50. The Chair of GRB (France) reported on the results achieved during the sixty-fifth session of GRB (for more details see the report of the session ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/63).

51. In particular, the GRB chair reported that GRB had adopted amendment proposals to the Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP) in Regulation No. 51 (Noise of M and N categories of vehicles) and that these amendments would be submitted to WP.29 and AC.1 in June 2017.

32. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRB given during the 171st session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1129, paras. 50-52) and approved the report.

Correction to paragraph 6.2.2. “Sound level limits” to add a reference specifically to paragraph 3.1 of Annex 3 in order to ensure interpretation of the sound limit values as application only “noise in motion” and not to “stationary noise”. This aligns the 02 and 03 series texts.

8. The expert from Germany proposed to clarify the wording of paragraph 6.2.2. “Sound level limits” (GRB-65-01). GRB adopted this proposal, as contained in Annex II of the session report, and requested the secretariat to submit it to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and the Administrative Committee (AC.1) for consideration and vote at their June 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 2 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51.

11. The expert from China reported issues that had been identified when applying the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 to M₃ vehicles with different powertrain options. In particular, he was of the view that the Regulation should be amended with new provisions that would take into account the specific features of electric and hybrid vehicles.

Proposal to replace the use of metric “tonnes” with measurements in kilograms in the definitions of vehicle categories and mass.

26. The expert from the Russian Federation proposed to change the measuring units for vehicle masses from tonnes to kilograms in the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.4) (GRB-65-03-Rev.1). GRB supported the proposal and requested the secretariat to circulate it to other WP.29 Working Parties, in particular, to Working Party on General Safety (GRSG) at its April 2017 session.

28. GRB noted that the proposal to change the measuring units for vehicle masses from tonnes to kilograms (GRB-65-03-Rev.1), which was agreed on at the previous session, was submitted to the October 2017 session of GRSG (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/20).

Proposal including indoor testing as an alternative to type approval tests of Annex 3 to Regulation No. 51 in accordance with ISO 26101:2012 and ISO 362-3.

9. The expert from ISO proposed to introduce indoor testing in Annex 3 of Regulation No. 51 as an option (GRB-65-04). This proposal received comments from the experts of France, Germany, Poland, Russian Federation, EC and OICA. The Chair invited these experts, as well as other interested parties, to review the ISO proposal and to submit a revised document to the next session.

Presentation on the current European Commission draft proposal for the transposition of UN R138 regarding “quiet road transport vehicles” into EU law. The draft would require the audible alert signal to be activated at vehicle start-up, but would allow for use of a pause function activated by the driver. A fuller set of documents was provided for the 64th Technical Committee-Motor Vehicles session.

17. The expert from EC briefed GRB on preparing a new EU Regulation aimed to amend and supplement the Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System (AVAS) requirements in Annex VIII to EU Regulation No. 540/2014, based on the provisions of Regulation No. 138 and its 01 series of amendments (GRB-65-05). GRB noted the legal complications stemming from the fact that the so-called AVAS ‘pause switch’ was mandatory in EU Regulation No. 540/2014, optional in the original version of Regulation No. 138 and then prohibited in its 01 series of amendments.

3. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea and Turkey outlined the present situation with reversing alarms at the national level, identified the existing problems in this field and proposed solutions (GRB-65-06, GRB-65-07-Rev.1, GRB-65-13, GRB-65-14 and GRB-65-19). The expert from the Netherlands suggested using white noise alarms that, according to him, have advantages over the traditional tonal noise alarms that beep (GRB-65-17).

4. GRB agreed that, rather than amending Regulation No. 28, a new Regulation on reversing alarm should be prepared. GRB noted that the main issues of the future Regulation would be its scope (categories of vehicles), the possible existence of a pause switch and the alarm sound composition (sound levels and frequencies). GRB agreed that there was no need to establish a new informal working group and that the initial drafting would be carried out by a small group (task force) of interested parties. The expert from Germany volunteered to steer the work of the task force with the assistance of OICA. The experts from Japan and Turkey pointed out that, if need be, they could also act as sponsors.

Proposal to pursue harmonization of reversing alarm requirements through the establishment of a new UN Regulation in order to promote safety and address noise concerns.

3. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea and Turkey outlined the present situation with reversing alarms at the national level, identified the existing problems in this field and proposed solutions (GRB-65-06, GRB-65-07-Rev.1, GRB-65-13, GRB-65-14 and GRB-65-19). The expert from the Netherlands suggested using white noise alarms that, according to him, have advantages over the traditional tonal noise alarms that beep (GRB-65-17).

4. GRB agreed that, rather than amending Regulation No. 28, a new Regulation on reversing alarm should be prepared. GRB noted that the main issues of the future Regulation would be its scope (categories of vehicles), the possible existence of a pause switch and the alarm sound composition (sound levels and frequencies). GRB agreed that there was no need to establish a new informal working group and that the initial drafting would be carried out by a small group (task force) of interested parties. The expert from Germany volunteered to steer the work of the task force with the assistance of OICA. The experts from Japan and Turkey pointed out that, if need be, they could also act as sponsors.

28. The secretariat reported on the highlights of the 170th session of WP.29 (GRB-65-08).

Proposal to clarify the text of the regulation, update provisions in line with Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments (WP.29/2015/64), and to align its provisions with those of UN R41 and R51, including:

1. replace the term “two wheeled moped” with “L₁ category vehicle”;
2. replace the term “moped” with “vehicle”;
3. replace the term “noise” by “sound” except for its use related to background noise;
4. replace “noise made by” with “sound emitted by”;
5. specify in each use of the term “speed” whether the reference is to engine speed or vehicle speed;
6. add definition for “rated engine speed” in addition to “rated maximum net power”;
7. add definitions for “reference mass” and “test mass”;
8. add definition for “maximum vehicle speed”;
9. add the words “or electronically” and “rider selectable” to paragraph 6.3.2. to cover electronically adjustable exhaust or silencing systems;
10. allow the use of in-motion testing in addition to stationary testing in Annex 1 and add the necessary data reporting provisions in Annex 3 similar to provisions under UN R41 04 series;
11. update references to ISO standards; and
12. add sub-paragraphs to Annex 3, paragraph 5.2. to hinder tampering.

14. The expert from EC introduced draft amendments on powered cycles (GRB-65-09), including definitions of new subcategories L1-A and L1-B, with a view to aligning Regulation No. 63 with the EU legislation. The experts from Germany and the Netherlands pointed out that the overwhelming majority of powered cycles were electric and questioned the need for the proposed amendments. The expert of Japan called for a prudent approach when and if introducing new categories of vehicles, because other Regulations might be affected as well. GRB was of the view that more time would be needed to study the proposal and invited the expert from EC to issue it as an official document for the next session.

Proposal for clarifications, including the applicability of certain provisions, in Annex 3: Methods and instruments for measuring the sound made by motor vehicles.

7. The expert from France proposed to correct some inconsistences in the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 (GRB-65-10). The experts from China and OICA pointed out that more corrections would be necessary. GRB invited all interested experts to cooperate on this issue with a view to preparing a consolidated official document for the next session.

Proposal to correct Annex 3, paragraph 1.4.1. of the French version of the regulation to align with the original English text.

5. The expert from France identified the missing value of 1 dB(A) in the French version of paragraph 1.4.1. of Annex 3 (GRB-65-11). GRB requested the secretariat to correct this mistake by issuing an erratum.

Presentation for discussion of specific technical questions concerning the application of UN 51 test procedures.

10. The expert from France identified a number of ambiguous provisions in the current text of the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 that would allow different interpretations (GRB-65-12). He suggested that an implementation or interpretation guide be prepared to address these issues. The expert of OICA welcomed this initiative and pointed out that OICA had started compiling its own list of ambiguities. Following an exchange of views, GRB invited the experts from France, ISO and OICA to prepare a consolidated list of such issues for GRB review and envisaged that further work could be pursued in the framework of a small drafting group.

Draft proposal to incorporate provisions for reverse audible warning devices for [M2], [N2], N3 and M3 vehicles.

3. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea and Turkey outlined the present situation with reversing alarms at the national level, identified the existing problems in this field and proposed solutions (GRB-65-06, GRB-65-07-Rev.1, GRB-65-13, GRB-65-14 and GRB-65-19). The expert from the Netherlands suggested using white noise alarms that, according to him, have advantages over the traditional tonal noise alarms that beep (GRB-65-17).

4. GRB agreed that, rather than amending Regulation No. 28, a new Regulation on reversing alarm should be prepared. GRB noted that the main issues of the future Regulation would be its scope (categories of vehicles), the possible existence of a pause switch and the alarm sound composition (sound levels and frequencies). GRB agreed that there was no need to establish a new informal working group and that the initial drafting would be carried out by a small group (task force) of interested parties. The expert from Germany volunteered to steer the work of the task force with the assistance of OICA. The experts from Japan and Turkey pointed out that, if need be, they could also act as sponsors.

Presentation of Turkey’s proposals for revering audible warning devices, including provisions for multiple sound levels and pause functions.

3. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea and Turkey outlined the present situation with reversing alarms at the national level, identified the existing problems in this field and proposed solutions (GRB-65-06, GRB-65-07-Rev.1, GRB-65-13, GRB-65-14 and GRB-65-19). The expert from the Netherlands suggested using white noise alarms that, according to him, have advantages over the traditional tonal noise alarms that beep (GRB-65-17).

4. GRB agreed that, rather than amending Regulation No. 28, a new Regulation on reversing alarm should be prepared. GRB noted that the main issues of the future Regulation would be its scope (categories of vehicles), the possible existence of a pause switch and the alarm sound composition (sound levels and frequencies). GRB agreed that there was no need to establish a new informal working group and that the initial drafting would be carried out by a small group (task force) of interested parties. The expert from Germany volunteered to steer the work of the task force with the assistance of OICA. The experts from Japan and Turkey pointed out that, if need be, they could also act as sponsors.

Table prepared by the GRB chair of possible subjects for the future development of noise regulations.

29. The Chair presented a revised list of possible issues for the future GRB activities compiled at several informal meetings (GRB-65-15). GRB invited experts to submit their comments in writing to the Chair.

32. No new information was presented under this agenda item.

Status report on the European Commission program to investigate the potential for new sound limits of L-category vehicles at Euro 5 step and make a justified proposal.

21. The experts from EC informed GRB about an ongoing study on Euro 5 sound level limits of L-category vehicles (GRB-65-16 and Add.1), with the aim to investigate the potential for lower limits and to prepare justified proposals for amendments to EU Regulation No. 168/2013 and, at a later stage, to UN Regulations Nos. 9, 41 and 63. According to the experts, the study had been launched in response to frequent complaints from citizens over the excessive levels of sound emissions from L-category vehicles, which were often perceived as disturbing and harmful noise for the public health.

22. The experts of Germany, Netherlands, IMMA and OICA pointed out that the underlying problems were not because of the prescribed limits for new vehicles, but due to retrofitting and tampering with silencers of the vehicles in use. Thus, these experts were of the view that only reducing the sound level limits in the above Regulations would not improve the situation, unless accompanied by efficient enforcement measures and market surveillance. GRB agreed to study the relevant documents and to monitor the developments at the EU level.

Additional materials covering task force topics and possible time frame for EC proposal on Euro 5 sound limits.

21. The experts from EC informed GRB about an ongoing study on Euro 5 sound level limits of L-category vehicles (GRB-65-16 and Add.1), with the aim to investigate the potential for lower limits and to prepare justified proposals for amendments to EU Regulation No. 168/2013 and, at a later stage, to UN Regulations Nos. 9, 41 and 63. According to the experts, the study had been launched in response to frequent complaints from citizens over the excessive levels of sound emissions from L-category vehicles, which were often perceived as disturbing and harmful noise for the public health.

22. The experts of Germany, Netherlands, IMMA and OICA pointed out that the underlying problems were not because of the prescribed limits for new vehicles, but due to retrofitting and tampering with silencers of the vehicles in use. Thus, these experts were of the view that only reducing the sound level limits in the above Regulations would not improve the situation, unless accompanied by efficient enforcement measures and market surveillance. GRB agreed to study the relevant documents and to monitor the developments at the EU level.

