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.

22. The expert from the Russian Federation tabled a proposal that clarified 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 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2020/3). GRE adopted the proposal, as amended by GRE-83-52, and requested the secretariat to submit it for consideration and vote at the March 2021 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 19 to the 04 series of amendments, draft Supplement 14 to the 05 series of amendments, draft Supplement 14 to the 06 series of amendments and draft Supplement 1 to the 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 48.

24. The experts from France and Germany introduced a revised proposal for amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 48 and 148 that regulates the use of manufacturer logos inside the illuminant surface of a lamp (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2020/5 and GRE-83-50). The experts from the Russian Federation and OICA commented on the proposal (GRE-83-36 and GRE-83-46). Taking into account concerns expressed by the experts from EC and the Russian Federation, GRE invited the authors to liaise with those experts and to prepare an updated text for the next session. In the interim, GRE reiterated its request to type approval authorities to refrain from granting type approvals to lamps with such logos.

37. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced the draft proposal for Supplement 11 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (GRSP-119-32), and the background of its development.

38. GRSG considered the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2020/22) and, upon technical discussion and comments from experts from Belgium, Japan, Italy, the European Commission and OICA, decided to reconsider the proposal at its April 2021 session, on the basis of an updated draft.

39. The expert from the Russian Federation invited experts to deliver their comments to the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2020/22) to sergey.maslennikov@nami.ru.

Proposal to improve the text with editorial clarifications and restructuring.

17. The expert from Germany presented GRVA-07-63, introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/32 with a proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] (ALKS), aimed at increasing the maximum speed (from 60 km/h to 130 km/h) for ALKS. She also introduced a second proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/33) aimed at introducing provisions for ALKS performing lane changes. The experts from Austria, China, Denmark, European Commission, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Republic or Korea, Sweden and UK were rather supportive. They provided ideas and technical comments to improve the proposals. The expert from Switzerland opposed to the proposed speed increase (up to 130 km/h), stating that it would be counterproductive and as Switzerland was reviewing traffic rules based on the adopted 60 km/h. The experts from Japan, Canada and USA did not support the proposals and referred to FDAV as the reference document guiding the work of GRVA on automation. The expert from SAFE stated the need for a clear roadmap, mentioned the challenges for the Technical Services and the Approval Authorities with regards to Level 3 technologies and supported the comments from the European Commission regarding the need for a Regulation addressing Automation on motorways.

18. It was recalled that the expert from UK was working on a proposal for provisions for lane change during the minimum risk manoeuvre.

19. The expert from OICA presented GRVA-07-26, introducing a proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] (GRVA-07-31), aimed at extending the scope of the Regulation to heavy vehicles. They recalled that these vehicle categories were already in the scope of the activities of the former IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Function (ACSF), which drafted UN Regulation No. [157].

20. GRVA noted that its work priorities on automation were defined by WP.29 in the FDAV. GRVA also noted that a number of Contracting Parties were willing to work on amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] and therefore decided to consult the Administrative Committee for the coordination of work (AC.2).

21. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRVA-07-07, highlighting some inconsistencies between the different parts of UN Regulation No. [157]. He mentioned discrepancies on the use of the term “system”. He questioned the need for Appendix 3 to Annex 4. He then introduced amendment proposal GRVA-07-06 on behalf of the European Commission and the Russian Federation. The expert from OICA responded to the proposal (GRVA-07-59). He also briefly introduced GRVA-07-30, proposing editorial changes to the Regulation and GRVA-07-21 with substantial amendments to the Regulations.

22. The Chair mentioned other informal documents (GRVA-07-27, GRVA-07-45, GRVA-07-56, GRVA-07-62 and GRVA-07-66), proposing amendments to UN Regulation No. [157] and invited the stakeholders to prepare a consolidated document with amendment proposals that could generate consensus at GRVA. Interested parties developed GRVA-07-69-Rev.1.

23. GRVA adopted the amendment proposals marked in green and yellow in GRVA-07-69-Rev.1 (see Annex III of the session report). GRVA requested the secretariat to correct the abbreviations, as appropriate, and to submit it without the text in read as supplement to UN Regulation No. [157], for consideration and vote by the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) its Administrative Committee for the 1958 Agreement (AC.1) at their March 2021 sessions.

24. Following the interpretation request by the expert from France (GRVA-07-39), GRVA agreed that ALKS should in principle detect “approaching emergency vehicles” as per traffic rules, noting that a definition of approaching emergency vehicles as well as other clarifications should be developed as soon as possible.

Proposal to clarify that the Approval Authority should postpone granting a cybersecurity management approval in the absence of agreement on the common interpretation of a provision where the interpretation of the Approval Authority has raised comments from other authorities under the review procedure provided for in paragraph 5.3.4.

27. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRVA-07-08, proposing a clarification of para. 5.3.5. of UN Regulation No. [155]. The expert from Japan explained that the proposed clarification should be carefully reviewed as it could lead to restrictions to the rights of Contracting Parties according to the 1958 Agreement. The author agreed and mentioned that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/97 already provided some clarifications.

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.

37. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced the draft proposal for Supplement 11 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (GRSP-119-32), and the background of its development.

38. GRSG considered the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2020/22) and, upon technical discussion and comments from experts from Belgium, Japan, Italy, the European Commission and OICA, decided to reconsider the proposal at its April 2021 session, on the basis of an updated draft.

39. The expert from the Russian Federation invited experts to deliver their comments to the proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 66 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2020/22) to sergey.maslennikov@nami.ru.

Proposal for additional checks following complete vehicle tests:

1. destruction of seats mounts. The break-off and displacement of seats is not covered by the current Regulation, since they are initially located inside the residual space and their displacement is not assessed;
2. injury-causing objects entering the residual space and moving within it (e.g., if a person is hit by a fire extinguisher or other object when the vehicle overturns, it may cause serious or even fatal injuries).

20. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed aligning the criteria on the total loss of inflation pressure within one minute in Annex 8, paragraph 3 and in paragraph 5 (c) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRBP/2020/8). GRBP adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2021 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the original series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 124.

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.

27. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRVA-07-08, proposing a clarification of para. 5.3.5. of UN Regulation No. [155]. The expert from Japan explained that the proposed clarification should be carefully reviewed as it could lead to restrictions to the rights of Contracting Parties according to the 1958 Agreement. The author agreed and mentioned that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/97 already provided some clarifications.

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.