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the proposed draft UN Regulation on Cyber Security and Cyber Security Management System (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/2 (withdrawn), ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2020/3 amended by GRVA-05-05).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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

30. The expert from FIA presented GRVA-07-41, referring to WP.29-181-10 and proposing to insert in UN Regulation No. 155 the Protection Profiles that they developed in cooperation with TüVIT. The expert from OICA responded to the proposal (GRVA-07-36). The expert from FIA agreed to respond to the challenges raised by the expert from OICA. The expert from the Russian Federation asked for more details about the Protection Profiles in practice. The expert from CEN recalled his submission of WP.29-179-27 provided for information to WP.29. The expert from China inquired about the nature of the Protection Profile, if it was a guidance or regulatory requirements. The expert from FIA responded that Protection Profiles are a methodology. GRVA invited the stakeholders to continue discussion at the IWG level. The expert from the Netherlands agreed to support this discussion.

19. The representative of FIA presented WP.29-179-18 on consumer views on automated/autonomous vehicles emphasising the challenges associated with the cyber security performance of vehicles over their life time. He presented a possible solution to address the challenges. He admitted that the solution proposed was not design neutral. He explained that his purpose was to demonstrate that the challenge could be solved and that at least one solution would exist. He stated that the World Forum was the right place to address this issue. He proposed that WP.29 mandate GRVA to regulate Information Technology (IT) security in automotive products over their life time at the ECE level within the framework of the 1958 Agreement.

20. The representative of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues, explained that the task force was facing difficulties of legal nature concerning what could be done within the frameworks of the 1958 and 1998 Agreements. He questioned whether, under the 1958 Agreement, manufacturers can be required to undertake to protect vehicles from cyber-attack throughout their lifetime. The representative of OICA supported this statement.

21. The representative of the Russian Federation, Co-Chair of IWG on PTI, supported the views expressed in the presentation. He invited delegates to participate in the work of IWG on PTI to work in the spirit proposed in the presentation.

22. The representative of CITA supported the idea proposed in the presentation. He clarified that the comparison of replacement parts (e.g. brake pads) with IT products did not reflect the complexity related to cyber security. He mentioned that it was certainly possible to draft technical provisions under the 1958 Agreement to address this challenge.

23. The representative of ITU supported the view of CITA. He recalled his previous compromise proposal that regulatory provisions require that manufacturers were responsible and able to address cyber security as long as the communication capability in the vehicle existed. He explained, that in practice, this would mean that manufacturers would have to apply security patches (as it is done in other industries) as long as the vehicle is equipped with a functioning communication capability.

24. The representative of Germany stated that there was no disagreement among WP.29, that cyber security would need to be archived over the life time of a vehicle. He stated that the main point was to find out how to reasonably achieve that goal from the regulatory perspective. He mentioned that his country would certainly be able to regulate this, but that given the international nature of road traffic, internationally harmonized provisions would be needed.

25. The representative of the United Kingdom noted that this issue had already been discussed at GRVA and that the key issue in the discussion was whether there was a legal basis to provide provisions. He invited the secretariat, possibly with the support of the Office of Legal Affairs, to provide guidance on this point for the next session of WP.29.

26. The representative of the United States of America suggested that the Task Force could continue its work and consider developing voluntary guidelines, while legal matters were clarified.

27. The representative of the Republic of Korea informed WP.29 about their plan to issue a national guideline for cyber security in the Republic of Korea. He stated that Korea would release a guideline for cyber security before the end of 2019, based on the activities of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Software Update and the research conducted in the Republic of Korea. He added that they would introduce their guideline in the upcoming Cyber Security and Software Update meeting in Washington, D.C.

21. The expert from the United Kingdom, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air software updates (TF CS/OTA) reported on the activities of the group since June 2019. (Details are provided in GRVA-04-45.) He explained the activities of the test phase and reported that it was positive. He stated that the draft proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 as amended) worked and provided value. He mentioned that the experience gathered during this phase would be reflected in an interpretation document and that the documents under development would be improved for consideration at the next session of GRVA.

22. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-04-25, proposing amendments to the scope of the draft regulation. GRVA referred the proposal to the Task Force.

23. The expert from Germany provided comments in GRVA-04-22. GRVA agreed to refer them to the Task Force.

24. The expert from the European Commission recalled that a report would have to be prepared for review at the next session of WP.29. He presented a proposal to clarify the scope of the draft UN Regulation on cyber security (GRVA-04-32). He noted that the challenges of the group were similar to those that the IWG on VMAD would face, when working on audits.

25. The expert from the USA commended the Task Force for its work. But she requested that the technical requirements be prepared (as previously agreed) in a document that could serve the 1998 Agreement as well.

26. The expert from Sweden informed that his country had now established a Cyber Security authority. GRVA welcomed the participation of Cyber Security authorities at the Task Force meetings.

27. The expert from FIGIEFA introduced GRVA-04-04 proposing amendments to the scope as well as new proposals related to access to data by authorized parties. She announced that she would support the alternative proposal concerning the scope presented in
GRVA-04-32. The expert from OICA also supported amendments to the scope but not the other amendments proposed in GRVA-04-32. The expert from EC stated the importance to remain vigilant concerning the access to data in vehicles. GRVA transmitted the amendment proposals to the task force.

28. The expert from FIA introduced GRVA-04-40 proposing to clarify the lifecycle and lifetime definitions. He suggested that the lifetime definition should also include the time after a vehicle is deregistered and until it is scrapped. GRVA did not conclude on this item and transmitted the document to the Task Force.

29. GRVA invited the Task Force to prepare the proposal for a new UN Regulation on cyber security, a draft guidance document, a draft resolution with recommendations together with draft requirements in a document that can serve the 1998 Agreement and a report on the test phase.

30. GRVA agreed to request an extension of the mandate of the Task Force for two years.

71. The secretariat presented GRVA-04-49 with priority proposals for GRVA (other than those related to automated vehicles), answering to the request of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1147, para. 7. GRVA commented on the document. The Chair explained that the priorities should be understood in terms of workload to determine the number of sessions per year in a top down approach by AC.2. The secretariat invited the delegations to send written comments in advance of the next session of AC.2 on 12 November 2019.

21. The expert from the United Kingdom, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air software updates (TF CS/OTA) reported on the activities of the group since June 2019. (Details are provided in GRVA-04-45.) He explained the activities of the test phase and reported that it was positive. He stated that the draft proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 as amended) worked and provided value. He mentioned that the experience gathered during this phase would be reflected in an interpretation document and that the documents under development would be improved for consideration at the next session of GRVA.

22. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-04-25, proposing amendments to the scope of the draft regulation. GRVA referred the proposal to the Task Force.

23. The expert from Germany provided comments in GRVA-04-22. GRVA agreed to refer them to the Task Force.

24. The expert from the European Commission recalled that a report would have to be prepared for review at the next session of WP.29. He presented a proposal to clarify the scope of the draft UN Regulation on cyber security (GRVA-04-32). He noted that the challenges of the group were similar to those that the IWG on VMAD would face, when working on audits.

25. The expert from the USA commended the Task Force for its work. But she requested that the technical requirements be prepared (as previously agreed) in a document that could serve the 1998 Agreement as well.

26. The expert from Sweden informed that his country had now established a Cyber Security authority. GRVA welcomed the participation of Cyber Security authorities at the Task Force meetings.