Netherlands proposal in response to the initiative from Germany and Japan to standardize and limit the sound emission from Reversing Alarms (documents 64-05, 64-06, 65-06 and 65-07) to amend the requirements, including the use a “white noise alarm” instead of a “tonal noise alarm”.

3. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea and Turkey outlined the present situation with reversing alarms at the national level, identified the existing problems in this field and proposed solutions (GRB-65-06, GRB-65-07-Rev.1, GRB-65-13, GRB-65-14 and GRB-65-19). The expert from the Netherlands suggested using white noise alarms that, according to him, have advantages over the traditional tonal noise alarms that beep (GRB-65-17).

4. GRB agreed that, rather than amending Regulation No. 28, a new Regulation on reversing alarm should be prepared. GRB noted that the main issues of the future Regulation would be its scope (categories of vehicles), the possible existence of a pause switch and the alarm sound composition (sound levels and frequencies). GRB agreed that there was no need to establish a new informal working group and that the initial drafting would be carried out by a small group (task force) of interested parties. The expert from Germany volunteered to steer the work of the task force with the assistance of OICA. The experts from Japan and Turkey pointed out that, if need be, they could also act as sponsors.

Proposal to delete category L₄ vehicles from the scope of the regulation. Motorcycles with a side car (L4 category vehicles) should be tested in a state that is designed to be operated on the road (i.e. the side car fitted to the vehicle) using the test procedures of UN Regulation No. 9. Since UN Regulation No. 41.04 does not cover motorcycles with a side car, this text should be deleted in order to avoid any potential misunderstandings.

6. The expert from IMMA proposed to delete the last sentence in paragraph 1.3.2.1., since the scope of the 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 41 does not cover motorcycles with a sidecar (L4 category of vehicles) (GRB-65-18). The expert from EC requested more time to study if the proposed modification would also require a change in the European Union (EU) legislation. GRB agreed to continue consideration of this issue at the next session, based on an official document to be submitted by IMMA.

Information on back-up accidents in Korea and proposal for scope and content of new requirements for reversing warning alarms.

3. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea and Turkey outlined the present situation with reversing alarms at the national level, identified the existing problems in this field and proposed solutions (GRB-65-06, GRB-65-07-Rev.1, GRB-65-13, GRB-65-14 and GRB-65-19). The expert from the Netherlands suggested using white noise alarms that, according to him, have advantages over the traditional tonal noise alarms that beep (GRB-65-17).

4. GRB agreed that, rather than amending Regulation No. 28, a new Regulation on reversing alarm should be prepared. GRB noted that the main issues of the future Regulation would be its scope (categories of vehicles), the possible existence of a pause switch and the alarm sound composition (sound levels and frequencies). GRB agreed that there was no need to establish a new informal working group and that the initial drafting would be carried out by a small group (task force) of interested parties. The expert from Germany volunteered to steer the work of the task force with the assistance of OICA. The experts from Japan and Turkey pointed out that, if need be, they could also act as sponsors.

Information on work in the Netherlands to implement noise-level labeling for roads (in a format similar to that used in Europe for labeling energy efficiency of household appliances).

24. The expert from the Netherlands presented a project on labelling road surfaces (GRB-65-20, GRB-65-21, GRB-65-22 and Add.1) based on four criteria: skid resistance, noise reduction, rolling resistance and lifespan. According to the expert, labelling road surfaces could contribute to road safety, public health, sustainability and economics. GRB noted that the scope of the 1958 and the 1998 Agreements (wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts thereof) does not cover road surfaces and, therefore, no legally binding regulatory decisions could be taken at the WP.29, AC.1 or AC.3 levels. This does not preclude, however, adopting a Recommendation or Resolution on the issue. GRB welcomed the presentation and reiterated the importance of a holistic approach to sound emissions in the system ‘tyre-road surface’. Finally, GRB agreed to keep this item on the agenda and looked forward to new presentations on activities conducted at the national level in the field of road surfaces.

Explanation of Netherlands interest in labeling of road surfaces, in particular as a means to encourage reductions in rolling resistance.

