33. The Secretary informed GRB of the progress made during the sixth and seventh meetings of the informal group on environmentally friendly vehicles (EFV) which was held in Geneva on 11 June 2010 (GRPE-60-21 and EFV-07-05). GRB noted that the eighth informal meeting on EFV would be held in conjunction with the forthcoming session of the Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE) in January 2011. GRB also noted the approach proposed by the EFV Chair to consider, as a first step, a single score evaluation of environmentally friendly vehicles such as parameters on CO2 emissions, noise level, gaseous pollutants, the recyclability and type of fuels. Detailed information is available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grpe/efv07.html.

34. GRB welcomed the proposed structure (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/60, para. 44) of the future EFV concept document in a more general part with provisions for the well-to-tank approach and a more detailed part with technical specifications or recommendations for the tank-to-wheel approach, focusing on the construction of EFV and their environmental performance.

35. With regard to the parameters on noise (EFV-07-05), GRB would like to have a detailed discussion on this issue and suggested holding the ninth informal group on EFV prior to the next session of GRB in the morning of 15 February 2011.

2. GRB considered and adopted the agenda proposed for the fifty-second session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/4 and Corr.1). The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I to this report.

3. The expert from Italy, chairing the informal group on Regulation No. 41, recalled the discussion of GRB at its previous session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2009/3 and GRB-51-16) and reported on the progress of work made by the informal group during its meeting on 1 June 2010. Referring to the working papers available on the website http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/R41-14th.html, he informed GRB that the informal group could find an agreement on:
(a) an additional or enlarged plate;
(b) the new type approval test method for measuring the noise levels including provisions for anti-tampering; and
© the Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP) including the so called mystery points.

4. He announced the informal group’s intention to finalize the draft 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 41 and to submit the proposal, as an official document, to GRB for a detailed consideration at its next session in February 2011. For this purpose, all GRB experts were invited to send their comments at latest by the end of September 2010 to the Secretary of the informal group (erwin.segers@honda-eu.com).

5. On the new limit values for the noise emissions of motorcycles, GRB welcomed the initiative of the informal group to set up a data base to collect type approval data on current noise levels.

6. The expert from ISO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/7 proposing a clarification to the stationary noise testing provisions with regard to vehicles in which the internal combustion engine does not operate during the stationary conditions. GRB adopted the proposal and agreed to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2011 sessions, together with the draft 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 41 (see para. 4 above).

7. The expert from ISO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.2/GRB/2010/6 proposing the same clarification to the provisions of Regulation No. 51 as mentioned under paragraph 6 above. GRB adopted the proposal and agreed to submit it to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and its Administrative Committee (AC.1) for consideration at their March 2011 sessions, as Corrigendum 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51.

8. The expert from ISO informed GRB on the current status of the revision of standard ISO 10844 regarding the technical changes to the specifications of test tracks for vehicle noise measurements (GRB-52-02). He volunteered to present the final text of the updated ISO standard at the next session of GRB and expected that the document would then be published in 2012. GRB agreed to consider, at its next sessions, the necessary amendments to Regulations Nos. 41 and 51 with regard to the optional and mandatory application of these updated specifications of ISO 10844. GRB noted the position of the expert from the Netherlands (GRB-52-20) on the proposed range of values for the allowable texture. The expert from ISO stated that this issue had been discussed extensively within the ISO working group. He volunteered to take care of this issue and to come back to GRB at its next session in February 2011 with a possible solution.

9. Referring to GRB-51-20 and the discussion of GRB at its previous session, the expert from OICA presented GRB-52-04 showing the considerable contribution of the propulsion system, including the traction tyres, to the vehicle noise emissions in real urban traffic, especially for commercial vehicles equipped with a high powered engine, due to the high influence of the engine torque on traction tyre noise. GRB welcomed this information and agreed on the need to amend, in this respect, Regulation No. 51. The expert from OICA was invited to prepare a concrete proposal for consideration at the next GRB session.

38. Upon the request of WP.29 at its March 2010 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1083, para. 27), GRB noted the guidelines on establishing requirements for high-priority signals (GRB-52-01). As no Regulation currently under the responsibility of GRB was referring to warning signals or control systems, it was a general opinion that GRB was not concerned by the guidelines. Nevertheless, GRB agreed to review, at its next session in February 2011, the proposed text on auditory warnings (GRB-52-01, page 10).

7. The expert from ISO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.2/GRB/2010/6 proposing the same clarification to the provisions of Regulation No. 51 as mentioned under paragraph 6 above. GRB adopted the proposal and agreed to submit it to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and its Administrative Committee (AC.1) for consideration at their March 2011 sessions, as Corrigendum 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51.

8. The expert from ISO informed GRB on the current status of the revision of standard ISO 10844 regarding the technical changes to the specifications of test tracks for vehicle noise measurements (GRB-52-02). He volunteered to present the final text of the updated ISO standard at the next session of GRB and expected that the document would then be published in 2012. GRB agreed to consider, at its next sessions, the necessary amendments to Regulations Nos. 41 and 51 with regard to the optional and mandatory application of these updated specifications of ISO 10844. GRB noted the position of the expert from the Netherlands (GRB-52-20) on the proposed range of values for the allowable texture. The expert from ISO stated that this issue had been discussed extensively within the ISO working group. He volunteered to take care of this issue and to come back to GRB at its next session in February 2011 with a possible solution.

9. Referring to GRB-51-20 and the discussion of GRB at its previous session, the expert from OICA presented GRB-52-04 showing the considerable contribution of the propulsion system, including the traction tyres, to the vehicle noise emissions in real urban traffic, especially for commercial vehicles equipped with a high powered engine, due to the high influence of the engine torque on traction tyre noise. GRB welcomed this information and agreed on the need to amend, in this respect, Regulation No. 51. The expert from OICA was invited to prepare a concrete proposal for consideration at the next GRB session.

