2. GRB considered and adopted the agenda.

Proposal to update, clarify, and restructure document GRB/2016/4 which aims to refine definitions, remove the “AWD” abbeviation for “audible warning device” to avoid confusion with its more common use for “all wheel drive”, add T category agricultural vehicles to the scope, modify some administrative communications, and add three-direction acoustic measurements. The proposal also aims to structure the regulation to enable its application to additional sound warning devices not presently regulated at the international level, excluding acoustic vehicle alerting systems (AVAS) which will be subject to a separate regulation on minimum vehicle sound levels.

3. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced an updated proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 28 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/4, GRB-64-01, GRB-64-09 and GRB-64-22). The proposal received comments from the experts of France, Japan (GRB-64-02), Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and OICA. GRB adopted the proposal, as amended by Annex II, 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 March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 5 to Regulation No. 28.

Proposal for editorial improvements to document GRB/2016/4 intended to update and restructure UN R28.

3. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced an updated proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 28 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/4, GRB-64-01, GRB-64-09 and GRB-64-22). The proposal received comments from the experts of France, Japan (GRB-64-02), Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and OICA. GRB adopted the proposal, as amended by Annex II, 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 March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 5 to Regulation No. 28.

3. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced an updated proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 28 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/4, GRB-64-01, GRB-64-09 and GRB-64-22). The proposal received comments from the experts of France, Japan (GRB-64-02), Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and OICA. GRB adopted the proposal, as amended by Annex II, 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 March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 5 to Regulation No. 28.

Proposal as agreed within the GRB to update and clarify the regulation. The proposal refines definitions, removes the “AWD” abbeviation for “audible warning device” to avoid confusion with its more common use for “all wheel drive”, modifies some administrative communications, and proposes three-direction acoustic measurements. The proposal also aims to structure the regulation to enable its application to additional sound warning devices not presently regulated at the international level, excluding acoustic vehicle alerting systems (AVAS) which will be subject to a separate regulation on minimum vehicle sound levels.

3. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced an updated proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 28 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/4, GRB-64-01, GRB-64-09 and GRB-64-22). The proposal received comments from the experts of France, Japan (GRB-64-02), Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and OICA. GRB adopted the proposal, as amended by Annex II, 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 March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 5 to Regulation No. 28.

Proposal to update and clarify the regulation. The proposal refines definitions, removes the “AWD” abbeviation for “audible warning device” to avoid confusion with its more common use for “all wheel drive”, adds T category agricultural vehicles to the scope, modifies some administrative communications, and proposes three-direction acoustic measurements. The proposal also aims to structure the regulation to enable its application to additional sound warning devices not presently regulated at the international level, excluding acoustic vehicle alerting systems (AVAS) which will be subject to a separate regulation on minimum vehicle sound levels.

3. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced an updated proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 28 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/4, GRB-64-01, GRB-64-09 and GRB-64-22). The proposal received comments from the experts of France, Japan (GRB-64-02), Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and OICA. GRB adopted the proposal, as amended by Annex II, 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 March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 5 to Regulation No. 28.

Draft proposal to incorporate provisions for audible signals when a vehicle is in reverse gear, including specifications relative to ambient noise levels.

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.

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.

Proposal from Turkey to establish requirements for audible systems to alert other road users when a vehicle is operating in reverse.

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.

Proposal to clarify the wording of the 03 series of amendments to UN R51 as adopted by the World Forum in June 2015 (document WP.29/2015/62). The adopted wording could lead to the interpretation that sound levels measured on the left side of the vehicle are to be averaged with levels measured on the right side of the vehicle. The proposed new wording clarifies that the overall sound emission is assessed individually per vehicle side.

7. GRB noted that Supplement 1 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/4) was adopted at the WP.29 and AC.1 sessions in March 2016 and would come into force in October 2016.

Proposal to clarify the text in order to avoid misinterpretation.