27. The expert from FIGIEFA introduced GRVA-04-04 proposing amendments to the scope as well as new proposals related to access to data by authorized parties. She announced that she would support the alternative proposal concerning the scope presented in
GRVA-04-32. The expert from OICA also supported amendments to the scope but not the other amendments proposed in GRVA-04-32. The expert from EC stated the importance to remain vigilant concerning the access to data in vehicles. GRVA transmitted the amendment proposals to the task force.

28. The expert from FIA introduced GRVA-04-40 proposing to clarify the lifecycle and lifetime definitions. He suggested that the lifetime definition should also include the time after a vehicle is deregistered and until it is scrapped. GRVA did not conclude on this item and transmitted the document to the Task Force.

29. GRVA invited the Task Force to prepare the proposal for a new UN Regulation on cyber security, a draft guidance document, a draft resolution with recommendations together with draft requirements in a document that can serve the 1998 Agreement and a report on the test phase.

30. GRVA agreed to request an extension of the mandate of the Task Force for two years.

21. The expert from the United Kingdom, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air software updates (TF CS/OTA) reported on the activities of the group since June 2019. (Details are provided in GRVA-04-45.) He explained the activities of the test phase and reported that it was positive. He stated that the draft proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 as amended) worked and provided value. He mentioned that the experience gathered during this phase would be reflected in an interpretation document and that the documents under development would be improved for consideration at the next session of GRVA.

22. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-04-25, proposing amendments to the scope of the draft regulation. GRVA referred the proposal to the Task Force.

23. The expert from Germany provided comments in GRVA-04-22. GRVA agreed to refer them to the Task Force.

24. The expert from the European Commission recalled that a report would have to be prepared for review at the next session of WP.29. He presented a proposal to clarify the scope of the draft UN Regulation on cyber security (GRVA-04-32). He noted that the challenges of the group were similar to those that the IWG on VMAD would face, when working on audits.

25. The expert from the USA commended the Task Force for its work. But she requested that the technical requirements be prepared (as previously agreed) in a document that could serve the 1998 Agreement as well.

26. The expert from Sweden informed that his country had now established a Cyber Security authority. GRVA welcomed the participation of Cyber Security authorities at the Task Force meetings.

27. The expert from FIGIEFA introduced GRVA-04-04 proposing amendments to the scope as well as new proposals related to access to data by authorized parties. She announced that she would support the alternative proposal concerning the scope presented in
GRVA-04-32. The expert from OICA also supported amendments to the scope but not the other amendments proposed in GRVA-04-32. The expert from EC stated the importance to remain vigilant concerning the access to data in vehicles. GRVA transmitted the amendment proposals to the task force.

28. The expert from FIA introduced GRVA-04-40 proposing to clarify the lifecycle and lifetime definitions. He suggested that the lifetime definition should also include the time after a vehicle is deregistered and until it is scrapped. GRVA did not conclude on this item and transmitted the document to the Task Force.

29. GRVA invited the Task Force to prepare the proposal for a new UN Regulation on cyber security, a draft guidance document, a draft resolution with recommendations together with draft requirements in a document that can serve the 1998 Agreement and a report on the test phase.

30. GRVA agreed to request an extension of the mandate of the Task Force for two years.

21. The expert from the United Kingdom, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air software updates (TF CS/OTA) reported on the activities of the group since June 2019. (Details are provided in GRVA-04-45.) He explained the activities of the test phase and reported that it was positive. He stated that the draft proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 as amended) worked and provided value. He mentioned that the experience gathered during this phase would be reflected in an interpretation document and that the documents under development would be improved for consideration at the next session of GRVA.

22. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-04-25, proposing amendments to the scope of the draft regulation. GRVA referred the proposal to the Task Force.

23. The expert from Germany provided comments in GRVA-04-22. GRVA agreed to refer them to the Task Force.

24. The expert from the European Commission recalled that a report would have to be prepared for review at the next session of WP.29. He presented a proposal to clarify the scope of the draft UN Regulation on cyber security (GRVA-04-32). He noted that the challenges of the group were similar to those that the IWG on VMAD would face, when working on audits.

25. The expert from the USA commended the Task Force for its work. But she requested that the technical requirements be prepared (as previously agreed) in a document that could serve the 1998 Agreement as well.

26. The expert from Sweden informed that his country had now established a Cyber Security authority. GRVA welcomed the participation of Cyber Security authorities at the Task Force meetings.

27. The expert from FIGIEFA introduced GRVA-04-04 proposing amendments to the scope as well as new proposals related to access to data by authorized parties. She announced that she would support the alternative proposal concerning the scope presented in
GRVA-04-32. The expert from OICA also supported amendments to the scope but not the other amendments proposed in GRVA-04-32. The expert from EC stated the importance to remain vigilant concerning the access to data in vehicles. GRVA transmitted the amendment proposals to the task force.

28. The expert from FIA introduced GRVA-04-40 proposing to clarify the lifecycle and lifetime definitions. He suggested that the lifetime definition should also include the time after a vehicle is deregistered and until it is scrapped. GRVA did not conclude on this item and transmitted the document to the Task Force.

29. GRVA invited the Task Force to prepare the proposal for a new UN Regulation on cyber security, a draft guidance document, a draft resolution with recommendations together with draft requirements in a document that can serve the 1998 Agreement and a report on the test phase.

30. GRVA agreed to request an extension of the mandate of the Task Force for two years.

25. The representative of Japan introduced, on behalf of China, European Union, Japan and the United States of America, WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 containing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 – Framework Document on Automated/autonomous Vehicles. He explained that the amendments included editorial amendments as well as a restructured Table 1 containing details on (i) current activities, (ii) expected future activities and (iii) references to the key safety principles mentioned in the document.

26. The representative of the Republic of Korea introduced WP.29-178-19, proposing additional amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34. The representative of Sweden proposed to insert into Table 1 considerations related to para. 4 (j) regarding vehicle inspection. The representative of CITA supported the position of the representative of Sweden.

27. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 as amended by WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 and requested the secretariat to issue it as a reference document with the symbol ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.1.

72. The Secretary of GRVA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.1, the framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles. He further informed GRSG on the establishment of new IWGs for functional requirements for automated vehicles, validation methods for automated driving, EDR/DSSAD and Cyber Security/OTA.

73. Following questions from delegates, GRSG noted that elements related to human-machine interface (HMI) and other activities than driving that were currently under discussion at the Global Forum for Road Safety (WP.1) would also be covered under IWG on functional requirements for automated vehicles, while elements for driver monitoring were still discussed by IWG on Automated Controlled Steering Functions (ACSF).

25. The representative of Japan introduced, on behalf of China, European Union, Japan and the United States of America, WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 containing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 – Framework Document on Automated/autonomous Vehicles. He explained that the amendments included editorial amendments as well as a restructured Table 1 containing details on (i) current activities, (ii) expected future activities and (iii) references to the key safety principles mentioned in the document.

26. The representative of the Republic of Korea introduced WP.29-178-19, proposing additional amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34. The representative of Sweden proposed to insert into Table 1 considerations related to para. 4 (j) regarding vehicle inspection. The representative of CITA supported the position of the representative of Sweden.

27. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 as amended by WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 and requested the secretariat to issue it as a reference document with the symbol ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.1.

