Proposal to clarify the verification procedures after the strength test. The proposal addresses destruction of seat mounts, injury-causing objects entering the residual space and moving within it, and emergency hatches.

42. WP.29 agreed to postpone deliberations under this agenda item to its 182nd session.

The Russian Approval Authority had concluded that the product brand “Braxx”, type “Smart Kid Belt” approved according to UN Regulation No. 44, approval No. E20 44R-04 4013 granted by Poland on 11 July 2017, cannot be considered as a child restraint system.

Proposal agreed by interested Contracting Parties to resolve concerns regarding “peer review” of cybersecurity type approvals.

Proposal to add checks under the current tests:

• damage to seat attachments
• occupant compartment hazards (e.g., risk of impact by loose objects such as fire extinguisher) and
• post-crash functionality of escape hatches (including force required to open)

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.

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.

Russia-coordinated effort to reconcile divergent views on the concept for type authority review of other type approval authority decisions on cybersecurity management system certification.

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.

Proposal to clarify the height requirements for the installation of the dipped-beam headlamp, reversing lamp and rear fog lamp for vehicles of category G (designed for off-road use).

Proposal to clarify the Russian text to improve its alignments with the English version.

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.

Position paper advocating for the regulation of airborne emissions originating with tyre wear.

46. The representative from Russia introduced GRPE-80-13 showing the importance of tyre and road wear emissions into the non-exhaust particulate emission mix. The report of the Russian Federation presented the comparative results of PM emissions from various vehicle systems, which were characterized by the following correlation: 28% with exhaust gases, 7% from braking systems, 12% from tyres and 53% from roadway, according to the materials of the research conducted in the Russian Federation and the UK. On this basis, He expressed the necessity for the tyre manufacturers and road construction services to revise the existing production technologies for tyres and roadway and to consider new materials and technologies to minimize the use of materials containing highly hazardous cancerogenic substances to improve health of population in large cities and elsewhere.

47. The representative from the Netherlands asked if the sources of particulate emission from transport were compared with other sources. The representative from Russia said there is research underway to have a broader look at all sources of emissions and that national inventories were performed at the national level that are providing information about the source of particulate emissions for the main sectors.

48. The representative from Australia highlighted that tyre and road wear emissions also highly depended on road surface technology and wondered if the results presented by Russia had been shared with the World Road Association. The representative from Russia replied that this information was now shared with WP.29 and that road associations were also collaborating with the World Health Organization (WHO) on those issues. The Chair welcomed the emergence of those issues to better understand the importance of the various sources of emissions and encouraged to further share such outcomes and inform all relevant stakeholders.

49. The Chair of the IWG on PMP asked if the study from Russia also looked at the particulate size distribution, as some literature seemed to indicate road and tyre wear particulate size were quite large. The representative from Russia agreed road wear particulate size was typically above 100 nm, but that many studies including the one from Russia considered small particulates in their findings.

Proposal the clarify the test method for the evaluation of performance of energy sources and energy storage devices under Annex 7. In particular, the proposal clarifies that the measurement is made on the ninth brake application.

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.

101. The representative of the Russian Federation presented the informal document WP.29-179-17/Rev.1 and described the results of the state surveillance and monitoring of buses. He concluded that work would continue with finding solutions to issues that arose during the tests and asked for support on the proposals to move forward. These findings would warrant reflection related to UN Regulations Nos. 66, 80 and 107. A completed report would be available early 2020.

102. The representative of France welcomed this work, especially on UN regulation No. 66.

Full UN R144 integrating the proposal to:

1. clarify that the application of an AECD approval to other vehicle categories than M₁ and N₁ is not mandatory,
2. align the power supply requirement of Part III, para. 34.1 with the corresponding requirement in Part II, para. 25.1.
3. clarify with regard to para. 34.1 that if the vehicle is equipped with both
   • -a “back-power supply” as listed in para. 35.10.1 and
   • -a “Power supply other than back-up power supply mentioned in paragraph 35.10.1” as listed in para. 35.10.2
   both should be tested according to Annex 9. The “Power supply other than back-up power supply mentioned in paragraph 35.10.1” should indeed only be tested if it is the only power supply for the AECS.
4. include two-year transitional provisions
5. remove the exclusion of M₁ and N₁ not equipped with a side airbag and to specify that the AECS shall be able to output the navigation solution in an NMEA-0183 protocol format (RMC, GGA, VTG, GSA and GSV message), among other clarifications.

59. The expert from OICA recalled that the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/23 was to correct the scope of the UN Regulation. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed further editorial corrections and amendments (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/18) which allow contracting parties to apply the relevant requirements to assess compliance of Accident Emergency Call Devices (AECD) designed for installation on vehicles of categories other than M1 and N1. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/23 extending the scope of application for AECD, if fitted to other categories than M1 and N1.

60. GRSG welcomed GRSG-117-47 prepared by the expert of the Russian Federation providing a consolidated text of the regulation including the necessary corrections and proposed amendments.

61. The secretariat presented GRSG-177-02 informing GRSG on an inconsistency with the wording of subsection 26.7.23. of UN Regulation No.144. GRSG approved the deletion of the term “back-up” in subsection 26.7.23.

62. GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2019/18 and requested the secretariat to submit it together with the rectified wording of subsection 26.7.2.3. (see para. 61 above) to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft supplement 01 to UN Regulation No. 144 for consideration at their March 2020 sessions.

Proposal to add transitional provisions to document GRVA/2019/18.

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.