8. The expert from France presented the results of a survey on Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP) (GRB-64-16). According the expert, the survey had identified many issues in the application of ASEP of the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 and the need for further work on this subject. He further reported that this view was also shared by ISO, which proposed to revise the ASEP provisions (GRB-64-04).

9. To progress in this area, GRB decided, subject to WP.29 consent, to establish an Informal Working Group (IWG) on ASEP and adopted its Terms of Reference (ToR) (GRB-64-23 and Rev.1), as reproduced in Annex III to this report. The experts from China, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Spain, IMMA, CLEPA and OICA expressed their interest in participating in the activities of IWG ASEP.

8. The expert from France presented the results of a survey on Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP) (GRB-64-16). According the expert, the survey had identified many issues in the application of ASEP of the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 and the need for further work on this subject. He further reported that this view was also shared by ISO, which proposed to revise the ASEP provisions (GRB-64-04).

9. To progress in this area, GRB decided, subject to WP.29 consent, to establish an Informal Working Group (IWG) on ASEP and adopted its Terms of Reference (ToR) (GRB-64-23 and Rev.1), as reproduced in Annex III to this report. The experts from China, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Spain, IMMA, CLEPA and OICA expressed their interest in participating in the activities of IWG ASEP.

Objectives and procedures for an informal working group to further develop Annex 7 and otherwise improve UN R51.

8. The expert from France presented the results of a survey on Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP) (GRB-64-16). According the expert, the survey had identified many issues in the application of ASEP of the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 and the need for further work on this subject. He further reported that this view was also shared by ISO, which proposed to revise the ASEP provisions (GRB-64-04).

9. To progress in this area, GRB decided, subject to WP.29 consent, to establish an Informal Working Group (IWG) on ASEP and adopted its Terms of Reference (ToR) (GRB-64-23 and Rev.1), as reproduced in Annex III to this report. The experts from China, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Spain, IMMA, CLEPA and OICA expressed their interest in participating in the activities of IWG ASEP.

8. The expert from France presented the results of a survey on Additional Sound Emission Provisions (ASEP) (GRB-64-16). According the expert, the survey had identified many issues in the application of ASEP of the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 and the need for further work on this subject. He further reported that this view was also shared by ISO, which proposed to revise the ASEP provisions (GRB-64-04).

9. To progress in this area, GRB decided, subject to WP.29 consent, to establish an Informal Working Group (IWG) on ASEP and adopted its Terms of Reference (ToR) (GRB-64-23 and Rev.1), as reproduced in Annex III to this report. The experts from China, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Spain, IMMA, CLEPA and OICA expressed their interest in participating in the activities of IWG ASEP.

Proposal to update the provisions of Regulation No. 92 to a level at least equivalent to the corresponding provisions in the European Union legislation. The document proposes improved terminology and definitions, including new ones, improved sound emission testing conditions and procedures. It also introduces anti-tampering provisions and an “Additional sound emission provisions” (ASEP) statement by the manufacturer.

11. GRB noted that the expert from EC had transmitted revised proposals for amendments to Regulation No. 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5) and agreed to consider them under agenda item 8 in conjunction with proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9 and 63 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, respectively).

15. The expert from EC introduced revised proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 and GRB-64-13). GRB adopted these proposals, subject to the following correction of references:

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2.3., last sentence, for 2.8 read 2.10.

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2., for 2.8 read 2.12.

16. GRB requested the secretariat to submit the above proposals to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 3 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 9, a draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 63 and a draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 92.

26. GRB recalled the WP.29 request to introduce, in the medium term, an alternative acronym for ‘Replacement Exhaust Silencing System’ (RESS) in Regulation No. 92 (WP.29-165-16). GRB noted that this issue was addressed in document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 adopted at this session (see para. 15 above).

Based on the outcomes of a European Commission study, proposal to clarify the text and align its provisions with other vehicle sound regulations, especially UN R41.

11. GRB noted that the expert from EC had transmitted revised proposals for amendments to Regulation No. 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5) and agreed to consider them under agenda item 8 in conjunction with proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9 and 63 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, respectively).