151. The Chair of AC.3 introduced the documents that were considered under this agenda item. AC.3 considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/31/Rev.1, aimed at providing an updated overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones taking into account the decisions on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 from the 177th WP.29 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1145, para. 49). AC.3 referred to the discussions on WP.29-178-10/Rev.2, WP.29-178-19, WP.29-178-16/Rev.1, WP.29-178-17/Rev.2 and WP.29-178-18/Rev.1 under agenda item 2.3. Please note that document WP.29-178-17/Rev.2 does not exist. The amended document WP.29-178-17/Rev.1 was reproduced in Annex VI of the session report.

25. The representative of Japan introduced, on behalf of China, European Union, Japan and the United States of America, WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 containing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 – Framework Document on Automated/autonomous Vehicles. He explained that the amendments included editorial amendments as well as a restructured Table 1 containing details on (i) current activities, (ii) expected future activities and (iii) references to the key safety principles mentioned in the document.

26. The representative of the Republic of Korea introduced WP.29-178-19, proposing additional amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34. The representative of Sweden proposed to insert into Table 1 considerations related to para. 4 (j) regarding vehicle inspection. The representative of CITA supported the position of the representative of Sweden.

27. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 as amended by WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 and requested the secretariat to issue it as a reference document with the symbol ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.1.

151. The Chair of AC.3 introduced the documents that were considered under this agenda item. AC.3 considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/31/Rev.1, aimed at providing an updated overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones taking into account the decisions on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 from the 177th WP.29 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1145, para. 49). AC.3 referred to the discussions on WP.29-178-10/Rev.2, WP.29-178-19, WP.29-178-16/Rev.1, WP.29-178-17/Rev.2 and WP.29-178-18/Rev.1 under agenda item 2.3. Please note that document WP.29-178-17/Rev.2 does not exist. The amended document WP.29-178-17/Rev.1 was reproduced in Annex VI of the session report.

34. The expert from FIGIEFA introduced GRVA-03-16 proposing amendments to ECE/TRAN/WP29/GRVA/2019/2. She mentioned the importance for the after sales sector to take into consideration their needs when drafting provisions. She proposed that Approval Authorities should, as neutral entities, determine independently from manufacturers the companies that are authorized parties. She proposed that the Regulation specifies that the manufacturers shall share with authorized parties: data, function calls and resources inside of the vehicle to allow third parties to provide services to maintain safety and security of vehicles during their lifetime. She also proposed to replace throughout the proposal “life cycle” by “life time”.

35. The expert from the United Kingdom, Co-Chair of the Task Force, explained that the Contracting Parties were able to nominate Approval Authorities according to their competencies (1958 Agreement, Article 2, para.2). He explained that the group did not reach consensus on the post production and support duration issue and that in that case existing national regulations would apply. He confirmed that the work of the group did not conflict with other regulations such as the European GDPR. He also confirmed that the group did not discuss in detail the level of access required in GRVA-03-16.

36. The expert from France stated that the Regulation should not freeze the market for repair and maintenance. But he also expressed concerns with safety and cyber security risks posed by automotive product modification and access as proposed in GRVA-03-16. The expert from Sweden also expressed interest to the position expressed in the document and agreed with France on the need for the right balance between access and security.

37. The expert from OICA stated that the access right matter is not a cyber security one. He added that such provisions clarifying access to data for the purpose of balanced market would be relevant for a Regulation dealing with access right issues.

4. The Chair informed GRVA that WP.29 agreed the general approach outlined in the draft framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (WP.29-177-19) and directed GRVA to use the issues, topics and deliverables from the document as guidance to inform its further discussions on structuring its work and delivery plans. He noted that WP.29-177-19 was distributed by the secretariat with an official symbol (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34) for consideration at the June 2019 session of the World Forum. He also noted that World Forum expected GRVA to report at the June 2019 session on its proposed structure, and to propose Terms of Reference (ToRs) for IWGs in this respect.

5. The Chair mentioned that some Contracting Parties expressed the need to amend the table in the framework document and the Secretary introduced a note by the secretariat GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 capturing positions expressed during the three virtual meetings with the Contracting Parties organized by the Chair aimed at facilitating the development of the ToRs.

6. The expert from EC thanked the secretariat for the preparation of document GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He asked whether the content of Annex II was necessary as it was also contained in GRVA-03-10. The expert from the United States of America proposed to keep this Annex in square brackets.

7. The expert from Germany welcomed the document. He considered that the list of items in Annex 2 was not exhaustive and therefore should only be provided to the IWG as ideas for consideration. He also noted the ambitious deadlines proposed.

8. The expert from OICA noted the late availability of this document and highlighted the need to ensure the completion of current activities when considering future IWGs.

9. The expert from AAPC requested some clarifications on the scope of activities on Functional Requirements and on VMAD. GRVA agreed to consider this when drafting the ToRs.

10. The expert from ITU highlighted some industrial priorities on localization, data storage for automated driving, driver monitoring and transition demands. He noted the need to make progress on these activities as they could have costly hardware implications in case of delay.

11. The expert from Sweden inquired about the work on Roadworthiness of Automated Vehicles. GRVA responded that these activities were essentially a task of the ACSF group and remained current under the ACSF activities.

12. Following the interventions from the European Commission, Japan, United States of America, GRVA agreed that the work to be done on the drafting of Terms of Reference for IWGs would be performed on the basis of Table 1 in this document.

13. The Chair introduced GRVA-03-10, a draft document containing Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures for four Informal Working Groups. He explained that he drafted one single document aimed to support the drafting of ToR by providing an overview of all activities to avoid unnecessary overlaps.

14. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-03-11, GRVA-03-12 and GRVA-03-13 with separate Terms of Reference for each of the new IWGs. He stated that he proposed less ambitious deadlines than those of the Framework document.

15. The expert from Spain proposed to merge the approach presented.

16. GRVA noted that the mandate for the Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues had been extended by one year by WP.29 in March 2019 and deferred discussion on further activity for this group.

17. The expert from the European Commission preferred to work on the basis of Table 1 in GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He noted that the work could be done in phases e.g. prioritizing activities on highway, urban and then interurban conditions. He stated that short terms deliveries could be defined without explicitly defining mid-term deliveries at this stage.

18. The expert from OICA preferred a use case approach and a function approach. He stated that priorities should be carefully defined. He recalled as an example that the work on ALKS was prioritizing passenger cars over those for heavy-duty vehicles. He opined that this would not be acceptable for the industry on longer terms.

19. ToRs for the Functional Requirements, Vehicle Test Methods and Data Storage Systems/Event Data Recorders were developed during the session.

20. GRVA reviewed GRVA-03-17 and revised the draft during the session to include references to existing standards and guidelines as proposed by Spain and the United States of America respectively. This approach formed the template for drafting ToRs for the Test Methods group (VMAD) and a revision of the GRSG proposal for an IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

21. GRVA agreed that the draft Terms of Reference as reproduced in GRVA-03-20, GRVA-03-21 and GRVA-03-22 should be transmitted to WP.29 for consideration at the June 2019 session (see Annexes III to V of the session report). GRVA agreed that the work on the items proposed in Table 1 of GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 already started, subject to final endorsement by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

22. GRVA agreed that the existing objectives of the IWG on ACSF should not be affected by the new IWG on FRAV. GRVA agreed that the IWG on FRAV should structure its activities to allow the leadership of the IWG on ACSF to finish its work e.g. common timing and venues for ACSF and FRAV sessions.

