7. GRB resumed consideration on vehicle categories and their limit values on the basis of an existing database in China, Japan and EC. The expert from Japan introduced again GRB-56-05 and then GRB-57-22 explaining that according to the monitoring database in his country, the best fitting threshold for vehicle categories N2 and M3particularly should be 135 kW of power mass ratio (PMR). He continued that this value would encompass properly downsized vehicles that have a high impact on noise emissions from the vehicle fleets in Asian countries. He urged finding a compromise on vehicle categories and the adoption of a concrete proposal of the 03 series of amendments to the UN Regulation (i.e. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2012/7). He stated that the introduction of additional sound emission provisions (ASEP) was much awaited in Japan. The expert from China gave two presentations (GRB-57-05 and GRB-57-06), to introduce possible compromise solutions (GRB-57-07) focusing on design characteristics as well as on PMR. The expert from OICA expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the expert from China to find convergence on the vehicle classification and introduced a possible compromise solution (GRB-57-19). The expert from Germany recalled that GRB started discussion with the agreement of developing a proposal for amendments focused on performance criteria rather than on design requirements. Moreover, he added that the allowance of 1 dBA for vehicles with direct injection diesel engines no longer justified. Finally, he recommended simplifying classes and subclasses, to avoid cumbersome vehicle classification thresholds that could hamper technical progress.
10. The EC expert informed GRB on the work progress of the European Union (EU) institutions on the EC proposal on vehicle noise. He added that at this stage no political agreement on new limits had been reached at the EU level.
11. The expert from China introduced GRB-56-07, proposing a different scheme to identify vehicle categories. He also added that his proposal would offer an option to cover needs of a broader range of countries. The experts from Japan and OICA endorsed the Power to Mass Ratio index (PMR) as a tool to link noise emission and vehicle performance. The EC expert recalled that to overcome the different national political priorities/classifications, the discussion should be focused on the mutual recognition principle of the 1958 Agreement, i.e. the vehicle complying with the lowest noise level would be accepted everywhere. He recalled that this would not prevent Contracting Parties from having less stringent requirements in their national law for their internal markets. Finally GRB agreed to resume consideration of GRB-56-07 at its February 2013 session to provide study time for experts.
12. GRB considered GRB-56-01 and GRB-56-05 supplementing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2012/7 tabled by the expert from Japan. He explained that the proposal was based on GRB-55-01, including limit values with some modification of the threshold of subcategories, as a basis for a common position with the proposal tabled by the expert from Germany (GRB-54-03). Moreover, he made a presentation (GRB-56-21) concerning rationales for the proposed Stage 3 of limit values. The EC expert stated that the review of vehicle classification should not only consider the proposals tabled by the experts from Germany and Japan, but also the present vehicle classification in UN Regulation No. 51 and in the EC proposal and verify the rationales for the changes proposed by the experts from Germany and Japan.
GRB recalled that the EC proposal was available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/proposals/index_en.htm#h2-1
13. Upon the suggestion of the Chair, GRB agreed to verify data and provide a basis for analysis for a power reference value of 160 kW in vehicle category M3 and for the reference value of 140 kW in vehicle category N2. Finally, GRB agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its February 2013 session on the basis of the above test data, if available, and on those existing provided by the experts from China, Japan and EC.
13. GRB noted that this agenda item was de facto covered in the framework of the discussion under agenda item 3(a). Thus, GRB agreed that, for its next session, agenda items 3(a) and 3 (b) should be combined and mention as references only GRB-59-04-Rev.1 and GRB-59-10-Rev.1. Finally, GRB agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2012/7, GRB-58-08, GRB-58-09, GRB-58-10, GRB-58-14 and GRB-58-17-Rev.1 from the agenda of the next session.