26. The expert from the United States of America, chairing the informal group on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV), reported on the good progress (GRB-52-16) made by the group at its second and third meetings held in Washington D.C. on 3 and 4 May 2010 and in Tokyo from 13 to 15 July 2010. He recalled the objectives of the informal group on QRTV and added that the future recommendations for acoustic warning devices for electric and hybrid vehicles could be used as a candidate for a global technical regulation (gtr), subject to the decision of GRB and WP.29. He announced the intention of the informal group on QRTV to meet again in Berlin, from 27 to 29 September 2010.

27. The Director of the UNECE Transport Division welcomed the activities of GRB and its efforts to set up such recommendations for QRTV. She underlined the need to take a holistic view which includes also other measures, such as new ways of thinking in road safety and particularly in road safety education, the out-of-the-box approach to future transport infrastructure (even with the possibility of geographically separated for different users). In this respect, she invited GRB experts to cooperate with other UNECE Working Parties, first of all with the UNECE Road Safety Forum (WP.1), the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1) and the Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics (WP.5).

28. The expert from Poland stated that the increasing number of hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) resulted in higher risk for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. The expert from the NFB referred to the technical report prepared by the US-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the incidence of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles (GRB-52-17). This study showed that HEV were two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash than vehicles with an internal combustion engine.

29. The expert from Japan presented GRB-52-18 listing the factors for an “ideal warning sound” and possible concepts of approaching vehicles audible systems (AVAS). The expert from CLEPA stressed the need that a safe sound should be detectable, environmentally acceptable and recognizable (GRB-52-19). He suggested using, in this respect, a broadband sound.

30. The expert from CLEPA stressed the need to raise public awareness on the risk of QRTV (GRB-52-08). He invited all GRB experts to witness, in an outdoor demonstration with a number of HEV, the effectiveness of acoustic warning devices for such vehicles and to participate in an experimental test demonstration on audibility of broadband sounds. GRB followed with great interest that demonstration, organized jointly by the experts from CLEPA and Japan.

31. Following the outdoor demonstration, the expert from Japan introduced GRB-52-03 regarding a guideline on measures ensuring the audibility of hybrid and electric vehicles. He added that this guideline entered already into force in Japan. The expert from France underlined the urgency of establishing new provisions for quiet vehicles and, in this respect, welcomed the Japanese guideline as a first set of requirements. The expert from Sweden suggested adding the guidelines listed in GRB-52-03 as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), currently under revision (see para. 36 below). The expert from the United States of America preferred to append the guideline to the Special Resolution No. 1 (S.R.1), linked to the 1998 Agreement.

32. GRB referred GRB-52-03 to the informal group on QRTV to discuss the best possible follow-up to the document and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

7. The expert from ISO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.2/GRB/2010/6 proposing the same clarification to the provisions of Regulation No. 51 as mentioned under paragraph 6 above. GRB adopted the proposal and agreed to submit it to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and its Administrative Committee (AC.1) for consideration at their March 2011 sessions, as Corrigendum 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51.

8. The expert from ISO informed GRB on the current status of the revision of standard ISO 10844 regarding the technical changes to the specifications of test tracks for vehicle noise measurements (GRB-52-02). He volunteered to present the final text of the updated ISO standard at the next session of GRB and expected that the document would then be published in 2012. GRB agreed to consider, at its next sessions, the necessary amendments to Regulations Nos. 41 and 51 with regard to the optional and mandatory application of these updated specifications of ISO 10844. GRB noted the position of the expert from the Netherlands (GRB-52-20) on the proposed range of values for the allowable texture. The expert from ISO stated that this issue had been discussed extensively within the ISO working group. He volunteered to take care of this issue and to come back to GRB at its next session in February 2011 with a possible solution.

9. Referring to GRB-51-20 and the discussion of GRB at its previous session, the expert from OICA presented GRB-52-04 showing the considerable contribution of the propulsion system, including the traction tyres, to the vehicle noise emissions in real urban traffic, especially for commercial vehicles equipped with a high powered engine, due to the high influence of the engine torque on traction tyre noise. GRB welcomed this information and agreed on the need to amend, in this respect, Regulation No. 51. The expert from OICA was invited to prepare a concrete proposal for consideration at the next GRB session.

18. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRB-52-10 proposing a clarification to the test procedure for measuring the tyre rolling resistance. The expert from ISO informed GRB that this issue was still under discussion within a working group of his organization. GRB agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session, if necessary.

19. The expert from ETRTO proposed a correction to the formula for the measurement reproducibility of rolling resistance GRB-52-05. GRB noted a number of comments and agreed to review the proposal at its next session in February 2011, on the basis of an updated official document to be submitted by the expert from ETRTO.

20. GRB noted that Revision 2 of Regulation No. 117 (including the 02 series of amendments) had been adopted by WP.29 at its June 2010 session, on the basis of document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/63. The expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8 proposing a number of corrections to Revision 2.

21. Following the discussion, GRB adopted the amendments proposed on pages 2 and 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1, as Corrigendum 1 to 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117, for consideration at their November 2010 sessions (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/146). Annex 7, footnote 1/ of paragraphs 2. and 3.1.1., amend “Refer to the appendix …” to read “See appendix …”.

22. Upon the recommendation of WP.29 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1085, para. 50) at its June 2010 session, GRB considered an updated version of Annexes 8 and 9 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8) for labelling purposes of tyres regarding rolling resistance as an outcome of the informal group on Special Tyre Definitions (STD). GRB noted GRB-52-06 and a number of comments, but could not find an agreement on both annexes. Following the discussion, it was agreed to reproduce the additional provisions on rolling resistance complementing the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 as Annex III to this report (see the Documentation tab to download the full report).

18. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRB-52-10 proposing a clarification to the test procedure for measuring the tyre rolling resistance. The expert from ISO informed GRB that this issue was still under discussion within a working group of his organization. GRB agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session, if necessary.

19. The expert from ETRTO proposed a correction to the formula for the measurement reproducibility of rolling resistance GRB-52-05. GRB noted a number of comments and agreed to review the proposal at its next session in February 2011, on the basis of an updated official document to be submitted by the expert from ETRTO.