23. GRVA briefly discussed the leadership of the IWG. GRVA agreed on the need for a global representation including Asia/Pacific, Europe and North America. GRVA was informed of Countries willing to contribute to the leadership of the IWGs (see Annex II of the session report). GRVA concluded that the leadership question would be decided by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

38. The expert from IMMA introduced GRVA-03-05, requesting to remove vehicles of Category L from the scope of the draft regulatory proposals. Several contracting parties were in favour to keep the L category vehicles in the scope of the draft regulation. Other agreed that this category could be introduced in the regulation, once experience would be gathered with the type approval of vehicles of Categories M and N. GRVA agreed to keep the Category L in square brackets in the text.

24. The expert from the United Kingdom, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-The-Air software updates (TF CS/OTA) reported (GRVA-03-02) on the work of the group (recommendations, a draft regulatory text with provisions for the approval of a manufacturer Cyber Security Management System and provisions for the approval of a vehicle with regards to cyber security), including the ongoing testing activities. He clarified that the outcome of the work did not aim at specifying technical solutions, preventing all kind of cyber security events to happen, securing systems outside of the vehicles (e.g. pendrives), specifying durability requirements, listing all risks and corresponding mitigation solutions, but rather a systems-based approach to security management.

25. He explained that the current testing phase was aimed at checking the robustness of the proposal. He noted that manufacturer involvement represented seventy per cent of the global sales. The expert from AVERE confirmed that North American manufacturers were involved in the testing phase. The output could result in the production of interpretation guidelines if necessary.

26. He answered to the questions raised by the GRVA experts. He confirmed that the work was involving Contracting Parties using the regime of self-certification, but that no Country had indicated their intention to become a sponsor in the sense of the 1998 Agreement.

27. The expert from the European Commission requested clarifications about the purpose of the non-regulatory text in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He noted the importance to define pass/fail criteria (also for audits) in the context of mutual recognition of type approvals. He expressed the need to consider covering hardware updated in this context. He stated that cyber security impacts privacy protection and mentioned other regulations in other jurisdictions that could complement or impact the ongoing work, such as the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

28. The expert from France proposed to revisit the definition of a type in the regulatory draft. He proposed to consider the vehicle architecture as one discriminatory feature.

29. The expert from Germany expressed support to the test phase work and expressed the need to consider lifetime provisions.

30. The expert from CLEPA explained that their industry would have a role to play to support cyber security and asked that GRVA consider provisions that would address their role.

31. The expert from Sweden noted the proposal on slide 16 of GRVA-03-02 “UNECE may decide to develop a harmonized framework on [the post production and vehicle support by the manufacturer] topic” and proposed to reflect on this point.

32. The expert from Spain expressed concern with the lack of guarantee over the whole life cycle and proposed to look at practices of other industry sectors to explore best practices. She also noted that these activities were linked with the activities of existing cyber security authorities and that frameworks were already existing. She stated that the outcome of the test phase should result into amendments instead of interpretation documents.

33. The expert from ITU stated that basic requirements should be built in the communication side and that support provisions could be linked to the life of the communication system (He mentioned as an example the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) protocol shutdown).

46. The secretary of the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 on priority topics for automated and connected vehicles. The expert from the United States of America stressed that even though automated vehicles were different from conventional vehicles for many aspects, crashworthiness remained relevant. He clarified that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 did not yet include the work tasks of GRSP and was mainly a list of tasks for GRVA. He added that this document should be considered a living document and that crashworthiness should be included. He mentioned a few examples of passenger compartment configurations (e.g. passengers lying down or facing the side, lack of a steering wheel), and he added that these different dynamics would involve passengers in a crash. The expert from Germany endorsed the statement of the expert from the United States of America. He added that new tools and computer simulations should be validated. He urged to start a list of detailed subjects as soon as possible that would be examined during the December 2019 session of GRSP. The expert from the United States of America clarified that the vehicle automation was managed by WP.29 and the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) and not by GRVA. He suggested that the expert from Germany raise this issue at WP.29 and AC.3. He reiterated his statement (as per ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2) that currently, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 mainly referred to GRVA tasks and that other topics related to crashworthiness should be addressed by GRSP. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2019 session, awaiting feedback from WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2019 sessions.

25. The representative of Japan introduced, on behalf of China, European Union, Japan and the United States of America, WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 containing amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 – Framework Document on Automated/autonomous Vehicles. He explained that the amendments included editorial amendments as well as a restructured Table 1 containing details on (i) current activities, (ii) expected future activities and (iii) references to the key safety principles mentioned in the document.

26. The representative of the Republic of Korea introduced WP.29-178-19, proposing additional amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34. The representative of Sweden proposed to insert into Table 1 considerations related to para. 4 (j) regarding vehicle inspection. The representative of CITA supported the position of the representative of Sweden.

27. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 as amended by WP.29-178-10/Rev.2 and requested the secretariat to issue it as a reference document with the symbol ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34/Rev.1.

4. The Chair informed GRVA that WP.29 agreed the general approach outlined in the draft framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (WP.29-177-19) and directed GRVA to use the issues, topics and deliverables from the document as guidance to inform its further discussions on structuring its work and delivery plans. He noted that WP.29-177-19 was distributed by the secretariat with an official symbol (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34) for consideration at the June 2019 session of the World Forum. He also noted that World Forum expected GRVA to report at the June 2019 session on its proposed structure, and to propose Terms of Reference (ToRs) for IWGs in this respect.

5. The Chair mentioned that some Contracting Parties expressed the need to amend the table in the framework document and the Secretary introduced a note by the secretariat GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 capturing positions expressed during the three virtual meetings with the Contracting Parties organized by the Chair aimed at facilitating the development of the ToRs.

6. The expert from EC thanked the secretariat for the preparation of document GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He asked whether the content of Annex II was necessary as it was also contained in GRVA-03-10. The expert from the United States of America proposed to keep this Annex in square brackets.

7. The expert from Germany welcomed the document. He considered that the list of items in Annex 2 was not exhaustive and therefore should only be provided to the IWG as ideas for consideration. He also noted the ambitious deadlines proposed.

8. The expert from OICA noted the late availability of this document and highlighted the need to ensure the completion of current activities when considering future IWGs.

9. The expert from AAPC requested some clarifications on the scope of activities on Functional Requirements and on VMAD. GRVA agreed to consider this when drafting the ToRs.

10. The expert from ITU highlighted some industrial priorities on localization, data storage for automated driving, driver monitoring and transition demands. He noted the need to make progress on these activities as they could have costly hardware implications in case of delay.

11. The expert from Sweden inquired about the work on Roadworthiness of Automated Vehicles. GRVA responded that these activities were essentially a task of the ACSF group and remained current under the ACSF activities.

12. Following the interventions from the European Commission, Japan, United States of America, GRVA agreed that the work to be done on the drafting of Terms of Reference for IWGs would be performed on the basis of Table 1 in this document.

13. The Chair introduced GRVA-03-10, a draft document containing Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures for four Informal Working Groups. He explained that he drafted one single document aimed to support the drafting of ToR by providing an overview of all activities to avoid unnecessary overlaps.

14. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-03-11, GRVA-03-12 and GRVA-03-13 with separate Terms of Reference for each of the new IWGs. He stated that he proposed less ambitious deadlines than those of the Framework document.

15. The expert from Spain proposed to merge the approach presented.

16. GRVA noted that the mandate for the Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues had been extended by one year by WP.29 in March 2019 and deferred discussion on further activity for this group.

