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.

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.