20. GRB noted that Revision 2 of Regulation No. 117 (including the 02 series of amendments) had been adopted by WP.29 at its June 2010 session, on the basis of document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/63. The expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8 proposing a number of corrections to Revision 2.

21. Following the discussion, GRB adopted the amendments proposed on pages 2 and 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1, as Corrigendum 1 to 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117, for consideration at their November 2010 sessions (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/146). Annex 7, footnote 1/ of paragraphs 2. and 3.1.1., amend “Refer to the appendix …” to read “See appendix …”.

22. Upon the recommendation of WP.29 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1085, para. 50) at its June 2010 session, GRB considered an updated version of Annexes 8 and 9 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8) for labelling purposes of tyres regarding rolling resistance as an outcome of the informal group on Special Tyre Definitions (STD). GRB noted GRB-52-06 and a number of comments, but could not find an agreement on both annexes. Following the discussion, it was agreed to reproduce the additional provisions on rolling resistance complementing the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 as Annex III to this report (see the Documentation tab to download the full report).

10. The expert from EC informed GRB of the ongoing procedure to set up a proposal for new sound limit values and presented the draft final report (GRB-52-07) on the comparison of two noise measurement methods, based on type approval data received during the 2-year monitoring process. GRB followed with interest a presentation on the final results of a study (GRB-52-13) on the vehicle noise limit values (VENOLIVA), including possible policy options for the reduction of noise limit values. GRB noted also a presentation on the impact assessment of the policy options (GRB-52-14) of that study.

11. Referring to GRB-52-11, the expert from OICA raised concerns about the huge gap between the outcome of the VENOLIVA study and the results of the first test measurement programme, which had initially been performed already in 2004—2005 with huge financial efforts, by the automotive industry jointly with Japan and the United States of America (TRANS/WP.29/GRB/39, para. 8). He questioned the methodology applied for the evaluation of the noise measurement data. He also wondered why the data of a number of vehicles types have been removed from the database. He stated that the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) had launched parallel evaluations, by two independent consultants, of the noise measurement data collected during the monitoring phase. He stated that the final report on these evaluations would be published in the near future and announced his intention to make the report available to all GRB experts. The expert from ETRTO expressed his doubts on the exaggerated amounts of costs mentioned in the VENOLIVA study as well as the statement on the low influence of tyres and the torque effect on noise levels. He suggested having a detailed consideration on these issues together with the experts from EC and OICA.

12. Concluding the discussion, the Chair invited all GRB experts to send their comments on the VENOLIVA study, not later than by the end of September 2010, to the
expert from EC (Wolfgang.Schneider@ec.europa.eu). GRB agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

26. The expert from the United States of America, chairing the informal group on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV), reported on the good progress (GRB-52-16) made by the group at its second and third meetings held in Washington D.C. on 3 and 4 May 2010 and in Tokyo from 13 to 15 July 2010. He recalled the objectives of the informal group on QRTV and added that the future recommendations for acoustic warning devices for electric and hybrid vehicles could be used as a candidate for a global technical regulation (gtr), subject to the decision of GRB and WP.29. He announced the intention of the informal group on QRTV to meet again in Berlin, from 27 to 29 September 2010.

27. The Director of the UNECE Transport Division welcomed the activities of GRB and its efforts to set up such recommendations for QRTV. She underlined the need to take a holistic view which includes also other measures, such as new ways of thinking in road safety and particularly in road safety education, the out-of-the-box approach to future transport infrastructure (even with the possibility of geographically separated for different users). In this respect, she invited GRB experts to cooperate with other UNECE Working Parties, first of all with the UNECE Road Safety Forum (WP.1), the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1) and the Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics (WP.5).

28. The expert from Poland stated that the increasing number of hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) resulted in higher risk for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. The expert from the NFB referred to the technical report prepared by the US-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the incidence of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles (GRB-52-17). This study showed that HEV were two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash than vehicles with an internal combustion engine.

29. The expert from Japan presented GRB-52-18 listing the factors for an “ideal warning sound” and possible concepts of approaching vehicles audible systems (AVAS). The expert from CLEPA stressed the need that a safe sound should be detectable, environmentally acceptable and recognizable (GRB-52-19). He suggested using, in this respect, a broadband sound.

30. The expert from CLEPA stressed the need to raise public awareness on the risk of QRTV (GRB-52-08). He invited all GRB experts to witness, in an outdoor demonstration with a number of HEV, the effectiveness of acoustic warning devices for such vehicles and to participate in an experimental test demonstration on audibility of broadband sounds. GRB followed with great interest that demonstration, organized jointly by the experts from CLEPA and Japan.

31. Following the outdoor demonstration, the expert from Japan introduced GRB-52-03 regarding a guideline on measures ensuring the audibility of hybrid and electric vehicles. He added that this guideline entered already into force in Japan. The expert from France underlined the urgency of establishing new provisions for quiet vehicles and, in this respect, welcomed the Japanese guideline as a first set of requirements. The expert from Sweden suggested adding the guidelines listed in GRB-52-03 as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), currently under revision (see para. 36 below). The expert from the United States of America preferred to append the guideline to the Special Resolution No. 1 (S.R.1), linked to the 1998 Agreement.

32. GRB referred GRB-52-03 to the informal group on QRTV to discuss the best possible follow-up to the document and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

13. The expert from the United Kingdom withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/5. Following the agreement of GRB at its previous session on the need to conclude the work on the test method for additional sound emission provisions (ASEP), the Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/9 proposing a possible approach for the incorporation of ASEP provisions into Regulation No. 51. He added that this proposal should be considered as a package only. Referring to GRB-52-15, the expert from the Netherlands presented an updated stringency analysis of the proposed solutions and questioned the term “vehicle of concern”. The Chair presented GRB-52-09 providing a clarification of the understanding of “vehicle of concern” and possible consequences of the proposed approach.