17. The expert from the European Commission preferred to work on the basis of Table 1 in GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He noted that the work could be done in phases e.g. prioritizing activities on highway, urban and then interurban conditions. He stated that short terms deliveries could be defined without explicitly defining mid-term deliveries at this stage.

18. The expert from OICA preferred a use case approach and a function approach. He stated that priorities should be carefully defined. He recalled as an example that the work on ALKS was prioritizing passenger cars over those for heavy-duty vehicles. He opined that this would not be acceptable for the industry on longer terms.

19. ToRs for the Functional Requirements, Vehicle Test Methods and Data Storage Systems/Event Data Recorders were developed during the session.

20. GRVA reviewed GRVA-03-17 and revised the draft during the session to include references to existing standards and guidelines as proposed by Spain and the United States of America respectively. This approach formed the template for drafting ToRs for the Test Methods group (VMAD) and a revision of the GRSG proposal for an IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

21. GRVA agreed that the draft Terms of Reference as reproduced in GRVA-03-20, GRVA-03-21 and GRVA-03-22 should be transmitted to WP.29 for consideration at the June 2019 session (see Annexes III to V of the session report). GRVA agreed that the work on the items proposed in Table 1 of GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 already started, subject to final endorsement by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

22. GRVA agreed that the existing objectives of the IWG on ACSF should not be affected by the new IWG on FRAV. GRVA agreed that the IWG on FRAV should structure its activities to allow the leadership of the IWG on ACSF to finish its work e.g. common timing and venues for ACSF and FRAV sessions.

23. GRVA briefly discussed the leadership of the IWG. GRVA agreed on the need for a global representation including Asia/Pacific, Europe and North America. GRVA was informed of Countries willing to contribute to the leadership of the IWGs (see Annex II of the session report). GRVA concluded that the leadership question would be decided by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

36. The representative of OICA introduced WP.29-177-20 on the views of OICA on certifying automated / autonomous vehicles and on the “Multi-pillar Approach for the Certification of Automated Vehicles”. He emphasised the importance for the industry that the contracting parties would harmonize performance requirements for automated vehicles. He also introduced WP.29-177-20/Add.1 with a consolidated table on the items in guidelines issued by contracting parties. He called for an exchange with the contracting parties on these items.

37. The representative from Japan stated that Japan as well as other contracting parties were willing to exchange views with OICA, including on WP.29-177-20/Add.1.

38. The representative of the United States of America welcomed the proposals and input from the industry (represented by AAPC, CLEPA and OICA).

11. AC.2 reviewed and discussed documents WP.29-177-04 and WP.29-177-08. Following discussions among GR Chairs, Japan offered to merge them into a single framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles to be transmitted to WP.29 for discussion (WP.29-177-19).

25. The representative of the United Kingdom, Chair of GRVA, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. He proposed to delay the adoption of this document until the review of WP.29-177-19, which was under preparation at that time.

39. The secretariat recalled the series of meetings between December 2018 and March 2019 that led to the preparation of WP.29-177-19 and presented the informal document following which the World Forum had a wide-ranging discussion.

40. The representatives from AAPC, CLEPA, Sweden, and the United States of America offered their views and questions on how the existing ongoing activities were to be included in the document. The representative of the United Kingdom, who had assisted in preparing the document explained that it was aimed at setting the strategic vision for WP.29 in this framework document rather than to intervene in how GRVA would structure its work plan. For this reason, it did not provide much details on these aspects. The representative of the European Union clarified that the said ongoing activities would be addressed as a part of the identified priorities included in the table contained in the document.

41. The representatives of Australia, China, European Union and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland welcomed the document.

42. The representative of Japan thanked all involved delegates for their efforts to prepare a framework document for automated/autonomous vehicles based on the contributions from the European Union and the United States of America, including the prioritized topics and working management, as the framework document was vital to coordinate the activities and solve concerns of stakeholders.

43. He also mentioned that Japan would support this direction and emphasized the importance of further discussions based on informal document WP.29-177-19, which was submitted for discussion at this session of WP.29.

44. He stated that the special session of GRVA in June 2019, before the next session of WP.29, would be a good opportunity to discuss ToRs based on the document as well as the draft regulations on cyber security and software update. He also expressed the willingness of Japan to contribute to discussions for the establishment of those items.

45. He recalled the internal discussions, at political level, about the external Human Machine Interface (HMI) related to automated/autonomous vehicles, specified in the formal document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. He underlined the importance of the function, informing the surrounding of the vehicle when it is driven in an automated mode above Level 3, to ensure safety of traffic participants around.

46. The World Forum agreed the general approach outlined in WP.29-177-19 and directed GRVA to use the issues, topics and deliverables from the document as guidance to inform its further discussions on structuring its work and delivery plans. WP.29-177-19 would be transformed into a formal document for the 178th session. The World Forum expected GRVA to report at the June 2019 session on its proposed structure, and ToRs of informal groups in this respect.

58. GRSG noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and WP.29-177-19 on the work priorities of WP.29 and AC.3 on automated/connected vehicles and their decision that GRSG should resume its work on developing a new UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) on Event Data Recorder (EDR).

59. The expert from OICA presented GRSG-116-42 on the position of the automotive industry to support developing this a new UN regulation on EDR and, in parallel, a Data Storage System for Automated Driving vehicles (DSSAD). She added that discussions on DSSAD had already taken place at the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA), particularly in its IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF). She concluded that the functions of both systems, EDR and DSSAD, were different but the hardware could be the same and, therefore, should be developed in parallel. The experts from Germany and CLEPA endorsed that position and underlined the urgency to work on these subjects.

60. The expert from the Netherlands suggested establishing an informal working group under GRSG and GRVA to develop draft regulatory proposals for new UN regulations on EDR for conventional and automated/autonomous vehicles, and on DSSAD. The experts from China and Japan welcomed that initiative and offered to contribute to the activities. GRSG agreed on the need to establish an IWG on EDR/DSSAD (possibly under GRSG and GRVA).

61. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSG-116-43 (tabled jointly by the experts from Japan and the Netherlands) which proposed a first draft of the terms of reference and rules of procedure for the new IWG on EDR/DSSAD. GRSG considered the document in detail and noted some amendments to the proposal, given in GRSG-116-43-Rev.1. GRSG also noted several concerns on the feasibility of the tasks within the timeline as stipulated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the proposal. GRSG requested the secretariat to transmit GRSG-116-43-Rev.1 to GRVA for further consideration at its special June 2019 session.

62. Following the intervention of some delegations on the urgency of these new activities, GRSG agreed to proceed, in the meantime, on the basis of a TF on EDR.

63. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in October 2019 based on the outcome of TF meetings. The Chair announced that he would inform the World Forum WP.29, the Coordination Committee AC.2 and the Executive Committee AC.3 at their forthcoming sessions in June 2019.

4. The Chair informed GRVA that WP.29 agreed the general approach outlined in the draft framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles (WP.29-177-19) and directed GRVA to use the issues, topics and deliverables from the document as guidance to inform its further discussions on structuring its work and delivery plans. He noted that WP.29-177-19 was distributed by the secretariat with an official symbol (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34) for consideration at the June 2019 session of the World Forum. He also noted that World Forum expected GRVA to report at the June 2019 session on its proposed structure, and to propose Terms of Reference (ToRs) for IWGs in this respect.

5. The Chair mentioned that some Contracting Parties expressed the need to amend the table in the framework document and the Secretary introduced a note by the secretariat GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 capturing positions expressed during the three virtual meetings with the Contracting Parties organized by the Chair aimed at facilitating the development of the ToRs.

