44. The representative of China, on behalf of the IWG on Children Left in Vehicles (CLIV), introduced GRBP-84-13. The representative of OICA raised concerns about the use of acoustic signals from UN Regulations Nos. 28 or 165 which were developed for different purposes. She wondered if the scope also included light-duty vehicles of categories M1 / N1 and whether anti-theft warnings could also be used for the purpose of CLIV.

45. The representative of France and Germany supported OICA’s comment and questioned the relevance of using acoustic signals from UN Regulation No. 165 for the purpose of CLIV.

46. The representative of Canada supported the idea to use what is available to save lives quickly and wondered why the proposed provisions for heavy-duty focused on acoustic warnings only. The representative of the US informed a program on this topic was running in the country and agreed to forward relevant information to the IWG on CLIV.

47. GRBP sought additional information and the rationale for the proposed elements and raised concerns the UN Regulations mentioned in GRBP-84-13 might not be the most appropriate. The representative of China agreed to forward this message to the IWG on CLIV.