14. The expert from EC welcomed the compromise solution and suggested moving forward with the proposed approach. The expert from Norway preferred to still include a “Not To Exceed (NTE)” value into the new provisions for ASEP. The expert from the United States of America renewed his concerns expressed during the previous session of GRB (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/49, para. 11). The expert from OICA presented a number of comments (GRB-52-12) on the Chair’s proposal for ASEP. He stated that this compromise solution could be acceptable for the automotive industry with the condition of a certain lead time necessary to develop the new cars according to these new specifications.

15. Following the discussion, a large majority of GRB experts agreed on the compromise solution proposed by the Chair. The GRB Chair volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 51, for consideration by GRB at its next session on the basis of an official document.

18. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRB-52-10 proposing a clarification to the test procedure for measuring the tyre rolling resistance. The expert from ISO informed GRB that this issue was still under discussion within a working group of his organization. GRB agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session, if necessary.

19. The expert from ETRTO proposed a correction to the formula for the measurement reproducibility of rolling resistance GRB-52-05. GRB noted a number of comments and agreed to review the proposal at its next session in February 2011, on the basis of an updated official document to be submitted by the expert from ETRTO.

20. GRB noted that Revision 2 of Regulation No. 117 (including the 02 series of amendments) had been adopted by WP.29 at its June 2010 session, on the basis of document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/63. The expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8 proposing a number of corrections to Revision 2.

21. Following the discussion, GRB adopted the amendments proposed on pages 2 and 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1, as Corrigendum 1 to 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117, for consideration at their November 2010 sessions (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/146). Annex 7, footnote 1/ of paragraphs 2. and 3.1.1., amend “Refer to the appendix …” to read “See appendix …”.

22. Upon the recommendation of WP.29 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1085, para. 50) at its June 2010 session, GRB considered an updated version of Annexes 8 and 9 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8) for labelling purposes of tyres regarding rolling resistance as an outcome of the informal group on Special Tyre Definitions (STD). GRB noted GRB-52-06 and a number of comments, but could not find an agreement on both annexes. Following the discussion, it was agreed to reproduce the additional provisions on rolling resistance complementing the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 as Annex III to this report (see the Documentation tab to download the full report).

10. The expert from EC informed GRB of the ongoing procedure to set up a proposal for new sound limit values and presented the draft final report (GRB-52-07) on the comparison of two noise measurement methods, based on type approval data received during the 2-year monitoring process. GRB followed with interest a presentation on the final results of a study (GRB-52-13) on the vehicle noise limit values (VENOLIVA), including possible policy options for the reduction of noise limit values. GRB noted also a presentation on the impact assessment of the policy options (GRB-52-14) of that study.

11. Referring to GRB-52-11, the expert from OICA raised concerns about the huge gap between the outcome of the VENOLIVA study and the results of the first test measurement programme, which had initially been performed already in 2004—2005 with huge financial efforts, by the automotive industry jointly with Japan and the United States of America (TRANS/WP.29/GRB/39, para. 8). He questioned the methodology applied for the evaluation of the noise measurement data. He also wondered why the data of a number of vehicles types have been removed from the database. He stated that the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) had launched parallel evaluations, by two independent consultants, of the noise measurement data collected during the monitoring phase. He stated that the final report on these evaluations would be published in the near future and announced his intention to make the report available to all GRB experts. The expert from ETRTO expressed his doubts on the exaggerated amounts of costs mentioned in the VENOLIVA study as well as the statement on the low influence of tyres and the torque effect on noise levels. He suggested having a detailed consideration on these issues together with the experts from EC and OICA.

12. Concluding the discussion, the Chair invited all GRB experts to send their comments on the VENOLIVA study, not later than by the end of September 2010, to the
expert from EC (Wolfgang.Schneider@ec.europa.eu). GRB agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

13. The expert from the United Kingdom withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/5. Following the agreement of GRB at its previous session on the need to conclude the work on the test method for additional sound emission provisions (ASEP), the Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/9 proposing a possible approach for the incorporation of ASEP provisions into Regulation No. 51. He added that this proposal should be considered as a package only. Referring to GRB-52-15, the expert from the Netherlands presented an updated stringency analysis of the proposed solutions and questioned the term “vehicle of concern”. The Chair presented GRB-52-09 providing a clarification of the understanding of “vehicle of concern” and possible consequences of the proposed approach.

14. The expert from EC welcomed the compromise solution and suggested moving forward with the proposed approach. The expert from Norway preferred to still include a “Not To Exceed (NTE)” value into the new provisions for ASEP. The expert from the United States of America renewed his concerns expressed during the previous session of GRB (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/49, para. 11). The expert from OICA presented a number of comments (GRB-52-12) on the Chair’s proposal for ASEP. He stated that this compromise solution could be acceptable for the automotive industry with the condition of a certain lead time necessary to develop the new cars according to these new specifications.

15. Following the discussion, a large majority of GRB experts agreed on the compromise solution proposed by the Chair. The GRB Chair volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 51, for consideration by GRB at its next session on the basis of an official document.

10. The expert from EC informed GRB of the ongoing procedure to set up a proposal for new sound limit values and presented the draft final report (GRB-52-07) on the comparison of two noise measurement methods, based on type approval data received during the 2-year monitoring process. GRB followed with interest a presentation on the final results of a study (GRB-52-13) on the vehicle noise limit values (VENOLIVA), including possible policy options for the reduction of noise limit values. GRB noted also a presentation on the impact assessment of the policy options (GRB-52-14) of that study.

11. Referring to GRB-52-11, the expert from OICA raised concerns about the huge gap between the outcome of the VENOLIVA study and the results of the first test measurement programme, which had initially been performed already in 2004—2005 with huge financial efforts, by the automotive industry jointly with Japan and the United States of America (TRANS/WP.29/GRB/39, para. 8). He questioned the methodology applied for the evaluation of the noise measurement data. He also wondered why the data of a number of vehicles types have been removed from the database. He stated that the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) had launched parallel evaluations, by two independent consultants, of the noise measurement data collected during the monitoring phase. He stated that the final report on these evaluations would be published in the near future and announced his intention to make the report available to all GRB experts. The expert from ETRTO expressed his doubts on the exaggerated amounts of costs mentioned in the VENOLIVA study as well as the statement on the low influence of tyres and the torque effect on noise levels. He suggested having a detailed consideration on these issues together with the experts from EC and OICA.