6. The expert from EC thanked the secretariat for the preparation of document GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He asked whether the content of Annex II was necessary as it was also contained in GRVA-03-10. The expert from the United States of America proposed to keep this Annex in square brackets.

7. The expert from Germany welcomed the document. He considered that the list of items in Annex 2 was not exhaustive and therefore should only be provided to the IWG as ideas for consideration. He also noted the ambitious deadlines proposed.

8. The expert from OICA noted the late availability of this document and highlighted the need to ensure the completion of current activities when considering future IWGs.

9. The expert from AAPC requested some clarifications on the scope of activities on Functional Requirements and on VMAD. GRVA agreed to consider this when drafting the ToRs.

10. The expert from ITU highlighted some industrial priorities on localization, data storage for automated driving, driver monitoring and transition demands. He noted the need to make progress on these activities as they could have costly hardware implications in case of delay.

11. The expert from Sweden inquired about the work on Roadworthiness of Automated Vehicles. GRVA responded that these activities were essentially a task of the ACSF group and remained current under the ACSF activities.

12. Following the interventions from the European Commission, Japan, United States of America, GRVA agreed that the work to be done on the drafting of Terms of Reference for IWGs would be performed on the basis of Table 1 in this document.

13. The Chair introduced GRVA-03-10, a draft document containing Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedures for four Informal Working Groups. He explained that he drafted one single document aimed to support the drafting of ToR by providing an overview of all activities to avoid unnecessary overlaps.

14. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-03-11, GRVA-03-12 and GRVA-03-13 with separate Terms of Reference for each of the new IWGs. He stated that he proposed less ambitious deadlines than those of the Framework document.

15. The expert from Spain proposed to merge the approach presented.

16. GRVA noted that the mandate for the Task Force on Cyber Security and OTA issues had been extended by one year by WP.29 in March 2019 and deferred discussion on further activity for this group.

17. The expert from the European Commission preferred to work on the basis of Table 1 in GRVA-03-09-Rev.1. He noted that the work could be done in phases e.g. prioritizing activities on highway, urban and then interurban conditions. He stated that short terms deliveries could be defined without explicitly defining mid-term deliveries at this stage.

18. The expert from OICA preferred a use case approach and a function approach. He stated that priorities should be carefully defined. He recalled as an example that the work on ALKS was prioritizing passenger cars over those for heavy-duty vehicles. He opined that this would not be acceptable for the industry on longer terms.

19. ToRs for the Functional Requirements, Vehicle Test Methods and Data Storage Systems/Event Data Recorders were developed during the session.

20. GRVA reviewed GRVA-03-17 and revised the draft during the session to include references to existing standards and guidelines as proposed by Spain and the United States of America respectively. This approach formed the template for drafting ToRs for the Test Methods group (VMAD) and a revision of the GRSG proposal for an IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

21. GRVA agreed that the draft Terms of Reference as reproduced in GRVA-03-20, GRVA-03-21 and GRVA-03-22 should be transmitted to WP.29 for consideration at the June 2019 session (see Annexes III to V of the session report). GRVA agreed that the work on the items proposed in Table 1 of GRVA-03-09-Rev.1 already started, subject to final endorsement by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

22. GRVA agreed that the existing objectives of the IWG on ACSF should not be affected by the new IWG on FRAV. GRVA agreed that the IWG on FRAV should structure its activities to allow the leadership of the IWG on ACSF to finish its work e.g. common timing and venues for ACSF and FRAV sessions.

23. GRVA briefly discussed the leadership of the IWG. GRVA agreed on the need for a global representation including Asia/Pacific, Europe and North America. GRVA was informed of Countries willing to contribute to the leadership of the IWGs (see Annex II of the session report). GRVA concluded that the leadership question would be decided by WP.29 at its June 2019 session.

11. AC.2 reviewed and discussed documents WP.29-177-04 and WP.29-177-08. Following discussions among GR Chairs, Japan offered to merge them into a single framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles to be transmitted to WP.29 for discussion (WP.29-177-19).

27. The representative of the United States of America introduced WP.29-177-08 referring to the work priorities on vehicle automation in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and proposing principles relevant for the performance assessment of automated vehicles.

156. The Chair of AC.3 introduced the documents that were considered under this agenda item. AC.3 considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/31, aimed at providing an updated overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones. AC.3 referred to the discussions on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 under agenda item 2.3.

157. The Chair of AC.3 proposed that agenda item 17 could be divided into two items: 17.1 on the conventional priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement, and 17.2. on priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement concerning automated and connected vehicles for consideration.

158. Discussion was inconclusive, and the Chair of AC.3 proposed to prepare and submit an informal document to the fifty-sixth session detailing the proposed changes to the agenda. AC.3 accepted this proposal and deferred continuation of discussions on the matter to the subsequent AC.3 session in June 2019.

18. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates presented GRVA-02-03, containing a status report of the group’s activities since the previous GRVA session and introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He mentioned that the group responded in writing to all the questions and comments received on the proposal.

19. The expert from FIA welcomed the proposal produced by the group but mentioned that it did not reflect their position regarding life time requirements.

20. The expert from OICA wondered whether such aspect raised by FIA would belong to the scope of the 1958 Agreement. The secretariat answered that some precedents could help answering this question e.g. UN Regulation No. 49 (including conformity of in-service vehicles/engines provisions), UN Regulation No. 59 (Replacement (retrofit) silencing systems), UN Regulation No. 83 (including durability requirements and “in use” requirements), UN Regulation No. 90 (Replacement braking parts) and UN Regulation No. 133 (Recyclability of motor vehicles). He stated that he was not aware of any provision of the Agreement that would limit the activities under this Agreement only to the performance of new vehicles. The expert from OICA, Secretary of the Task Force agreed to submit in written an informal document highlighting the difficulty faced by the group with this aspect. He presented, on the last day of the second GRVA session, GRVA-02-46 that described the issue of post-production, understood as the product lifetime starting after the production is definitely discontinued.

21. The expert from Germany and the Netherlands stated that the document should address the three following phases: system/vehicle development, production and post-production.

22. The expert from Japan supported the proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 and stated the need to adopt this document during this session, since the new UN Regulation proposed in the document was one of the important and needed Regulations for the improvement of vehicle safety.

23. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

24. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of category L from the scope of the document.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force, responding to the advice received from the previous session of GRVA, reported on its proposal for a test phase to assure the draft produced. He presented the aim and the desired output of this activity.

26. GRVA agreed to keep the documents under this agenda item for continued review at next GRVA session. GRVA invited the Task Force to address the comments received and to proceed with the test phase. GRVA noted the need to make further progress on this item and requested the secretariat to explore the possibility to organize a special session of GRVA in May or June 2019.

18. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates presented GRVA-02-03, containing a status report of the group’s activities since the previous GRVA session and introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He mentioned that the group responded in writing to all the questions and comments received on the proposal.

19. The expert from FIA welcomed the proposal produced by the group but mentioned that it did not reflect their position regarding life time requirements.

