1. Welcome/introduction of M. ONODA from MLIT: He pointed out that beside the ‘Classic’ quiet propulsion systems based on the storage of electrical energy, also hydrogen vehicles are entering the market with Toyota’s first fuel cell vehicle being recently type approved and on sale very soon. Worldwide harmonization remains an important goal as more and more people travel globally and they shouldn’t be faced to unequal technology that each time they must get used to.

2. Contracting Parties: France, Germany, China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan. NGOs: ETRTO, JAMA, JAPIA, IMMA, OICA, WBU. Invited experts: Nagasaki University

3. Agenda adopted.

REG58-QRTV-01-01 | Draft agenda for the first session of the QRTV UN Regulation informal group Draft agenda for the first meeting of the informal group established to prepare a UN Regulation under the 1958 Agreement on quiet road transport vehicles (initially focused on vehicles operating in electric mode).

4. General statement from JAPIA: JAPIA (Japan Auto Parts Industries Association) was the member of “the study committee on the quietness of Hybrid Vehicles” which was held four times from July to December 2009 as the representative from suppliers, and we agreed to the conclusion of this committee issued as Japanese Guideline. We have not changed this position until now.

5. The time plan for the finalization of the UN Regulation was confirm, i.e. informal document shall be prepared for GRB61 (Jan2015) and a working document for GRB62. This timing is a prerequisite for an adoption of the Regulation in WP29 in March 2016 and a subsequent publication end of that year.

6. The Chairman informed that no additional meeting of the GTR working group has taken place so that there is no development to report. The publication of US regulation was recently announced to be postponed from April 2015 to November 2015, giving NHTSA more time to work on the technical content of the legislation. Reportedly, a modification to the used frequency bands is under consideration.

7. No new definite information from the US is expected within the next couple of months.

8. WBU: Review of WBU position from document REG58-QRTV-01-004 – WBU Comments on CLEPA-QRTV Report October 2014: WBU named the overall Sound pressure level as the most important item. Other very important factors of the Regulation to come are pitch shifting, the amount of broadband (enabling to recognize vehicle’s speed and its directivity), sound at stationary (50 dB(A) is not seen as an environmental concern) and the abstinence of a pause switch (does it make sense to turn a safety feature off?)

REG58-QRTV-01-04 | WBU Comments on CLEPA Report during 6th TF meeting of IWG GTR-QRTV Comments on the proposals and guidelines developed for acoustic vehicle alerting systems for quiet road vehicles.

9. Germany: Presentation of document REG58-QRTV-01-005 (Germany) BaSt Study TU Dresden: The main findings from the study are:

• the SPL of the AVAS signal may be below background noise but audible nonetheless.
• Idling sound does not improve the audibility/recognizibility
• Stationary sound may lead to confusion as people may be unsure if or if not a vehicle has stopped or is still moving
• Frequencies between 250Hz and 400Hz are best suitable to detect braking and deceleration

10. The study was carried out with an average of 34 (deviation from 18 to 55 people depending on test situation) blind and sighted people with an average age of 33 years. WBU expresses its doubts that the studies cases are representative for all 285 Mio blind people and requests time thoroughly read the presentation.

REG58-QRTV-01-05 | Pedestrian perception of vehicle noise study presentation

11. Japan : Presentation of document REG58-QRTV-01-006 – QRTV JASIC 20141210: The main conclusions form the presentation are:

• There is a positive effect of not having stationary sound
• There is a safety risk with stationary sound arising from the masking effect

12. In Japan there are various local requirements in place that prohibit the unnecessary emission of noise and exhaust gases, prohibiting the engine to remain turned if not necessary.

REG58-QRTV-01-06 | Stationary Sound for Audible Vehicle Alerting Systems (AVAS) Presentation discussing pros and cons of requiring (or not) a minimum sound level for quiet vehicles when stationary.

13. WBU expressed its disagreement with those findings as stationary sound would increase the safety. France replied that the findings from Japan and Germany are based on scientific researches, while the request for stationary sound is based on subjective opinions. Germany supports France and proposes to make a final decision on the requirement for stationary sound at a later stage; once more reliable data is available.

14. A clear decision for the handling of stationary sound must be made in GRB. If there is no such standpoint, the document risks being rejected completely.

