18. The expert from the Netherlands presented a draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling and background documents (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/9, GRB-68-08-Rev.1, GRB-68-29). Various experts expressed concerns that the substance of the proposed resolution goes beyond the scope of GRB and WP.29. They also pointed out potential difficulties in the possible implementation of the resolution at the national level, due to the fact that road pavements normally fall within the competence of a separate governmental agency which is not responsible for road vehicles. The expert from ETRTO commented on the draft resolution and pointed out that he would need more background information to evaluate the proposal (GRB-68-11). He also called for establishing a joint task force with the participation of the road construction industry.

19. Given the above comments, GRB was of the view that it would be premature to adopt the draft Resolution at this session and advocated the idea of consulting the road construction industry and establishing a task force which would report back to GRB. GRB noted that the Netherlands might not be in a position to lead such a taskforce. The Chair pointed out his intention to seek the views of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) and/or WP.29 on the scope of the draft resolution. Finally, GRB decided to review this subject at the next session and noted that the expert of the Netherlands, with the assistance of the expert from the Russian Federation, would slightly redraft the text of the resolution.

18. The expert from the Netherlands presented a draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling and background documents (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/9, GRB-68-08-Rev.1, GRB-68-29). Various experts expressed concerns that the substance of the proposed resolution goes beyond the scope of GRB and WP.29. They also pointed out potential difficulties in the possible implementation of the resolution at the national level, due to the fact that road pavements normally fall within the competence of a separate governmental agency which is not responsible for road vehicles. The expert from ETRTO commented on the draft resolution and pointed out that he would need more background information to evaluate the proposal (GRB-68-11). He also called for establishing a joint task force with the participation of the road construction industry.

19. Given the above comments, GRB was of the view that it would be premature to adopt the draft Resolution at this session and advocated the idea of consulting the road construction industry and establishing a task force which would report back to GRB. GRB noted that the Netherlands might not be in a position to lead such a taskforce. The Chair pointed out his intention to seek the views of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) and/or WP.29 on the scope of the draft resolution. Finally, GRB decided to review this subject at the next session and noted that the expert of the Netherlands, with the assistance of the expert from the Russian Federation, would slightly redraft the text of the resolution.

18. The expert from the Netherlands presented a draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling and background documents (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/9, GRB-68-08-Rev.1, GRB-68-29). Various experts expressed concerns that the substance of the proposed resolution goes beyond the scope of GRB and WP.29. They also pointed out potential difficulties in the possible implementation of the resolution at the national level, due to the fact that road pavements normally fall within the competence of a separate governmental agency which is not responsible for road vehicles. The expert from ETRTO commented on the draft resolution and pointed out that he would need more background information to evaluate the proposal (GRB-68-11). He also called for establishing a joint task force with the participation of the road construction industry.

19. Given the above comments, GRB was of the view that it would be premature to adopt the draft Resolution at this session and advocated the idea of consulting the road construction industry and establishing a task force which would report back to GRB. GRB noted that the Netherlands might not be in a position to lead such a taskforce. The Chair pointed out his intention to seek the views of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) and/or WP.29 on the scope of the draft resolution. Finally, GRB decided to review this subject at the next session and noted that the expert of the Netherlands, with the assistance of the expert from the Russian Federation, would slightly redraft the text of the resolution.