20. The expert from OICA wondered whether such aspect raised by FIA would belong to the scope of the 1958 Agreement. The secretariat answered that some precedents could help answering this question e.g. UN Regulation No. 49 (including conformity of in-service vehicles/engines provisions), UN Regulation No. 59 (Replacement (retrofit) silencing systems), UN Regulation No. 83 (including durability requirements and “in use” requirements), UN Regulation No. 90 (Replacement braking parts) and UN Regulation No. 133 (Recyclability of motor vehicles). He stated that he was not aware of any provision of the Agreement that would limit the activities under this Agreement only to the performance of new vehicles. The expert from OICA, Secretary of the Task Force agreed to submit in written an informal document highlighting the difficulty faced by the group with this aspect. He presented, on the last day of the second GRVA session, GRVA-02-46 that described the issue of post-production, understood as the product lifetime starting after the production is definitely discontinued.

21. The expert from Germany and the Netherlands stated that the document should address the three following phases: system/vehicle development, production and post-production.

22. The expert from Japan supported the proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 and stated the need to adopt this document during this session, since the new UN Regulation proposed in the document was one of the important and needed Regulations for the improvement of vehicle safety.

23. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

24. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of category L from the scope of the document.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force, responding to the advice received from the previous session of GRVA, reported on its proposal for a test phase to assure the draft produced. He presented the aim and the desired output of this activity.

26. GRVA agreed to keep the documents under this agenda item for continued review at next GRVA session. GRVA invited the Task Force to address the comments received and to proceed with the test phase. GRVA noted the need to make further progress on this item and requested the secretariat to explore the possibility to organize a special session of GRVA in May or June 2019.

27. GRVA noted that the presentation of GRVA-02-03 also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3, that the proposal for a test phase would also apply to the software updates work stream. The expert from Japan also supported the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3. He indicated Japan’s support for the earliest adoption (during this session), since the issue was important and a UN Regulation was needed for the improvement of vehicle safety.

28. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

29. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of Category L from the scope of the document.

30. The expert from ITU stated that regulating communication would require specific expertise and that the precedent at the Working Party on General Safety provisions with the UN Regulation No. 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems) ignored communication aspects and durability provisions. He raised the question whether a vehicle equipped with safety systems based on communication would still be roadworthy in case the communication would no longer function e.g. when the communication system would be obsolete. GRVA agreed that the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates was a good example demonstrating that WP.29 was able to attract the required experts with the right expertise and to make very quick progress on such strategic issues. GRVA agreed about the need to discuss the roadworthiness of vehicles in case of the vehicle communication unit obsolescence would impact the well performing of safety systems.

31. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3 and GRVA-01-18 on the agenda of the next GRVA session.

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

18. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates presented GRVA-02-03, containing a status report of the group’s activities since the previous GRVA session and introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He mentioned that the group responded in writing to all the questions and comments received on the proposal.

19. The expert from FIA welcomed the proposal produced by the group but mentioned that it did not reflect their position regarding life time requirements.

20. The expert from OICA wondered whether such aspect raised by FIA would belong to the scope of the 1958 Agreement. The secretariat answered that some precedents could help answering this question e.g. UN Regulation No. 49 (including conformity of in-service vehicles/engines provisions), UN Regulation No. 59 (Replacement (retrofit) silencing systems), UN Regulation No. 83 (including durability requirements and “in use” requirements), UN Regulation No. 90 (Replacement braking parts) and UN Regulation No. 133 (Recyclability of motor vehicles). He stated that he was not aware of any provision of the Agreement that would limit the activities under this Agreement only to the performance of new vehicles. The expert from OICA, Secretary of the Task Force agreed to submit in written an informal document highlighting the difficulty faced by the group with this aspect. He presented, on the last day of the second GRVA session, GRVA-02-46 that described the issue of post-production, understood as the product lifetime starting after the production is definitely discontinued.

21. The expert from Germany and the Netherlands stated that the document should address the three following phases: system/vehicle development, production and post-production.

22. The expert from Japan supported the proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 and stated the need to adopt this document during this session, since the new UN Regulation proposed in the document was one of the important and needed Regulations for the improvement of vehicle safety.

23. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

24. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of category L from the scope of the document.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force, responding to the advice received from the previous session of GRVA, reported on its proposal for a test phase to assure the draft produced. He presented the aim and the desired output of this activity.

26. GRVA agreed to keep the documents under this agenda item for continued review at next GRVA session. GRVA invited the Task Force to address the comments received and to proceed with the test phase. GRVA noted the need to make further progress on this item and requested the secretariat to explore the possibility to organize a special session of GRVA in May or June 2019.

27. GRVA noted that the presentation of GRVA-02-03 also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3, that the proposal for a test phase would also apply to the software updates work stream. The expert from Japan also supported the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3. He indicated Japan’s support for the earliest adoption (during this session), since the issue was important and a UN Regulation was needed for the improvement of vehicle safety.

28. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

29. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of Category L from the scope of the document.

30. The expert from ITU stated that regulating communication would require specific expertise and that the precedent at the Working Party on General Safety provisions with the UN Regulation No. 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems) ignored communication aspects and durability provisions. He raised the question whether a vehicle equipped with safety systems based on communication would still be roadworthy in case the communication would no longer function e.g. when the communication system would be obsolete. GRVA agreed that the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates was a good example demonstrating that WP.29 was able to attract the required experts with the right expertise and to make very quick progress on such strategic issues. GRVA agreed about the need to discuss the roadworthiness of vehicles in case of the vehicle communication unit obsolescence would impact the well performing of safety systems.

31. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3 and GRVA-01-18 on the agenda of the next GRVA session.

17. Due to lack of time, GRVA did not consider ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/13, describing the principles of the “Three-Pillar Approach”, proposed by the experts from OICA (see GRVA-02-09 and GRVA-02-27).

18. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates presented GRVA-02-03, containing a status report of the group’s activities since the previous GRVA session and introducing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2. He mentioned that the group responded in writing to all the questions and comments received on the proposal.

19. The expert from FIA welcomed the proposal produced by the group but mentioned that it did not reflect their position regarding life time requirements.

20. The expert from OICA wondered whether such aspect raised by FIA would belong to the scope of the 1958 Agreement. The secretariat answered that some precedents could help answering this question e.g. UN Regulation No. 49 (including conformity of in-service vehicles/engines provisions), UN Regulation No. 59 (Replacement (retrofit) silencing systems), UN Regulation No. 83 (including durability requirements and “in use” requirements), UN Regulation No. 90 (Replacement braking parts) and UN Regulation No. 133 (Recyclability of motor vehicles). He stated that he was not aware of any provision of the Agreement that would limit the activities under this Agreement only to the performance of new vehicles. The expert from OICA, Secretary of the Task Force agreed to submit in written an informal document highlighting the difficulty faced by the group with this aspect. He presented, on the last day of the second GRVA session, GRVA-02-46 that described the issue of post-production, understood as the product lifetime starting after the production is definitely discontinued.

21. The expert from Germany and the Netherlands stated that the document should address the three following phases: system/vehicle development, production and post-production.

22. The expert from Japan supported the proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/2 and stated the need to adopt this document during this session, since the new UN Regulation proposed in the document was one of the important and needed Regulations for the improvement of vehicle safety.

23. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

24. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of category L from the scope of the document.

25. The expert from Japan, Co-Chair of the Task Force, responding to the advice received from the previous session of GRVA, reported on its proposal for a test phase to assure the draft produced. He presented the aim and the desired output of this activity.

26. GRVA agreed to keep the documents under this agenda item for continued review at next GRVA session. GRVA invited the Task Force to address the comments received and to proceed with the test phase. GRVA noted the need to make further progress on this item and requested the secretariat to explore the possibility to organize a special session of GRVA in May or June 2019.