REG58-QRTV-01-05 | Pedestrian perception of vehicle noise study presentation

REG58-QRTV-01-06 | Stationary Sound for Audible Vehicle Alerting Systems (AVAS) Presentation discussing pros and cons of requiring (or not) a minimum sound level for quiet vehicles when stationary.

15. The deletion of the L categories was approved by the IWG because state of art does not permit today to prove that mandated minimum sound of L categories sound will be benefit. Germany proposes to task an independent consultant to carry out an appropriate study on the need of minimum sound of L- and T-category.

16. The IWG proposes to close discussion on L category and keep statement of this first meeting for the informal document to be presented on 61th and for the working document to be presented GRB 62th if GRB members agree.

17. Upon continued insistence form the WBU, the stationary sound was approved by the IWG to be fitted optionally at the discretion of the manufacturer. The currently available scientific findings do not permit to definitely decide upon the positive or negative effect of that technology. Germany proposes to task an independent consultant to carry out an appropriate study. Members are invited to come forward with proposals for typical traffic conditions that shall be evaluated in that study.

18. The IWG agrees the need to establish scenario in cooperation with WBU to increase scientific knowledge on stationary sound before [deciding whether or not to make] stationary sound mandatory.

19. The IWG proposes to close discussion on stationary sound and keep statement of this first meeting for the informal document to be presented on 61th and for the working document to be presented GRB 62th if GRB members agree.

20. The Pause switch was confirmed by the IWG as an option. WBU agree [to the decision], but recommend to do not have a pause switch. The IWG proposes to close discussion on stationary sound and keep statement of this first meeting for the informal document to be presented on 61th and for the working document to be presented GRB 62th if GRB members agree.

5.4.1 OA sound level above limit + xx dB(A) for vehicle without AVAS (§6.2) :
The IWG worked out a revised wording based on OICA proposal:
If the vehicle without an AVAS or another sound emitting device (e.g. horn or sirene) fitted fulfils the overall levels as specified in table 2 below with a margin of +[x] dB(A), the specification for one-third octave bands and the frequency shift do not apply.

WBU underlines that it does not motivate manufacturers to increase the level to not to have to follow the specification for one-third octave bands and the frequency shift.

France : Margin has to be proposed with consideration of the absence of the specification for one-third octave bands and the frequency shift do not necessary do not reduce safety.

Germany: Margin has to be proposed to consider trucks and noisy equipment.

OICA and IMMA are invited to give a suitable value of “x”.

5.4.2 Reverse alarm (§6.2.2)
France proposes to delete sentence on vehicles already equipped with an audible device indicating the backing of the vehicle.

OICA propose a new sentence:
[For vehicles already equipped with an audible device indicating the backing of the vehicle with a sound level >47dB(A) the requirements of this paragraph do not apply.]

5.4.3 Cut-off of the sound after a certain speed
To be develop during next meeting.

5.4.4 Specifications on maximum sound level for AVAS
Germany proposes to have specifications on maximum sound level for AVAS. For example : “When tested under the conditions of Annex 3 paragraph 3.3, the vehicle shall emit sound that has an overall sound level for the applicable test condition less or equal as specified in table 2 below with a margin of +[x].”

5.4.5 Deactivation (OICA) : Not needed
The delete of Deactivation function was confirmed by OICA and by the IWG.

Japan and WBU underlined that that deactivation shall not be possible. Eventually a clarifying remarks within the section that describes ‘pause functionality’ may become necessary.

Germany and France confirmed that Deactivation function is clearly forbidden regarding the following specification of the Pause function : “Pause function shall be deactivated when the vehicle is restarted upon each vehicle turn-off”.

Japan will propose a sentence to be added to clarify forbidden function.

22. The annex 3 was reviewed until paragraph 4 (frequency shift). France proposes to review this part with few members (ISO, OICA) to have a document for next meeting. As Annex 3 is based on ISO 16254 which is currently in ballot for DIS, ISO will give updates on next meetings.

23. 5.6 The full text was reviewed to take into account comment of OICA, France and commission and to propose a clean document to GRB.

24. See agenda next meeting.

25. IWG thanks JASIC for hosting.

26th January (14h00-17h30) and 27th January 2015 (9h30-12h30) at the premises of the United Nations Office, Geneva (prior to GRB 61).
26th February (10h00-18h00) and 27th February 2015 (9h00-17h00) At Brussels, precise location to be defined (ACEA or Commission or …)
11th May (time will fixed later) and 13th may 2015 (time will fixed later) Location to be defined