UN R62 Supplement 1 (01 series) · UNECE Regulation No. 62 (ECE R62) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of power-driven vehicles with handlebars with regard to their protection against unauthorized use.
UN R62 — Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments
Base text → Supplement 1
- What changed
- New paragraph 5.13. requires digital keys to comply with new Annex 4, which covers documentation, safe operation, verification and the competence of auditors and assessors.
- New paragraphs 2.7.–2.9. define primary user, digital key and close proximity, and the definition of “Key” in paragraph 2.6. now says “mechanical and/or electronic solution” instead of “device”.
- Paragraph 5.11. now says that components not embedded in the vehicle, for example keys, need not meet the test requirements of paragraphs 5. and 6.
- Why
- The aim is to allow vehicles of categories L1–L7 fitted with handlebars to have a digital key.
- A digital key was already permitted for vehicles of categories M1 and N1.
- The proposal is based on UN Regulation No. 161, and its relevant requirements for categories M1 and N1 are also appropriate for category L.
Q1What changed35 changes
Definitions of key, primary user, digital key and close proximity (paras. 2.6.–2.9.)
In paragraph 2.6., the definition of “Key” now says “mechanical and/or electronic solution” instead of “device”, and it no longer has the word “only”. New paragraph 2.7. defines a primary user as a user who is able to authorize digital keys. There can be more than one primary user. New paragraph 2.8. defines a digital key as a key designed to be transferred to multiple devices by the primary user(s) through dedicated processes. New paragraph 2.9. defines close proximity as a distance of less than 6 m.
Components that are not embedded in the vehicle (para. 5.11.)
New text in paragraph 5.11. covers components that are not embedded in the vehicle, for example keys, which are used for activation or deactivation. These components need not comply with the test requirements in paragraphs 5. and 6.
New Annex 4 for digital keys: purpose and definitions (para. 5.13.; Annex 4, paras. 1.–2.3.)
New paragraph 5.13. requires digital keys to comply with the provisions of Annex 4. The purpose of new Annex 4 is to specify requirements for documentation and verification for digital keys that operate the device to prevent unauthorized use. In Annex 4, the authorization process is any method to provide a digital key that can operate the device to prevent unauthorized use. The revocation process is any method to stop a digital key from operating the device to prevent unauthorized use. The boundary of functional operation sets the external physical limits, for example distance, within which the digital key can operate the device.
Documentation and verification (Annex 4, paras. 3. and 6.)
For type approval, the vehicle manufacturer must give a description of the authorization process, the revocation process and the boundary of functional operation. The manufacturer must also describe the safety measures in the digital key revocation process that make sure that the vehicle operates safely. The functionality of the digital key must be checked with the support of the manufacturer's documentation.
Authorization and revocation of digital keys (Annex 4, paras. 4.–4.2.2.)
A digital key must only be transferred to a device through the authorization process. There must be a revocation process, and the revocation of a digital key must not cause an unsafe condition. A risk reduction analysis must be performed. It uses standards such as ISO 26262 for functional safety and ISO 21448 for the safety of the intended functionality. It documents the risk to vehicle occupants from revocation, and the risk reduction from the implementation of the identified risk mitigation functions or characteristics. The primary user(s) must be able to identify the number of authorized registered digital keys.
Unlocking and owner information (Annex 4, paras. 4.3.–4.4.)
Unlocking of the device to prevent unauthorized use requires the detection of an authorized registered digital key. The digital key must be detected in the interior of the vehicle or in close proximity of the vehicle. Detailed information must be in the owner's manual of the vehicle or in any other communication means in the vehicle. As a minimum, this information must include the method(s) for authorization and for revocation of the digital key.
Cyber-attacks and the competence of auditors and assessors (Annex 4, paras. 5. and 7.)
Cyber-attacks, cyber threats and vulnerabilities must not adversely affect the effectiveness of the system. The effectiveness of the security measures must be demonstrated by fulfilling the technical requirements of UN Regulation No. 155. The assessments under Annex 4 must only be done by auditors or assessors with the necessary technical and administrative knowledge. They must be competent as auditor/assessor for ISO 26262-2018 and ISO 21448. They must also be able to make the necessary link with cybersecurity aspects under UN Regulation No. 155 and ISO/SAE 21434. Appropriate qualifications or other equivalent training records should demonstrate this competence.
Q2Why it changed
- Proposed by
- Expert from the International Motorcycle Manufacturers’ Association
- Working party
- GRSG, 129th session (April 2025)
Reasons
The aim is to allow vehicles of categories L1–L7 fitted with handlebars (category L) to have a digital key. A digital key was already permitted for vehicles of categories M1 and N1. UN Regulation No. 62 sets the requirements for the locking system for category L. For categories M1 and N1, the corresponding regulation is UN Regulation No. 161, so the proposal is based on it. Its relevant requirements are also appropriate for category L.
