59. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSG-122-41, Proposal for Supplement 11 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 11 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.

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.