5. The expert from Norway gave a presentation (GRB-55-07), showing the study results of the TNO report commissioned by the European Commission on vehicle noise limit values, performed by the project group of noise of the conference of European directors of roads (CEDR). As a conclusion of this study, CEDR suggested more stringent noise limits for new vehicles. The study received several comments. The expert of OICA argued that consumer costs on further noise abatement are compared to industry costs for measures on vehicles noise reduction and the expert from EC suggested considering not only economical aspects but on a broader basis.

6. The expert from EC presented the new EC legislative proposal (GRB-55-16) on reducing noise emissions from motor vehicles. He suggested that to overcome the different national/regional political priorities on noise, the discussion on new limits should be focused on the mutual recognition principle, i.e. the vehicle having to comply with the lowest noise level would be accepted everywhere. He added that before taking a position on new limits for UN Regulation No. 51, the European Union (Commission, Parliament and member States) would have to agree internally on acceptable emission levels. He proposed to report, at each GRB session, on the progress made at EU level and invited other Contracting Parties to do the same for the discussion they were carrying internally on implementing UN Regulation No. 51 with new noise limits. GRB assumed that the EC proposal was incorporating the consolidated version of UN Regulation No. 51 at its latest stage of amendments. However, the expert from OICA underlined that some differences between UN Regulation No. 51 and the EC proposal were noted. Since the nature of these differences were not clear, GRB experts expressed the wish to verify if these changes were editorial or substantial. Finally, GRB agreed to resume discussion on this matter at its September 2012 session and noted that the EC proposal was available on the DG Enterprise/Automotive website.

7. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRB-55-10) to introduce GRB-55-01 as an alternative proposal of new limits to GRB-54-03. The proposal received some comments. GRB agreed to resume discussion on this subject on the basis of a concrete proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 51 tabled by the expert from Japan.

8. The expert from China introduced GRB-55-05-Rev.1 proposing amendments (GRB-55-04) aimed at revising the definitions of the “pre-acceleration”, “reference point” and the “specific test conditions” for vehicles. The expert from ISO supported in principle the proposal, in line with the latest revision of ISO Standard 362, pending a study reservation on the specific test conditions. GRB agreed to resume discussion on this matter at its September 2012 session on the basis of a revised proposal prepared by the expert from China in collaboration with the expert from ISO.

9. The expert from OICA presented GRB-55-18 introducing draft transitional provisions of the 03 series of amendments to the UN Regulation No. 51 (GRB-55-09). However, GRB did not support the proposal because it was not in line with the Revision 2 to UN Regulation No. 51 and with the general guidelines on transitional/administrative provisions (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/152). The expert from OICA withdrew GRB-55-09 and GRB offered to make a proposal based on Revision 2 of Regulation 51 and the general guideline at its September 2012 session.

10. GRB noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2012/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2012/3 tabled by the experts from the Netherlands and OICA. The expert from OICA clarified that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2012/2 was aimed at reflecting the latest stage of amendments agreed by GRB including the proposal of 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 51, while ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2012/3 was proposing further changes to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2012/2. GRB noted that the two proposals were not based on the latest stage of amendments agreed by GRB but rather on TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2005/2/Rev.2 superseded by TRANS/WP29/GRB/2005/5 (see TRANS/WP.29/GRB/40, para.7). The expert from OICA explained that the amendments made by GRB in TRANS/WP29/GRB/2005/5 were needed to introduce the monitoring phase into the Regulation and do not reflect the latest state of agreement with respect to the development of the new test method as a series 03 of amendments for UN Regulation 51. GRB agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its September 2012 session on a revised proposal based on the Revision 2 of UN Regulation No. 51 (E/ECE/324/Rev.1/Add.50/Rev.2−E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.1/Add.50/Rev.2), voluntarily prepared by the expert from OICA.

11. GRB agreed with the suggestion by the expert from the United Kingdom to amend paragraph 6 of the report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/52 of the previous GRB session as follows:

“… Moreover, the expert from the United Kingdom also supported the proposal and underlined that the longer time period between stages was welcome on the condition of with respect to the high power sport cars where platform life is longer than conventional cars…”