12. Concluding the discussion, the Chair invited all GRB experts to send their comments on the VENOLIVA study, not later than by the end of September 2010, to the
expert from EC (Wolfgang.Schneider@ec.europa.eu). GRB agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

10. The expert from EC informed GRB of the ongoing procedure to set up a proposal for new sound limit values and presented the draft final report (GRB-52-07) on the comparison of two noise measurement methods, based on type approval data received during the 2-year monitoring process. GRB followed with interest a presentation on the final results of a study (GRB-52-13) on the vehicle noise limit values (VENOLIVA), including possible policy options for the reduction of noise limit values. GRB noted also a presentation on the impact assessment of the policy options (GRB-52-14) of that study.

11. Referring to GRB-52-11, the expert from OICA raised concerns about the huge gap between the outcome of the VENOLIVA study and the results of the first test measurement programme, which had initially been performed already in 2004—2005 with huge financial efforts, by the automotive industry jointly with Japan and the United States of America (TRANS/WP.29/GRB/39, para. 8). He questioned the methodology applied for the evaluation of the noise measurement data. He also wondered why the data of a number of vehicles types have been removed from the database. He stated that the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) had launched parallel evaluations, by two independent consultants, of the noise measurement data collected during the monitoring phase. He stated that the final report on these evaluations would be published in the near future and announced his intention to make the report available to all GRB experts. The expert from ETRTO expressed his doubts on the exaggerated amounts of costs mentioned in the VENOLIVA study as well as the statement on the low influence of tyres and the torque effect on noise levels. He suggested having a detailed consideration on these issues together with the experts from EC and OICA.

12. Concluding the discussion, the Chair invited all GRB experts to send their comments on the VENOLIVA study, not later than by the end of September 2010, to the
expert from EC (Wolfgang.Schneider@ec.europa.eu). GRB agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

13. The expert from the United Kingdom withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/5. Following the agreement of GRB at its previous session on the need to conclude the work on the test method for additional sound emission provisions (ASEP), the Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/9 proposing a possible approach for the incorporation of ASEP provisions into Regulation No. 51. He added that this proposal should be considered as a package only. Referring to GRB-52-15, the expert from the Netherlands presented an updated stringency analysis of the proposed solutions and questioned the term “vehicle of concern”. The Chair presented GRB-52-09 providing a clarification of the understanding of “vehicle of concern” and possible consequences of the proposed approach.

14. The expert from EC welcomed the compromise solution and suggested moving forward with the proposed approach. The expert from Norway preferred to still include a “Not To Exceed (NTE)” value into the new provisions for ASEP. The expert from the United States of America renewed his concerns expressed during the previous session of GRB (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/49, para. 11). The expert from OICA presented a number of comments (GRB-52-12) on the Chair’s proposal for ASEP. He stated that this compromise solution could be acceptable for the automotive industry with the condition of a certain lead time necessary to develop the new cars according to these new specifications.

15. Following the discussion, a large majority of GRB experts agreed on the compromise solution proposed by the Chair. The GRB Chair volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 51, for consideration by GRB at its next session on the basis of an official document.

26. The expert from the United States of America, chairing the informal group on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV), reported on the good progress (GRB-52-16) made by the group at its second and third meetings held in Washington D.C. on 3 and 4 May 2010 and in Tokyo from 13 to 15 July 2010. He recalled the objectives of the informal group on QRTV and added that the future recommendations for acoustic warning devices for electric and hybrid vehicles could be used as a candidate for a global technical regulation (gtr), subject to the decision of GRB and WP.29. He announced the intention of the informal group on QRTV to meet again in Berlin, from 27 to 29 September 2010.

27. The Director of the UNECE Transport Division welcomed the activities of GRB and its efforts to set up such recommendations for QRTV. She underlined the need to take a holistic view which includes also other measures, such as new ways of thinking in road safety and particularly in road safety education, the out-of-the-box approach to future transport infrastructure (even with the possibility of geographically separated for different users). In this respect, she invited GRB experts to cooperate with other UNECE Working Parties, first of all with the UNECE Road Safety Forum (WP.1), the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1) and the Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics (WP.5).

28. The expert from Poland stated that the increasing number of hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) resulted in higher risk for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. The expert from the NFB referred to the technical report prepared by the US-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the incidence of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles (GRB-52-17). This study showed that HEV were two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash than vehicles with an internal combustion engine.

29. The expert from Japan presented GRB-52-18 listing the factors for an “ideal warning sound” and possible concepts of approaching vehicles audible systems (AVAS). The expert from CLEPA stressed the need that a safe sound should be detectable, environmentally acceptable and recognizable (GRB-52-19). He suggested using, in this respect, a broadband sound.

30. The expert from CLEPA stressed the need to raise public awareness on the risk of QRTV (GRB-52-08). He invited all GRB experts to witness, in an outdoor demonstration with a number of HEV, the effectiveness of acoustic warning devices for such vehicles and to participate in an experimental test demonstration on audibility of broadband sounds. GRB followed with great interest that demonstration, organized jointly by the experts from CLEPA and Japan.

31. Following the outdoor demonstration, the expert from Japan introduced GRB-52-03 regarding a guideline on measures ensuring the audibility of hybrid and electric vehicles. He added that this guideline entered already into force in Japan. The expert from France underlined the urgency of establishing new provisions for quiet vehicles and, in this respect, welcomed the Japanese guideline as a first set of requirements. The expert from Sweden suggested adding the guidelines listed in GRB-52-03 as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), currently under revision (see para. 36 below). The expert from the United States of America preferred to append the guideline to the Special Resolution No. 1 (S.R.1), linked to the 1998 Agreement.