27. GRVA noted that the presentation of GRVA-02-03 also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3, that the proposal for a test phase would also apply to the software updates work stream. The expert from Japan also supported the document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3. He indicated Japan’s support for the earliest adoption (during this session), since the issue was important and a UN Regulation was needed for the improvement of vehicle safety.

28. The expert from EC provided comments on the proposal (GRVA-02-37).

29. The expert from IMMA presented GRVA-02-18, proposing to exclude vehicles of Category L from the scope of the document.

30. The expert from ITU stated that regulating communication would require specific expertise and that the precedent at the Working Party on General Safety provisions with the UN Regulation No. 144 (Accident Emergency Call Systems) ignored communication aspects and durability provisions. He raised the question whether a vehicle equipped with safety systems based on communication would still be roadworthy in case the communication would no longer function e.g. when the communication system would be obsolete. GRVA agreed that the Task Force on Cyber Security and Over-the-Air Software Updates was a good example demonstrating that WP.29 was able to attract the required experts with the right expertise and to make very quick progress on such strategic issues. GRVA agreed about the need to discuss the roadworthiness of vehicles in case of the vehicle communication unit obsolescence would impact the well performing of safety systems.

31. GRVA agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/3 and GRVA-01-18 on the agenda of the next GRVA session.

5. The Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 proposing priorities related to WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies activities on Automated Driving Vehicles (ADVs).

6. The expert from Japan mentioned that the framework document work stream proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 should be based on the existing national and regional guidelines to provide the big picture of what GRVA should do. GRVA agreed to make progress on this work stream but noted some minor variations in the precise understanding of what this document should include: a document setting principles and guidelines (compiling existing guidelines) and a document that would also have an operational dimension to guide the future work on ADVs.

7. GRVA also reviewed the other priority items listed in the document and agreed that these priorities proposed can be addressed by GRVA.

8. GRVA discussed the need to address both the activities already started as well as the short-term priorities. Therefore, GRVA discussed the potential structure of GRVA to best address these current activities as well as the new short-term priorities defined in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. Several proposals for a new structure were presented
(GRVA-02-31, GRVA-02-40, GRVA-02-42 and GRVA-02-47). The Chair also submitted GRVA-02-41 with draft Terms of Reference (ToR) and Rules of Procedures (RoP) for a new Informal Working Group (IWG).

9. The secretariat drafted at the end of the session a consolidation of inputs made by the Contracting Parties during the discussions (GRVA-02-44). GRVA agreed with this consolidation in form of a table as reproduced in Annex II, with the expectation that this would provide a base for continued discussions at the March 2019 session of WP.29.

25. The representative of the United Kingdom, Chair of GRVA, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2. He proposed to delay the adoption of this document until the review of WP.29-177-19, which was under preparation at that time.

27. The representative of the United States of America introduced WP.29-177-08 referring to the work priorities on vehicle automation in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and proposing principles relevant for the performance assessment of automated vehicles.

48. WP.29 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 with the following amendment:

Table 1 to read:

156. The Chair of AC.3 introduced the documents that were considered under this agenda item. AC.3 considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/31, aimed at providing an updated overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones. AC.3 referred to the discussions on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 under agenda item 2.3.

157. The Chair of AC.3 proposed that agenda item 17 could be divided into two items: 17.1 on the conventional priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement, and 17.2. on priority topics in the programme of work of the 1998 Agreement concerning automated and connected vehicles for consideration.

158. Discussion was inconclusive, and the Chair of AC.3 proposed to prepare and submit an informal document to the fifty-sixth session detailing the proposed changes to the agenda. AC.3 accepted this proposal and deferred continuation of discussions on the matter to the subsequent AC.3 session in June 2019.

58. GRSG noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and WP.29-177-19 on the work priorities of WP.29 and AC.3 on automated/connected vehicles and their decision that GRSG should resume its work on developing a new UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) on Event Data Recorder (EDR).

59. The expert from OICA presented GRSG-116-42 on the position of the automotive industry to support developing this a new UN regulation on EDR and, in parallel, a Data Storage System for Automated Driving vehicles (DSSAD). She added that discussions on DSSAD had already taken place at the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA), particularly in its IWG on Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF). She concluded that the functions of both systems, EDR and DSSAD, were different but the hardware could be the same and, therefore, should be developed in parallel. The experts from Germany and CLEPA endorsed that position and underlined the urgency to work on these subjects.

60. The expert from the Netherlands suggested establishing an informal working group under GRSG and GRVA to develop draft regulatory proposals for new UN regulations on EDR for conventional and automated/autonomous vehicles, and on DSSAD. The experts from China and Japan welcomed that initiative and offered to contribute to the activities. GRSG agreed on the need to establish an IWG on EDR/DSSAD (possibly under GRSG and GRVA).

61. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSG-116-43 (tabled jointly by the experts from Japan and the Netherlands) which proposed a first draft of the terms of reference and rules of procedure for the new IWG on EDR/DSSAD. GRSG considered the document in detail and noted some amendments to the proposal, given in GRSG-116-43-Rev.1. GRSG also noted several concerns on the feasibility of the tasks within the timeline as stipulated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the proposal. GRSG requested the secretariat to transmit GRSG-116-43-Rev.1 to GRVA for further consideration at its special June 2019 session.

62. Following the intervention of some delegations on the urgency of these new activities, GRSG agreed to proceed, in the meantime, on the basis of a TF on EDR.

63. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in October 2019 based on the outcome of TF meetings. The Chair announced that he would inform the World Forum WP.29, the Coordination Committee AC.2 and the Executive Committee AC.3 at their forthcoming sessions in June 2019.

46. The secretary of the Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 on priority topics for automated and connected vehicles. The expert from the United States of America stressed that even though automated vehicles were different from conventional vehicles for many aspects, crashworthiness remained relevant. He clarified that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 did not yet include the work tasks of GRSP and was mainly a list of tasks for GRVA. He added that this document should be considered a living document and that crashworthiness should be included. He mentioned a few examples of passenger compartment configurations (e.g. passengers lying down or facing the side, lack of a steering wheel), and he added that these different dynamics would involve passengers in a crash. The expert from Germany endorsed the statement of the expert from the United States of America. He added that new tools and computer simulations should be validated. He urged to start a list of detailed subjects as soon as possible that would be examined during the December 2019 session of GRSP. The expert from the United States of America clarified that the vehicle automation was managed by WP.29 and the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) and not by GRVA. He suggested that the expert from Germany raise this issue at WP.29 and AC.3. He reiterated his statement (as per ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2) that currently, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/34 mainly referred to GRVA tasks and that other topics related to crashworthiness should be addressed by GRSP. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2019 session, awaiting feedback from WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2019 sessions.

151. The Chair of AC.3 introduced the documents that were considered under this agenda item. AC.3 considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/31/Rev.1, aimed at providing an updated overview of the priorities of the Programme of Work of the development of UN GTRs or amendments to the existing ones taking into account the decisions on document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/2 from the 177th WP.29 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1145, para. 49). AC.3 referred to the discussions on WP.29-178-10/Rev.2, WP.29-178-19, WP.29-178-16/Rev.1, WP.29-178-17/Rev.2 and WP.29-178-18/Rev.1 under agenda item 2.3. Please note that document WP.29-178-17/Rev.2 does not exist. The amended document WP.29-178-17/Rev.1 was reproduced in Annex VI of the session report.