.

Paper analyzing issues underlying accidents involving motorized agricultural vehicles (MAV). Originally presented to the Working Party on Lighting and Light signalling as document GRE-69-02 and reproduced here for discussion during the first AVLI informal group session.