Sources (5)
“This proposal for amending UN Regulation No. 62 aims at allowing vehicles of categories L1–L7 fitted with handlebars”
“to be equipped with a digital key, which has been already permitted for vehicles of categories M1 and N1”
“the corresponding regulation is UN Regulation No. 161”
“Hence, this proposal was prepared on the basis of UN Regulation No. 161.”
“Relevant requirements established for categories M1 and N1 are also appropriate for category L and are therefore introduced as-is in this proposal.”
The proposal makes some editorial changes to adapt the UN Regulation No. 161 text. UN Regulation No. 161 gives its test requirements in a specific annex, but UN Regulation No. 62 gives them in more general paragraphs. To replicate the intention of the requirement, the proposal changes the wording of the reference. The reference to the standard for the safety of the intended functionality is also updated to reflect a recent development in ISO.
Sources (5)
“Following editorial modifications were made for the adaptation.”
“Test requirements are defined in a specific annexe in UN Regulation No. 161.”
“However, as a difference in editorial configuration, they are distributed in more general paragraphs in the case of UN Regulation No. 62.”
“To adequately replicate the intention of the requirement, the wording of reference was recomposed in this proposal.”
“Reflecting a recent development in the field of ISO, the reference to the standard for the safety of the intended functionality was updated.”
In the English text of UN Regulation No. 161, one requirement on revocation appears to lack a predicate part. For full clarity, the proposal adds the predicate part, with reference to the French text.
Sources (2)
“the following requirement of the English version of UN Regulation No. 161 states only a subject part, apparently lacking a predicate part”
“the predicate part was supplemented in this proposal for full clarity in reference to the corresponding part of its French version”
At the 128th session, Germany asked IMMA to consider applying the content of the proposed amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 116 and 161–163. GRSG later adopted these amendments at that session. The proposal shows this content as paragraph 5. of Annex 9 to UN Regulation No. 161, about the effectiveness of the system against cyber-attacks. IMMA put this content in the formal proposal.
Sources (3)
“During the introduction of the informal proposal GRSG-128-10 at the 128th session, Germany requested IMMA to consider applying the content in its proposed amendment for UN Regulations No. 116 and No. 161–163”
“as reproduced below, which were later adopted by GRSG at the session”
“As discussed in the session, IMMA reflected the content in this formal proposal.”
The experts from the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the International Road Federation informally questioned IMMA about a provision. The provision was for the remote control defined in UN Regulation No. 79, which would not yet be realistic for category L. They suggested removing it. IMMA agreed, considering the current technical status, and removed the corresponding paragraph from the formal proposal.
Sources (3)
“the expert from the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the expert from the International Road Federation informally questioned IMMA”
“questioned IMMA about the provision for the remote control defined in UN Regulation No. 79 that would not yet be realistic for category L and suggested removing it”
“Considering the current technical status, IMMA agreed with the suggestion and removed the corresponding paragraph in this formal proposal.”
Document trail
- —ProposalGRSG-128-10Informal proposal at the 128th GRSG session
- 2025-01RevisedECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2025/2Formal proposal for the 129th GRSG session
- —Working party adoptsECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/108Session report, para. 39
- 2025-08Sent to WP.29ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2025/106Text that GRSG sent to WP.29 and AC.1
- 2025-11WP.29 adoptsECE/TRANS/WP.29/1188Adopted at the 197th session (session report, para. 110)
- 2026-06-04In forceC.N.208.2026.TREATIES-XI.B.16.62UN depositary notification
Q3Who is affected
Vehicle manufacturer
- If your vehicle uses digital keys, make sure that they comply with Annex 4 (paragraph 5.13.).
- Prepare the descriptions that Annex 4, paragraph 3. requires for type approval.
- Make sure that a risk reduction analysis covers revocation risks to vehicle occupants (Annex 4, paragraph 4.2.1.).
- Make sure that the owner's manual, or another communication means in the vehicle, gives the authorization and revocation methods.
- Be ready to demonstrate the effectiveness of the security measures by fulfilling the technical requirements of UN Regulation No. 155.
Component supplier
- Make sure that a digital key can only be transferred to a device through the authorization process.
- Make sure that the revocation of a digital key does not cause an unsafe condition (Annex 4, paragraph 4.2.1.).
- Make sure that the primary user(s) can identify the number of authorized registered digital keys.
- Allow the “device to prevent unauthorized use” to unlock only with an authorized registered digital key detected in the vehicle or in “close proximity”.
- Give the vehicle manufacturer the information for the descriptions of the authorization and revocation processes (Annex 4, paragraph 3.).
Technical service / Approval authority
- Be ready to check the functionality of the digital key with the manufacturer's documentation (Annex 4, paragraph 6.).
- Make sure that only competent auditors or assessors do the Annex 4 assessments (Annex 4, paragraph 7.).
- Note that keys not embedded in the vehicle need not meet the test requirements of paragraphs 5. and 6.
See every change side by side
RegVault customers compare every version of UN regulations, read the consolidated text and download the PDF.
ⓘ This report gives advice only. It is not legal or type-approval advice.