32. GRB referred GRB-52-03 to the informal group on QRTV to discuss the best possible follow-up to the document and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

26. The expert from the United States of America, chairing the informal group on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV), reported on the good progress (GRB-52-16) made by the group at its second and third meetings held in Washington D.C. on 3 and 4 May 2010 and in Tokyo from 13 to 15 July 2010. He recalled the objectives of the informal group on QRTV and added that the future recommendations for acoustic warning devices for electric and hybrid vehicles could be used as a candidate for a global technical regulation (gtr), subject to the decision of GRB and WP.29. He announced the intention of the informal group on QRTV to meet again in Berlin, from 27 to 29 September 2010.

27. The Director of the UNECE Transport Division welcomed the activities of GRB and its efforts to set up such recommendations for QRTV. She underlined the need to take a holistic view which includes also other measures, such as new ways of thinking in road safety and particularly in road safety education, the out-of-the-box approach to future transport infrastructure (even with the possibility of geographically separated for different users). In this respect, she invited GRB experts to cooperate with other UNECE Working Parties, first of all with the UNECE Road Safety Forum (WP.1), the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1) and the Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics (WP.5).

28. The expert from Poland stated that the increasing number of hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) resulted in higher risk for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. The expert from the NFB referred to the technical report prepared by the US-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the incidence of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles (GRB-52-17). This study showed that HEV were two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash than vehicles with an internal combustion engine.

29. The expert from Japan presented GRB-52-18 listing the factors for an “ideal warning sound” and possible concepts of approaching vehicles audible systems (AVAS). The expert from CLEPA stressed the need that a safe sound should be detectable, environmentally acceptable and recognizable (GRB-52-19). He suggested using, in this respect, a broadband sound.

30. The expert from CLEPA stressed the need to raise public awareness on the risk of QRTV (GRB-52-08). He invited all GRB experts to witness, in an outdoor demonstration with a number of HEV, the effectiveness of acoustic warning devices for such vehicles and to participate in an experimental test demonstration on audibility of broadband sounds. GRB followed with great interest that demonstration, organized jointly by the experts from CLEPA and Japan.

31. Following the outdoor demonstration, the expert from Japan introduced GRB-52-03 regarding a guideline on measures ensuring the audibility of hybrid and electric vehicles. He added that this guideline entered already into force in Japan. The expert from France underlined the urgency of establishing new provisions for quiet vehicles and, in this respect, welcomed the Japanese guideline as a first set of requirements. The expert from Sweden suggested adding the guidelines listed in GRB-52-03 as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), currently under revision (see para. 36 below). The expert from the United States of America preferred to append the guideline to the Special Resolution No. 1 (S.R.1), linked to the 1998 Agreement.

32. GRB referred GRB-52-03 to the informal group on QRTV to discuss the best possible follow-up to the document and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

26. The expert from the United States of America, chairing the informal group on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV), reported on the good progress (GRB-52-16) made by the group at its second and third meetings held in Washington D.C. on 3 and 4 May 2010 and in Tokyo from 13 to 15 July 2010. He recalled the objectives of the informal group on QRTV and added that the future recommendations for acoustic warning devices for electric and hybrid vehicles could be used as a candidate for a global technical regulation (gtr), subject to the decision of GRB and WP.29. He announced the intention of the informal group on QRTV to meet again in Berlin, from 27 to 29 September 2010.

27. The Director of the UNECE Transport Division welcomed the activities of GRB and its efforts to set up such recommendations for QRTV. She underlined the need to take a holistic view which includes also other measures, such as new ways of thinking in road safety and particularly in road safety education, the out-of-the-box approach to future transport infrastructure (even with the possibility of geographically separated for different users). In this respect, she invited GRB experts to cooperate with other UNECE Working Parties, first of all with the UNECE Road Safety Forum (WP.1), the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1) and the Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics (WP.5).

28. The expert from Poland stated that the increasing number of hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) resulted in higher risk for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. The expert from the NFB referred to the technical report prepared by the US-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the incidence of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles (GRB-52-17). This study showed that HEV were two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash than vehicles with an internal combustion engine.

29. The expert from Japan presented GRB-52-18 listing the factors for an “ideal warning sound” and possible concepts of approaching vehicles audible systems (AVAS). The expert from CLEPA stressed the need that a safe sound should be detectable, environmentally acceptable and recognizable (GRB-52-19). He suggested using, in this respect, a broadband sound.

30. The expert from CLEPA stressed the need to raise public awareness on the risk of QRTV (GRB-52-08). He invited all GRB experts to witness, in an outdoor demonstration with a number of HEV, the effectiveness of acoustic warning devices for such vehicles and to participate in an experimental test demonstration on audibility of broadband sounds. GRB followed with great interest that demonstration, organized jointly by the experts from CLEPA and Japan.

31. Following the outdoor demonstration, the expert from Japan introduced GRB-52-03 regarding a guideline on measures ensuring the audibility of hybrid and electric vehicles. He added that this guideline entered already into force in Japan. The expert from France underlined the urgency of establishing new provisions for quiet vehicles and, in this respect, welcomed the Japanese guideline as a first set of requirements. The expert from Sweden suggested adding the guidelines listed in GRB-52-03 as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), currently under revision (see para. 36 below). The expert from the United States of America preferred to append the guideline to the Special Resolution No. 1 (S.R.1), linked to the 1998 Agreement.

32. GRB referred GRB-52-03 to the informal group on QRTV to discuss the best possible follow-up to the document and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

26. The expert from the United States of America, chairing the informal group on Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV), reported on the good progress (GRB-52-16) made by the group at its second and third meetings held in Washington D.C. on 3 and 4 May 2010 and in Tokyo from 13 to 15 July 2010. He recalled the objectives of the informal group on QRTV and added that the future recommendations for acoustic warning devices for electric and hybrid vehicles could be used as a candidate for a global technical regulation (gtr), subject to the decision of GRB and WP.29. He announced the intention of the informal group on QRTV to meet again in Berlin, from 27 to 29 September 2010.