24. The expert from the Netherlands presented a project on labelling road surfaces (GRB-65-20, GRB-65-21, GRB-65-22 and Add.1) based on four criteria: skid resistance, noise reduction, rolling resistance and lifespan. According to the expert, labelling road surfaces could contribute to road safety, public health, sustainability and economics. GRB noted that the scope of the 1958 and the 1998 Agreements (wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts thereof) does not cover road surfaces and, therefore, no legally binding regulatory decisions could be taken at the WP.29, AC.1 or AC.3 levels. This does not preclude, however, adopting a Recommendation or Resolution on the issue. GRB welcomed the presentation and reiterated the importance of a holistic approach to sound emissions in the system ‘tyre-road surface’. Finally, GRB agreed to keep this item on the agenda and looked forward to new presentations on activities conducted at the national level in the field of road surfaces.

Paper presented at a Dutch Infra Congress 2016 held on 23 June 2016 concerning the potential benefits of a road labelling system.

24. The expert from the Netherlands presented a project on labelling road surfaces (GRB-65-20, GRB-65-21, GRB-65-22 and Add.1) based on four criteria: skid resistance, noise reduction, rolling resistance and lifespan. According to the expert, labelling road surfaces could contribute to road safety, public health, sustainability and economics. GRB noted that the scope of the 1958 and the 1998 Agreements (wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts thereof) does not cover road surfaces and, therefore, no legally binding regulatory decisions could be taken at the WP.29, AC.1 or AC.3 levels. This does not preclude, however, adopting a Recommendation or Resolution on the issue. GRB welcomed the presentation and reiterated the importance of a holistic approach to sound emissions in the system ‘tyre-road surface’. Finally, GRB agreed to keep this item on the agenda and looked forward to new presentations on activities conducted at the national level in the field of road surfaces.

Proposal to amend the wording of the transitional provisions as drafted for the 01 series to Regulation No. 138 (document WP.29/2017/7 for the March 2017 WP.29 session, prohibiting the AVAS pause function) with the guidelines for these provisions as established by Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement.

19. The expert from OICA proposed to slightly modify the wording of the transitional provisions introduced in the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 138 (GRB-65-23). Following a brief exchange of comments, GRB invited OICA to submit an official document for consideration at the next session.

13. The expert from France also presented a status report of IWG ASEP to GRB (GRB-65-24), together with a detailed work plan and timeline of future activities. The Chair invited all experts to contribute to the work of IWG ASEP.

Explanation of the proposals contained in documents GRB/2017/2 and GRB-65-26.

12. On behalf of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP), the expert from France introduced proposals for Supplement 2 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2017/2, GRB-65-25 and GRB-65-26). GRB adopted these proposals, as laid down in Annex III, and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 2 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51.

ASEP II informal group amendments to document GRB/2017/2. See document GRB-65-25 for additional explanations.

12. On behalf of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP), the expert from France introduced proposals for Supplement 2 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2017/2, GRB-65-25 and GRB-65-26). GRB adopted these proposals, as laid down in Annex III, and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 2 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51.

Presentation on legal requirements (push) and public education/incentivization (pull) strategies to decrease road noise levels. The presentation especially addresses the Dutch interest in a road labeling system for rating road surface noise levels.

23. The expert from the Netherlands introduced a summary of various initiatives to reduce noise emissions from road traffic (GRB-65-27) which addressed different sources of noise (road surfaces, tyres and powertrain). He reiterated the benefits of better tyres and maintaining the correct tyre pressure for road safety and fuel efficiency. Finally, he pointed out that excessive drivers’ reliance on the Tyre Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) might be counter-productive. GRB thanked the Dutch expert and noted that these initiatives had already been considered by GRB on various occasions and that some of them fall under the competence of other bodies. For example, the Chair indicated that tyre labelling and TPMS should be addressed by, respectively, EU and the WP.29 Working Party on Braking and Running Gear (GRRF). The Chair also recalled the GRB position that it would premature to tighten the current tyre noise limits in Regulation No. 117.

2. GRB considered and adopted the agenda.

See document GRB-65-25 for detailed explanation.

12. On behalf of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP), the expert from France introduced proposals for Supplement 2 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2017/2, GRB-65-25 and GRB-65-26). GRB adopted these proposals, as laid down in Annex III, and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 2 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51.