Proposal to add para. 3.2.3.1. requiring manufacturers to provide additional information on the Cyber Security Management System at request of the Approval Authority when the Certificate of Compliance for CSMS is issued by a different Approval Authority, add para. 5.1.5. allowing the Approval Authority to refuse type approval if insufficient information on the CSMS and its implementation was provided, and add para. 7.4.1.1. requiring all granting Approval Authorities to be included in reporting when different Approval Authorities are used for the Certificate of Compliance for CSMS and type approval of the vehicle type.

Proposed changes to align RxSWIN provisions with the RxSWIN template adopted through WP.29-197-06, remove the proposed requirement to comply with UN R156/01 or later from R157 and R171, remove amendments to UN R155 as decided by the IWG CS/OTA, apply the RxSWIN amendments also to earlier series of amendments in R13, R13-H, R79, R131, R152, R157, and R171, update references to the latest version of R.E.3, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.8, in earlier series, and correct paragraph references and improve structure in R89, R139, R140, R155, R156, and R171.

OICA, CLEPA, and CLCCR oppose the requirement in GRVA/2026/30 for a single Approval Authority to issue the Certificate of Compliance for CSMS/SUMS and vehicle type approval. They contend the approach would create multiple approvals of the same Management System, imposing administrative burden and creating unresolved legal consequences if a CoC is challenged. The organizations propose adding a new paragraph 5.1.5. instead of paragraph 5.1.3. e) to permit mutual agreement between Approval Authorities, allowing usage of a CoC issued by another Approval Authority, with such agreement documented in type approval documentation.

Proposal to insert new paras. 27 and 28 in Part C Guidance for the application of UN Regulation No. 155 to transformed vehicles. Para. 27 states the requirement that the Certificate of Compliance and type approval are issued by the same Approval Authority applies only within the scope of the type approval granted to the manufacturer concerned. Para. 28 states where a vehicle manufacturer modifies a vehicle with existing type approval and applies for new type approval covering the modification, they need not use the same type approval authority as was used by the original vehicle manufacturer.

OICA-CLEPA draft contribution to integrate SWTAN in UN Regulations

OICA opposes introducing a regulatory requirement for horizontal adjustment of passing-beam/driving-beam and for AFS/ADB to the current SLR agenda. The proposal does not contribute to simplification of lighting regulations, no identified safety concern or ambiguity justifies this requirement, and it lacks a formal proposal from a Contracting Party, NGO, or other stakeholder. The SLR group is managing several longstanding unresolved issues, and introducing this topic risks further delaying progress. Harmonized requirements require comprehensive understanding of Periodic Technical Inspection specifications across all Contracting Parties, which are currently unavailable.

Proposal to clarify the wording regarding the manual deactivation of headlamps. National use requirements are not harmonised and prescribe different scenarios for the use of the dipped beam headlamps. In the case where automatic activation is overridden and the headlamp switch is manually put into the ‘OFF’ position, the paragraph provides for a clear driver message that the headlamps are turned off when ambient conditions change to night time driving conditions.

Proposal for provisions concerning headlamp switching.