27. The Director of the UNECE Transport Division welcomed the activities of GRB and its efforts to set up such recommendations for QRTV. She underlined the need to take a holistic view which includes also other measures, such as new ways of thinking in road safety and particularly in road safety education, the out-of-the-box approach to future transport infrastructure (even with the possibility of geographically separated for different users). In this respect, she invited GRB experts to cooperate with other UNECE Working Parties, first of all with the UNECE Road Safety Forum (WP.1), the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1) and the Working Party on Transport Trends and Economics (WP.5).

28. The expert from Poland stated that the increasing number of hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) resulted in higher risk for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. The expert from the NFB referred to the technical report prepared by the US-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the incidence of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles (GRB-52-17). This study showed that HEV were two times more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash than vehicles with an internal combustion engine.

29. The expert from Japan presented GRB-52-18 listing the factors for an “ideal warning sound” and possible concepts of approaching vehicles audible systems (AVAS). The expert from CLEPA stressed the need that a safe sound should be detectable, environmentally acceptable and recognizable (GRB-52-19). He suggested using, in this respect, a broadband sound.

30. The expert from CLEPA stressed the need to raise public awareness on the risk of QRTV (GRB-52-08). He invited all GRB experts to witness, in an outdoor demonstration with a number of HEV, the effectiveness of acoustic warning devices for such vehicles and to participate in an experimental test demonstration on audibility of broadband sounds. GRB followed with great interest that demonstration, organized jointly by the experts from CLEPA and Japan.

31. Following the outdoor demonstration, the expert from Japan introduced GRB-52-03 regarding a guideline on measures ensuring the audibility of hybrid and electric vehicles. He added that this guideline entered already into force in Japan. The expert from France underlined the urgency of establishing new provisions for quiet vehicles and, in this respect, welcomed the Japanese guideline as a first set of requirements. The expert from Sweden suggested adding the guidelines listed in GRB-52-03 as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), currently under revision (see para. 36 below). The expert from the United States of America preferred to append the guideline to the Special Resolution No. 1 (S.R.1), linked to the 1998 Agreement.

32. GRB referred GRB-52-03 to the informal group on QRTV to discuss the best possible follow-up to the document and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in February 2011.

16. Recalling the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2008/5/Rev.2, the expert from CLEPA volunteered to prepare an updated proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 51. GRB agreed to have, at its next session in February 2011, a final review of the proposal on the basis of a new official document to be submitted by CLEPA.

3. The expert from Italy, chairing the informal group on Regulation No. 41, recalled the discussion of GRB at its previous session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2009/3 and GRB-51-16) and reported on the progress of work made by the informal group during its meeting on 1 June 2010. Referring to the working papers available on the website http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/R41-14th.html, he informed GRB that the informal group could find an agreement on:
(a) an additional or enlarged plate;
(b) the new type approval test method for measuring the noise levels including provisions for anti-tampering; and
© the Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP) including the so called mystery points.

4. He announced the informal group’s intention to finalize the draft 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 41 and to submit the proposal, as an official document, to GRB for a detailed consideration at its next session in February 2011. For this purpose, all GRB experts were invited to send their comments at latest by the end of September 2010 to the Secretary of the informal group (erwin.segers@honda-eu.com).

5. On the new limit values for the noise emissions of motorcycles, GRB welcomed the initiative of the informal group to set up a data base to collect type approval data on current noise levels.

6. The expert from ISO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/7 proposing a clarification to the stationary noise testing provisions with regard to vehicles in which the internal combustion engine does not operate during the stationary conditions. GRB adopted the proposal and agreed to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2011 sessions, together with the draft 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 41 (see para. 4 above).

2. GRB considered and adopted the agenda proposed for the fifty-second session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/4 and Corr.1). The informal documents distributed during the session are listed in Annex I to this report.

13. The expert from the United Kingdom withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/5. Following the agreement of GRB at its previous session on the need to conclude the work on the test method for additional sound emission provisions (ASEP), the Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/9 proposing a possible approach for the incorporation of ASEP provisions into Regulation No. 51. He added that this proposal should be considered as a package only. Referring to GRB-52-15, the expert from the Netherlands presented an updated stringency analysis of the proposed solutions and questioned the term “vehicle of concern”. The Chair presented GRB-52-09 providing a clarification of the understanding of “vehicle of concern” and possible consequences of the proposed approach.

14. The expert from EC welcomed the compromise solution and suggested moving forward with the proposed approach. The expert from Norway preferred to still include a “Not To Exceed (NTE)” value into the new provisions for ASEP. The expert from the United States of America renewed his concerns expressed during the previous session of GRB (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/49, para. 11). The expert from OICA presented a number of comments (GRB-52-12) on the Chair’s proposal for ASEP. He stated that this compromise solution could be acceptable for the automotive industry with the condition of a certain lead time necessary to develop the new cars according to these new specifications.

15. Following the discussion, a large majority of GRB experts agreed on the compromise solution proposed by the Chair. The GRB Chair volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 51, for consideration by GRB at its next session on the basis of an official document.

7. The expert from ISO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.2/GRB/2010/6 proposing the same clarification to the provisions of Regulation No. 51 as mentioned under paragraph 6 above. GRB adopted the proposal and agreed to submit it to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and its Administrative Committee (AC.1) for consideration at their March 2011 sessions, as Corrigendum 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51.

8. The expert from ISO informed GRB on the current status of the revision of standard ISO 10844 regarding the technical changes to the specifications of test tracks for vehicle noise measurements (GRB-52-02). He volunteered to present the final text of the updated ISO standard at the next session of GRB and expected that the document would then be published in 2012. GRB agreed to consider, at its next sessions, the necessary amendments to Regulations Nos. 41 and 51 with regard to the optional and mandatory application of these updated specifications of ISO 10844. GRB noted the position of the expert from the Netherlands (GRB-52-20) on the proposed range of values for the allowable texture. The expert from ISO stated that this issue had been discussed extensively within the ISO working group. He volunteered to take care of this issue and to come back to GRB at its next session in February 2011 with a possible solution.

