Proposal to facilitate identification of electric vehicles.

Proposal to allow additional checks on passive safety at the national level when conducting tests of a complete vehicle (such as checking for damage to seat mounts, objects presenting injury risks in the residual space, and operability of hatches).

Proposal to allow additional checks in terms of passive safety on the national level (for example, destruction of seats mounts, injury-causing objects entering the residual space and moving within it, operability of the emergency hatches).

17. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSG-124-28 on the assessment of escape hatch operability according to the national requirements of the contracting parties. The experts from Germany, Italy, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom expressed study reservations to understand the consequences of the proposal. GRSG agreed to resume discussion at its March 2023 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSG-124-28 with an official symbol at that session.

68. The Vice-Chair introduced GRPE-86-41 as his main takeaways from the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) workshop that took place earlier during the week. The representative from Japan introduced GRPE-86-17, the representative from the Russian Federation introduced GRPE-86-19, the representative from the US introduced GRPE-86-40 and the representative from CLEPA introduced GRPE-86-38 on their respective positions with respect to the inclusion of LCA in GRPE activities and the creation of a dedicated IWG to work on the topic.

69. The representative from the European Commission supported the creation of an IWG on LCA, highlighting that the conditions are not yet met to plan to deliver on a UN GTR. Finalization of ToRs, scope and timing of the activities would be considered during the first meeting of the IWG on LCA and introduced for adoption during the next session of GRPE.

70. The representative from the UK supported LCA to be considered by GRPE and to initiate an IWG on the topic. He highlighted the need to have a clear view on the aims, targets and objectives of the IWG. He also was not supportive of any regulatory deliverables at this stage, and that a mutual resolution, for example, could be drafted once a complete LCA picture has been finalized. He concluded that new expertise from outside of GRPE would be needed.

71. The representative from Sweden thanked Japan and the Republic of Korea for the initiative and supported the creation of a dedicated IWG. He also shared his view that regulatory provisions should not be aimed in a first step, and that the IWG should initially focus on information sharing and deliver a resolution.

72. The representative from Switzerland also supported the initiative as an essential activity for GRPE and showed his willingness to be involved. He also stressed on the importance of looking at air quality, water and soil LCA impacts on top of GHG which is the primary target of the IWG on LCA.

73. The Chair indicated that the draft ToRs, as shown in GRPE-86-18-Rev.1, would be discussed during the first meeting of the IWG on LCA and the next session of GRPE.

74. GRPE agreed to create a new IWG on LCA and to include LCA in the GRPE list of priorities.

75. The representative from Japan indicated that Japan would be happy to host the first IWG meeting expected in October 2022, thought a hybrid meeting configuration, with the support of the secretariat. He indicated the draft ToR would be discussed during the meeting. The secretariat offered its support to organize the first meeting of the IWG on LCA.

34. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSG-123-29 on the results of the meeting held on 12 December 2021 of the Task Force to amend the UN Regulation. GRSG agreed to reconvene the Task Force chaired by the Russian Federation with the participation of interested parties to fine-tune the proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2021/23 for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66, to be considered at its October 2022 session.

59. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSG-122-41, Proposal for Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (Strength of superstructure (buses)).

60. The expert from OICA introduced document GRSG-122-02, which is a document containing comments from OICA to the updated proposal of the Russian Federation for an amendment to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2021/23). The expert from OICA informed GRSG that there was no supplement to the 01 series of amendment and proposed a harmonized solution for GRSG to establish a taskforce.

61. The expert from France supported the proposal from the Russian Federation and stated they had similar views to that of OICA regarding their concerns on the series of amendment. The experts from the Netherlands and Belgium both agreed with France.

62. GRSG decided to establish a taskforce chaired by the Russian Federation and invited participation from interested parties to fine-tune the proposals for amendments made to UN Regulation No. 66.

Clarifies the verifications after the performance of the strength test.

59. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSG-122-41, Proposal for Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (Strength of superstructure (buses)).

60. The expert from OICA introduced document GRSG-122-02, which is a document containing comments from OICA to the updated proposal of the Russian Federation for an amendment to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2021/23). The expert from OICA informed GRSG that there was no supplement to the 01 series of amendment and proposed a harmonized solution for GRSG to establish a taskforce.

