Proposal first presented to the ACSF informal group for a type-approval mechanism to control for updates to software dependent systems.

OICA-CLEPA draft contribution to integrate SWTAN in UN Regulations

Proposal for wording regarding vehicle manufacturer responsibility for supplier cybersecurity: “The vehicle manufacturer shall demonstrate that he has processes in place with his suppliers to ensure cybersecurity.”

Matrix illustrating a possible way that use of simulation, track, and real world testing might be applied to the various automated vehicle safety elements identified by WP.29 Contracting Parties.

Proposal to introduce provisions into the cybersecurity recommendations paper and draft UN Regulation addressing access to in-vehicle data, functions and resources by independent aftermarket service providers.

Proposals to clarify the draft text.

Proposal to clarify the text with regard to transitional provisions and extension of approvals.

Comments on the proposal for amendments to the UN Regulation on Cyber Security Management.

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.

CLEPA welcomes questions raised by Japanese experts under doc TFCS-37-06 and identifies points requiring further clarification regarding component and STU type approval scope, technical integration, STU definition, implementation, risk assessment, impact and benefit, and post-market monitoring. CLEPA proposes that components or STUs required for initial vehicle type approval under Part I should not be subject to separate approval under Part II, noting that vehicle cybersecurity depends on vehicle-level system interactions and E/E architecture, the OEM has full visibility of system architecture, and Part I approval ensures integrated assessment.