87. The representative of the Russian Federation, Co-Chair of the IWG on Periodic Technical Inspection (PTI), presented WP.29-188-17, providing an overview of the recent activities of the IWG on PTI. He highlighted the current state of play regarding the preparation of a Framework Document on Whole Life Compliance, tabled for adoption under agenda item 7.6. He recalled the discussions related to amendment to the consolidated resolution R.E.6. related to tampering detection. He explained that a draft UN Rule on Accident Emergency Call Systems would be reviewed by GRSG at its March 2023 session. He mentioned the activities in collaboration with the IWG on DETA related to Unique Identifier and the access to vehicle data for the purpose of PTI.

88. WP.29 invited the IWG on PTI to report on progress at its March 2023 session.

54. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-13-42 (introducing GRVA-13-41), proposing the establishment of a new informal working group to develop a harmonized way to deal with in-vehicle data for sovereign tasks.

55. The expert from Canada felt that the proposal was to regulate the commercialization of in-vehicle data. He stated that the proposal by CITA was confusing, as GRVA already had established an IWG dealing with data, namely the IWG on EDR/DSSAD. He highlighted that the focus should be on data related to safety and that there was no need to regulate infotainment.

56. The expert from CITA clarified that their proposal focused on the transmission of data, not the collection of data points as developed by the group on EDR/DSSAD.

57. The expert from Canada asked whether there would be a value to have a separate group dealing with this point.

58. The expert from AAPC shared the views of Canada. He recalled that national laws existed and wondered how this would fit in the mandate of WP.29. The expert from ITU felt that this proposal was aimed to use WP.29 to get access to vehicle data for the purpose of CITA members.

59. The expert from CLEPA pointed at the activities of the IWG on DETA.

60. The expert from FIA stated that the priority should not be the commercialization of data. He suggested to remove blockages created by UN Regulation No. 155, instead.

61. The expert from FIGIEFA preferred to address this concern at the European Union level.

62. The expert from CITA clarified that the use case envisaged was only related to sovereign use cases such as periodic technical inspection, as defined in the 1997 Agreement.

63. The expert from the United States of America, Co-Chair of the IWG on EDR/DSSAD, invited the expert from CITA to join the meetings of the IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

64. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this matter, based on a revised proposal from CITA to clarify their position.

54. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-13-42 (introducing GRVA-13-41), proposing the establishment of a new informal working group to develop a harmonized way to deal with in-vehicle data for sovereign tasks.

55. The expert from Canada felt that the proposal was to regulate the commercialization of in-vehicle data. He stated that the proposal by CITA was confusing, as GRVA already had established an IWG dealing with data, namely the IWG on EDR/DSSAD. He highlighted that the focus should be on data related to safety and that there was no need to regulate infotainment.

56. The expert from CITA clarified that their proposal focused on the transmission of data, not the collection of data points as developed by the group on EDR/DSSAD.

57. The expert from Canada asked whether there would be a value to have a separate group dealing with this point.

58. The expert from AAPC shared the views of Canada. He recalled that national laws existed and wondered how this would fit in the mandate of WP.29. The expert from ITU felt that this proposal was aimed to use WP.29 to get access to vehicle data for the purpose of CITA members.

59. The expert from CLEPA pointed at the activities of the IWG on DETA.

60. The expert from FIA stated that the priority should not be the commercialization of data. He suggested to remove blockages created by UN Regulation No. 155, instead.

61. The expert from FIGIEFA preferred to address this concern at the European Union level.

62. The expert from CITA clarified that the use case envisaged was only related to sovereign use cases such as periodic technical inspection, as defined in the 1997 Agreement.

63. The expert from the United States of America, Co-Chair of the IWG on EDR/DSSAD, invited the expert from CITA to join the meetings of the IWG on EDR/DSSAD.

64. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this matter, based on a revised proposal from CITA to clarify their position.

49. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-12-14/Rev.1, giving an overview of the content in GRVA-12-11/Rev.1 and GRVA-12-40, regarding remote access to in-vehicle data. He recalled various models and technical solutions presented to WP.29 and GRVA to enable such access, e.g. to third parties and for sovereign use cases such as Periodic Technical Inspection or Market Surveillance. He proposed a role for GRVA in that field, i.e. to prepare the design of vehicles so as to enable data collection, transmission and guaranty authenticity (no repudiation) of the data. He called on for the establishment of an ad hoc group that would perform a full assessment, possibly using the assessment template proposed in GRVA-12-40.

50. The expert from FIA explained that he was more in favour to have this matter addressed in Brussels by the European Commission. He explained that GRVA should not negatively influence the access to in-vehicle data because of UN Regulations Nos. 155 and 156.

51. The expert from ITU explained that all models listed in the document would create an unnecessary cyber security risk. He claimed that the role of regulations was to create the conditions under which the vehicle manufacturers should make data available as per the terms of that regulation.

52. The expert from OICA felt that this topic was relevant to national or regional levels and was not sure if the United Nations had a role to play in this. He explained, even though OICA was not fundamentally against a new group, the current workload associated with GRVA activities was already high and therefore explaining the defensive position expressed.

53. The expert from AAPC echoed the positions expressed by ITU and OICA.

54. The expert from CLEPA stated that there was a value for GRVA to host this conversation.

55. The expert from the United States of America supported the position expressed by AAPC. He felt that it was premature to create a group on this matter.

56. The expert from Germany proposed to distinguish two aspects of this matter: (a) the technical aspects related to data transmission and cyber security and (b) the national and regional laws on data privacy.