61. The expert from France supported the proposal from the Russian Federation and stated they had similar views to that of OICA regarding their concerns on the series of amendment. The experts from the Netherlands and Belgium both agreed with France.

62. GRSG decided to establish a taskforce chaired by the Russian Federation and invited participation from interested parties to fine-tune the proposals for amendments made to UN Regulation No. 66.

Proposal to align provisions in paragraph 7 and Annex 6.

30. The representative from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/2021/16 to clarify provisions in UN Regulation No. 133. The representative from the Netherlands proposed an alternative wording to simplify the proposal, as reflected in Annex XI of the session report. The representative from the Russian Federation thanked and supported the alternate proposal from the Netherlands.

31. GRPE adopted Annex XI and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2021 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to UN Regulation No. 133 (Recyclability of motor vehicles).

61. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced document GRSG-121-36, which contains responses of the Russian Federation to the comments from OICA to the updated proposal of the Russian Federation for an amendment to UN Regulation No. 66 (GRSG-121-31).

62. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced a proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2020/22 as amended by GRSG-121-31), which aims to clarify the verifications after the performance of the strength test.

63. GRSG considered the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2021/22 as amended by GRSG-121-31). Upon technical discussion, comments, and support expressed for the proposal from the Russian Federation that aimed to enhance the safety of buses, by the experts from Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, the European Commission and OICA, GRSG decided to revisit the proposal based on a revised version, pending consultations among experts, at its October 2021 session.

64. The expert from the Russian Federation thanked experts for expressing their positions and invited interested parties to deliver their comments to the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (GRSG-121-31) to s.maslennikov@autorc.ru.

Proposal from Russian expert to undertake additional checks in terms of passive safety

61. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced document GRSG-121-36, which contains responses of the Russian Federation to the comments from OICA to the updated proposal of the Russian Federation for an amendment to UN Regulation No. 66 (GRSG-121-31).

62. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced a proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2020/22 as amended by GRSG-121-31), which aims to clarify the verifications after the performance of the strength test.

63. GRSG considered the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2021/22 as amended by GRSG-121-31). Upon technical discussion, comments, and support expressed for the proposal from the Russian Federation that aimed to enhance the safety of buses, by the experts from Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, the European Commission and OICA, GRSG decided to revisit the proposal based on a revised version, pending consultations among experts, at its October 2021 session.

64. The expert from the Russian Federation thanked experts for expressing their positions and invited interested parties to deliver their comments to the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (GRSG-121-31) to s.maslennikov@autorc.ru.

Framework document on in-service compliance assessment the vehicles including automated/autonomous vehicles and their components

113. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRVA-09-23 suggesting definitions (taken from the International Standard Organization) for Artificial Intelligence (AI) with relevance for wheel vehicles, their subsystems and parts. He proposed to consider that AI is considered as a software i.e. a design feature of an automotive product and that therefore no design requirements should be developed. He mentioned the impossibility to verify the performance of AI systems. He also suggested that any risk mitigation may be part of the audit as defined in the NATM.

114. The expert from CLEPA explained that methods to validate the performance of AI agent were existing. He mentions methods such as blackbox testing, statistical approaches and therefore disputed the word “impossible” as GRVA could rely on methods developed by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), ISO and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) for this purpose. He mentioned existing issues to be addressed at the regulatory level, such as the use of continuous learning features at “Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) level” (i.e. individual vehicle level, opposed to vehicle fleet level).

115. GRVA could not further discuss this proposal, due to time constraints, but agreed to prioritize this item at its May 2021 session.

GRVA completed the review of GRVA-09-23 “Artificial intelligence definition and specifics of its application for
automated road vehicles”, which was initially tabled by the expertfrom the Russian Federation at the ninth session of GRVA.

GRVA requested the secretariat, together with the GRVA officers, to draft a document based on the input received, containing definitions and some general best practices and recommendations related to Artificial Intelligence in the context of vehicle regulations, for review at the September 2021 session of GRVA.

52. The expert from the European Commission introduced GRVA-09-15, proposing revised Terms of Reference for the Task Force (TF) on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). He explained that the TF would work on amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 or a new Regulation as needed, that it would consider the use cases expected in the next years, that it would envisage a generic approach as well as Human Machine Interface (HMI), mode confusion, overreliance and misuse related concerns, in full coordination with the IWGs on FRAV and VMAD. He mentioned that the outcome of this work would be delivered in three phases, in September 2021 (finalization of pending proposals), in 2022 (second phase) and in 2023 (work under the 1998 Agreement).