9. Referring to GRB-51-20 and the discussion of GRB at its previous session, the expert from OICA presented GRB-52-04 showing the considerable contribution of the propulsion system, including the traction tyres, to the vehicle noise emissions in real urban traffic, especially for commercial vehicles equipped with a high powered engine, due to the high influence of the engine torque on traction tyre noise. GRB welcomed this information and agreed on the need to amend, in this respect, Regulation No. 51. The expert from OICA was invited to prepare a concrete proposal for consideration at the next GRB session.

3. The expert from Italy, chairing the informal group on Regulation No. 41, recalled the discussion of GRB at its previous session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2009/3 and GRB-51-16) and reported on the progress of work made by the informal group during its meeting on 1 June 2010. Referring to the working papers available on the website http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grb/R41-14th.html, he informed GRB that the informal group could find an agreement on:
(a) an additional or enlarged plate;
(b) the new type approval test method for measuring the noise levels including provisions for anti-tampering; and
© the Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP) including the so called mystery points.

4. He announced the informal group’s intention to finalize the draft 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 41 and to submit the proposal, as an official document, to GRB for a detailed consideration at its next session in February 2011. For this purpose, all GRB experts were invited to send their comments at latest by the end of September 2010 to the Secretary of the informal group (erwin.segers@honda-eu.com).

5. On the new limit values for the noise emissions of motorcycles, GRB welcomed the initiative of the informal group to set up a data base to collect type approval data on current noise levels.

6. The expert from ISO introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/7 proposing a clarification to the stationary noise testing provisions with regard to vehicles in which the internal combustion engine does not operate during the stationary conditions. GRB adopted the proposal and agreed to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their June 2011 sessions, together with the draft 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 41 (see para. 4 above).

18. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRB-52-10 proposing a clarification to the test procedure for measuring the tyre rolling resistance. The expert from ISO informed GRB that this issue was still under discussion within a working group of his organization. GRB agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session, if necessary.

19. The expert from ETRTO proposed a correction to the formula for the measurement reproducibility of rolling resistance GRB-52-05. GRB noted a number of comments and agreed to review the proposal at its next session in February 2011, on the basis of an updated official document to be submitted by the expert from ETRTO.

20. GRB noted that Revision 2 of Regulation No. 117 (including the 02 series of amendments) had been adopted by WP.29 at its June 2010 session, on the basis of document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/63. The expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8 proposing a number of corrections to Revision 2.

21. Following the discussion, GRB adopted the amendments proposed on pages 2 and 3 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1, as Corrigendum 1 to 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117, for consideration at their November 2010 sessions (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/146). Annex 7, footnote 1/ of paragraphs 2. and 3.1.1., amend “Refer to the appendix …” to read “See appendix …”.

22. Upon the recommendation of WP.29 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1085, para. 50) at its June 2010 session, GRB considered an updated version of Annexes 8 and 9 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/8) for labelling purposes of tyres regarding rolling resistance as an outcome of the informal group on Special Tyre Definitions (STD). GRB noted GRB-52-06 and a number of comments, but could not find an agreement on both annexes. Following the discussion, it was agreed to reproduce the additional provisions on rolling resistance complementing the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 as Annex III to this report (see the Documentation tab to download the full report).

13. The expert from the United Kingdom withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/5. Following the agreement of GRB at its previous session on the need to conclude the work on the test method for additional sound emission provisions (ASEP), the Chair introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2010/9 proposing a possible approach for the incorporation of ASEP provisions into Regulation No. 51. He added that this proposal should be considered as a package only. Referring to GRB-52-15, the expert from the Netherlands presented an updated stringency analysis of the proposed solutions and questioned the term “vehicle of concern”. The Chair presented GRB-52-09 providing a clarification of the understanding of “vehicle of concern” and possible consequences of the proposed approach.

14. The expert from EC welcomed the compromise solution and suggested moving forward with the proposed approach. The expert from Norway preferred to still include a “Not To Exceed (NTE)” value into the new provisions for ASEP. The expert from the United States of America renewed his concerns expressed during the previous session of GRB (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/49, para. 11). The expert from OICA presented a number of comments (GRB-52-12) on the Chair’s proposal for ASEP. He stated that this compromise solution could be acceptable for the automotive industry with the condition of a certain lead time necessary to develop the new cars according to these new specifications.

15. Following the discussion, a large majority of GRB experts agreed on the compromise solution proposed by the Chair. The GRB Chair volunteered to prepare a concrete proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 51, for consideration by GRB at its next session on the basis of an official document.

33. The Secretary informed GRB of the progress made during the sixth and seventh meetings of the informal group on environmentally friendly vehicles (EFV) which was held in Geneva on 11 June 2010 (GRPE-60-21 and EFV-07-05). GRB noted that the eighth informal meeting on EFV would be held in conjunction with the forthcoming session of the Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE) in January 2011. GRB also noted the approach proposed by the EFV Chair to consider, as a first step, a single score evaluation of environmentally friendly vehicles such as parameters on CO2 emissions, noise level, gaseous pollutants, the recyclability and type of fuels. Detailed information is available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grpe/efv07.html.

34. GRB welcomed the proposed structure (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/60, para. 44) of the future EFV concept document in a more general part with provisions for the well-to-tank approach and a more detailed part with technical specifications or recommendations for the tank-to-wheel approach, focusing on the construction of EFV and their environmental performance.

35. With regard to the parameters on noise (EFV-07-05), GRB would like to have a detailed discussion on this issue and suggested holding the ninth informal group on EFV prior to the next session of GRB in the morning of 15 February 2011.

36. GRB welcomed the revised proposal of the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3) and noted that a revised document would be published as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/145. GRB experts were in principle in favour of the revised proposal, but agreed to have a detailed review, at its next session in February 2011, of the provision on noise emissions (chapter H) and on the methods and instruments for measuring noise inside motor vehicles (chapter AL). WP.29 might consider adding the guidelines on measures increasing the audibility of hybrid and electric vehicles (see para. 31 above) as an annex to the R.E.3, if appropriate.