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.

67. The representative of EU, Japan and the Chair of GRB welcomed the adoption of the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2015/62) and acknowledged the work of GRB and its subsidiary bodies.

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.

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.

53. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSG-112-11 on a proposal endorsed by the Working Party on Noise (GRB) to adapt in R.E.3 the measuring units for vehicle masses from tonnes to kilograms. GRSG endorsed the proposal in principle. The secretariat suggested to also aligning in R.E.3 some sub-categories of vehicles, such as L_1A for powered cycles and L_1B for two-wheeled mopeds. The expert from EC volunteered to prepare a comparison document between the categories listed in EU Regulation No. 168/2013 and those in Revision 5 of R.E.3. GRSG noted general support and agreed to circulate GRSG-112-11 with an official symbol for consideration at its next session.

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.

11. The expert from ISO proposed to introduce an option of indoor testing, according to standard ISO 362-3, in Annex 3 to Regulation No. 51 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2017/8). This proposal received comments from the experts of France, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and OICA. GRB decided to revert to the proposals at the next session and invited all experts to study the document and to send their questions and comments to ISO.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

41. The World Forum took note of a proposal by Turkey to establish a new Regulation on vehicle reversing sound warning devices (WP.29-168-04) and invited GRB to consider this issue.

4. The expert from Germany presented an analysis of the current diverging requirements and challenges for reversing alarms of M and N categories of vehicles and called for harmonization in this area in the framework of the 1958 Agreement (GRB-64-06). As an example of a possible solution, he mentioned amending Regulation No. 28 with the provisions on reversing alarms (GRB-64-05). The expert from Turkey recalled its alternative proposal, at the March 2016 session of WP.29, to establish a new Regulation on vehicle reversing sound warning devices (WP.29-168-04).

5. GRB was of the view that, before taking a decision on the legal form of reversing alarm requirements, this issue would need to be studied further. The experts from China, France, Germany, Hungary, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey and OICA expressed their interest in participating in this work. The Chair invited the expert of Germany to solicit comments from GRB experts with a view to preparing proposals for the next session. The expert from Japan pointed out the need to cooperate with the Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG) on devices for indirect vision (Regulation No. 46) which could be an alternative to reversing 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.

4. The expert from Germany presented an analysis of the current diverging requirements and challenges for reversing alarms of M and N categories of vehicles and called for harmonization in this area in the framework of the 1958 Agreement (GRB-64-06). As an example of a possible solution, he mentioned amending Regulation No. 28 with the provisions on reversing alarms (GRB-64-05). The expert from Turkey recalled its alternative proposal, at the March 2016 session of WP.29, to establish a new Regulation on vehicle reversing sound warning devices (WP.29-168-04).

5. GRB was of the view that, before taking a decision on the legal form of reversing alarm requirements, this issue would need to be studied further. The experts from China, France, Germany, Hungary, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey and OICA expressed their interest in participating in this work. The Chair invited the expert of Germany to solicit comments from GRB experts with a view to preparing proposals for the next session. The expert from Japan pointed out the need to cooperate with the Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG) on devices for indirect vision (Regulation No. 46) which could be an alternative to reversing alarms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

4. The expert from Germany presented an analysis of the current diverging requirements and challenges for reversing alarms of M and N categories of vehicles and called for harmonization in this area in the framework of the 1958 Agreement (GRB-64-06). As an example of a possible solution, he mentioned amending Regulation No. 28 with the provisions on reversing alarms (GRB-64-05). The expert from Turkey recalled its alternative proposal, at the March 2016 session of WP.29, to establish a new Regulation on vehicle reversing sound warning devices (WP.29-168-04).

5. GRB was of the view that, before taking a decision on the legal form of reversing alarm requirements, this issue would need to be studied further. The experts from China, France, Germany, Hungary, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey and OICA expressed their interest in participating in this work. The Chair invited the expert of Germany to solicit comments from GRB experts with a view to preparing proposals for the next session. The expert from Japan pointed out the need to cooperate with the Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG) on devices for indirect vision (Regulation No. 46) which could be an alternative to reversing alarms.

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.

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.

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.

22. The expert from the Netherlands presented an update of the project on labelling road surfaces (GRB-67-19), based on the following criteria: skid resistance, noise reduction, rolling resistance and lifespan. GRB recalled its view that labelling road surfaces could only be introduced as a non-legally binding document, e.g. a recommendation or resolution, and its intention to find the most appropriate body to adopt such a document. In this context, the Chair informed GRB about the AC.2 considerations of this issue, at its November 2017 session. The secretariat further reported that the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1), at its September 2017 session, had indicated that the project was beyond the SC.1 Terms of Reference. The Chair invited the Netherlands, in cooperation with the Chair, secretariat and other interested parties, to draft a recommendation or resolution for consideration at the next session of GRB.

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.

22. The expert from the Netherlands presented an update of the project on labelling road surfaces (GRB-67-19), based on the following criteria: skid resistance, noise reduction, rolling resistance and lifespan. GRB recalled its view that labelling road surfaces could only be introduced as a non-legally binding document, e.g. a recommendation or resolution, and its intention to find the most appropriate body to adopt such a document. In this context, the Chair informed GRB about the AC.2 considerations of this issue, at its November 2017 session. The secretariat further reported that the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1), at its September 2017 session, had indicated that the project was beyond the SC.1 Terms of Reference. The Chair invited the Netherlands, in cooperation with the Chair, secretariat and other interested parties, to draft a recommendation or resolution for consideration at the next session of GRB.

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.

22. The expert from the Netherlands presented an update of the project on labelling road surfaces (GRB-67-19), based on the following criteria: skid resistance, noise reduction, rolling resistance and lifespan. GRB recalled its view that labelling road surfaces could only be introduced as a non-legally binding document, e.g. a recommendation or resolution, and its intention to find the most appropriate body to adopt such a document. In this context, the Chair informed GRB about the AC.2 considerations of this issue, at its November 2017 session. The secretariat further reported that the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1), at its September 2017 session, had indicated that the project was beyond the SC.1 Terms of Reference. The Chair invited the Netherlands, in cooperation with the Chair, secretariat and other interested parties, to draft a recommendation or resolution for consideration at the next session of GRB.

22. The expert from the Netherlands presented an update of the project on labelling road surfaces (GRB-67-19), based on the following criteria: skid resistance, noise reduction, rolling resistance and lifespan. GRB recalled its view that labelling road surfaces could only be introduced as a non-legally binding document, e.g. a recommendation or resolution, and its intention to find the most appropriate body to adopt such a document. In this context, the Chair informed GRB about the AC.2 considerations of this issue, at its November 2017 session. The secretariat further reported that the Working Party on Road Transport (SC.1), at its September 2017 session, had indicated that the project was beyond the SC.1 Terms of Reference. The Chair invited the Netherlands, in cooperation with the Chair, secretariat and other interested parties, to draft a recommendation or resolution for consideration at the next session of GRB.

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.

67. The World Forum considered the draft amendments under agenda items 4.6.1 to 4.6.6 and recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting, subject to the following modification of the title on top of page 2 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/7 (agenda item 4.6.6): “01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 138 (Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV))”.

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.

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.

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.

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.