53. The expert from AAPC recalled that UN Regulation No. 79 was only dealing with Advanced Driver Assistance Steering Systems (ADASS).

54. The expert from Japan expressed support for the ToR and committed to contribute to the work. He agreed about the importance to address HMI and social acceptance aspects and to review technical data and accidentology data. He mentioned that the USA, Canada and China included other systems than those covered in UN Regulation No. 79 on their markets and stated that 1998 Contracting Parties should participate to that work and provide data.

55. The expert from AVERE provided comments and expressed support for these activities. He presented GRVA-09-16, providing a report of the preliminary meeting of the Task Force on ADAS that developed the revised Terms of Reference.

56. The expert from Sweden expressed a positive position about the document. He mentioned that the scope of the TF would be complex and that the timing proposed was unsure. He wondered if the task force could work without ToR.

57. The expert from UK supported that work. He mentioned that the ToR established a plan and that they could be revisited as needed.

58. The expert from China agreed to join the meetings of the TF.

59. The expert from the Netherlands highlighted the challenging timeline proposed.

60. The expert from Germany supported the proposal.

61. The expert from China mentioned their readiness to work on ADAS including items beyond ADASS.

62. The expert from OICA recalled the aim of this workstream, that was to address the limitations of UN Regulation No. 79 e.g. new functions not fitting in existing definitions in UN Regulation No. 79 or longitudinal requirements that would not really fit in a steering regulation. He supported, for this reason, that the task force would focus on ADASS.

63. The expert from the United States of America expressed reservations. He recalled that UN Regulation No. 79 was about steering; going beyond that scope would get the work of the task force close to the one of the IWG on FRAV. He mentioned that there might be areas where ADAS and ADS are well separated by clear lines but that others don’t, such as HMI. He mentioned that if the group deliver a new UN Regulation by September 2021, then the group would be well ahead of the IWG on FRAV, so that it could prejudice the IWG’s work. He also mentioned that anticipating work on a UN GTR derived from a UN Regulation did not make sense.

64. The expert from OICA stated that ADAS and ADS had different scopes and recalled that their respective scopes had been defined at WP.29 level in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/2.

65. The expert from Canada expressed support to the position expressed by the United States of America. He requested that the session report reflected the concerns expressed in terms of organization, overlap and realistic timeframes.

66. GRVA took note of the reservations expressed, of the importance of coordination and adopted the proposal with the deletion of paragraph 2 in part C of the document, as reproduced in Annex IV to this report.

GRVA noted the proposal of the experts from European Commission and the Russian Federation to initiate a Task Force on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). The industry (AAPC, AVERE, CLEPA, OICA) provided input and comments.

GRVA agreed that the European Commission and the Russian Federation should invite GRVA participants to discuss and determine if a Task Force or other working body be formed to address any issues with UN Regulation No. 79 that need to be investigated and developed with regard to ADAS. If needed, GRVA will evaluate draft Terms of Reference for a proposed Task Force or other body on ADAS at its next session.

The provision in paragraph 5.3.5. may need clarification on what the granting Approval Authority should do, if that Authority can’t take into account the comments received as per paragraph 5.3.4. Should it continue processing with granting the approval or postpone granting? The proposal is to clarify that the Approval Authority should postpone granting the approval until the agreement on the common interpretation of the questioned issue is reached.

30. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/5. He recalled the discussion at the seventh session of GRVA on para. 5.3.5 in UN Regulation No. 155. The expert from OICA provided comments (GRVA-09-08). The expert from Germany advised to not paraphrase Schedule 6 or add requirements that would differ from those in the 1958 Agreement. The expert from Japan expressed concerns related to the implementation of the provisions in the 1958 Agreement and therefore proposed to keep the text unchanged. The expert from France supported the position expressed by the expert from Japan. The experts from Italy and UK expressed similar positions. The expert from the Russian Federation explained that the case was not related to disputes as in Schedule 6. He proposed to withdraw his proposal and to discuss it at a meeting of the IWG on International Whole Vehicle Type Approval.