57. The expert from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agreed that there were challenges related to national laws, but he also supported a harmonized approach on how to share data, as data would not only benefit the vehicle owner but also the whole transport system.

58. The expert from Austria supported a discussion at GRVA on this matter.

59. The expert from CITA welcomed the comments received and stated the importance of cyber security, of national and regional laws but also the need for harmonization activities at GRVA level to avoid the situation where potential national laws would lead to different technical solutions that would impair the aim of data sharing.

60. GRVA agreed to further discuss the role of GRVA with regards to remote access to in-vehicle data at its May 2022 session and consider approaching AC.2 and WP.29 in June 2022 for further guidance regarding future proceedings concerning that matter.

49. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-12-14/Rev.1, giving an overview of the content in GRVA-12-11/Rev.1 and GRVA-12-40, regarding remote access to in-vehicle data. He recalled various models and technical solutions presented to WP.29 and GRVA to enable such access, e.g. to third parties and for sovereign use cases such as Periodic Technical Inspection or Market Surveillance. He proposed a role for GRVA in that field, i.e. to prepare the design of vehicles so as to enable data collection, transmission and guaranty authenticity (no repudiation) of the data. He called on for the establishment of an ad hoc group that would perform a full assessment, possibly using the assessment template proposed in GRVA-12-40.

50. The expert from FIA explained that he was more in favour to have this matter addressed in Brussels by the European Commission. He explained that GRVA should not negatively influence the access to in-vehicle data because of UN Regulations Nos. 155 and 156.

51. The expert from ITU explained that all models listed in the document would create an unnecessary cyber security risk. He claimed that the role of regulations was to create the conditions under which the vehicle manufacturers should make data available as per the terms of that regulation.

52. The expert from OICA felt that this topic was relevant to national or regional levels and was not sure if the United Nations had a role to play in this. He explained, even though OICA was not fundamentally against a new group, the current workload associated with GRVA activities was already high and therefore explaining the defensive position expressed.

53. The expert from AAPC echoed the positions expressed by ITU and OICA.

54. The expert from CLEPA stated that there was a value for GRVA to host this conversation.

55. The expert from the United States of America supported the position expressed by AAPC. He felt that it was premature to create a group on this matter.

56. The expert from Germany proposed to distinguish two aspects of this matter: (a) the technical aspects related to data transmission and cyber security and (b) the national and regional laws on data privacy.

57. The expert from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agreed that there were challenges related to national laws, but he also supported a harmonized approach on how to share data, as data would not only benefit the vehicle owner but also the whole transport system.

58. The expert from Austria supported a discussion at GRVA on this matter.

59. The expert from CITA welcomed the comments received and stated the importance of cyber security, of national and regional laws but also the need for harmonization activities at GRVA level to avoid the situation where potential national laws would lead to different technical solutions that would impair the aim of data sharing.

60. GRVA agreed to further discuss the role of GRVA with regards to remote access to in-vehicle data at its May 2022 session and consider approaching AC.2 and WP.29 in June 2022 for further guidance regarding future proceedings concerning that matter.

49. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-12-14/Rev.1, giving an overview of the content in GRVA-12-11/Rev.1 and GRVA-12-40, regarding remote access to in-vehicle data. He recalled various models and technical solutions presented to WP.29 and GRVA to enable such access, e.g. to third parties and for sovereign use cases such as Periodic Technical Inspection or Market Surveillance. He proposed a role for GRVA in that field, i.e. to prepare the design of vehicles so as to enable data collection, transmission and guaranty authenticity (no repudiation) of the data. He called on for the establishment of an ad hoc group that would perform a full assessment, possibly using the assessment template proposed in GRVA-12-40.

50. The expert from FIA explained that he was more in favour to have this matter addressed in Brussels by the European Commission. He explained that GRVA should not negatively influence the access to in-vehicle data because of UN Regulations Nos. 155 and 156.

51. The expert from ITU explained that all models listed in the document would create an unnecessary cyber security risk. He claimed that the role of regulations was to create the conditions under which the vehicle manufacturers should make data available as per the terms of that regulation.

52. The expert from OICA felt that this topic was relevant to national or regional levels and was not sure if the United Nations had a role to play in this. He explained, even though OICA was not fundamentally against a new group, the current workload associated with GRVA activities was already high and therefore explaining the defensive position expressed.

53. The expert from AAPC echoed the positions expressed by ITU and OICA.

54. The expert from CLEPA stated that there was a value for GRVA to host this conversation.

55. The expert from the United States of America supported the position expressed by AAPC. He felt that it was premature to create a group on this matter.

56. The expert from Germany proposed to distinguish two aspects of this matter: (a) the technical aspects related to data transmission and cyber security and (b) the national and regional laws on data privacy.

57. The expert from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agreed that there were challenges related to national laws, but he also supported a harmonized approach on how to share data, as data would not only benefit the vehicle owner but also the whole transport system.

58. The expert from Austria supported a discussion at GRVA on this matter.

59. The expert from CITA welcomed the comments received and stated the importance of cyber security, of national and regional laws but also the need for harmonization activities at GRVA level to avoid the situation where potential national laws would lead to different technical solutions that would impair the aim of data sharing.

60. GRVA agreed to further discuss the role of GRVA with regards to remote access to in-vehicle data at its May 2022 session and consider approaching AC.2 and WP.29 in June 2022 for further guidance regarding future proceedings concerning that matter.