15. The expert from EC introduced revised proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 and GRB-64-13). GRB adopted these proposals, subject to the following correction of references:

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2.3., last sentence, for 2.8 read 2.10.

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2., for 2.8 read 2.12.

16. GRB requested the secretariat to submit the above proposals to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 3 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 9, a draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 63 and a draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 92.

Based on the outcomes of a European Commission study, proposal to clarify the text and align its provisions with other vehicle sound regulations, especially UN R41, including to replace references to “two wheeled moped” with the term “L1 category vehicles” (and consequently to replace references to “moped” with “vehicle”) and to replace the term “noise” with “sound” (except for references to background noise) throughout the regulation. It proposes improved terminology and definitions, including new ones, improved sound emission testing conditions and procedures. It also introduces sound emission measurement through new testing of in use vehicles in motion.

11. GRB noted that the expert from EC had transmitted revised proposals for amendments to Regulation No. 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5) and agreed to consider them under agenda item 8 in conjunction with proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9 and 63 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, respectively).

15. The expert from EC introduced revised proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 and GRB-64-13). GRB adopted these proposals, subject to the following correction of references:

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2.3., last sentence, for 2.8 read 2.10.

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2., for 2.8 read 2.12.

16. GRB requested the secretariat to submit the above proposals to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 3 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 9, a draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 63 and a draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 92.

Proposal to increase the stringency of tyre noise limits from 1 November 2020.

12. The expert from the Netherlands presented a study (GRB-62-09 and Add.1) on noise emission from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) tyres of a specific size which were found to be around 1 dB(A) lower than the one from replacement tyres of the same size. The expert, thus, proposed to further reduce the limit values for OEM tyres in the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 (GRB-62-11 and Add.1).

13. The expert from Switzerland expressed his support for the general direction of the Dutch proposal. The experts from Germany and EC were of the view that, at this stage, it would be premature to tighten the tyre noise limits of Regulation No. 117. The expert from France called for a holistic approach to this issue. The experts from ETRTO and OICA expressed doubts about the representativeness of the tyre sample used in the Dutch study. The expert from ETRTO also delivered comments on the proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 117 (GRB-62-17). Finally, GRB invited all experts to further study the Dutch proposal and decided to revert to this issue at the next session.

10. The expert from the Netherlands presented several videos demonstrating tyre-rolling noise from trucks on a quiet road surface and recalled his proposal to reduce the limit values for tyres in Regulation No. 117. The expert from EC pointed out that, at this stage, EC could not express any opinion on this proposal and that internal discussions among EU member States should first be planned and held on the issue. The expert from the Netherlands informed GRB that his country had already sent a proposal to this extent to EC and the European Parliament.

12. The expert from the Netherlands recalled their earlier study on tyre performance (GRB-62-11 and Add.1) and presented the outcome of a new study on this subject. In addition to tyre noise, the new study addressed rolling resistance and wet grip for tyres sold in 2013-2016 in the Netherlands. According to the expert, the results had demonstrated a consistent trend for better performance in all aspects and tyre classes. Therefore, he proposed to tighten the limit values in the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 (GRB-62-11-Rev.1 and Add.1).

13. The expert from ETRTO made a reservation about the sampling of tyres in the Dutch study and drew the attention of GRB to the fact that the limit values in the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 had been introduced only in 2012 and that the transitional periods to comply with these limits were still ongoing. The expert from the Russian Federation argued in favour of setting new target values well in advance, in order to give the industry sufficient time to prepare for their introduction. The experts from Germany and OICA recalled the past experience in noise Regulations and pointed out that only tightening the tyre noise limits would not necessarily improve the real situation on the streets. The Chair shared their views and called for a more holistic approach prior to taking a decision.

14. GRB noted that the same proposals had been raised by the Netherlands at the EU level and that internal EU discussions were under way. GRB was of the view that the Working Party on Braking and Running Gear (GRRF), which also deals with Regulation No. 117, should be informed about the Dutch proposals. The expert from the Netherlands expressed his willingness to present the issue to GRRF. Finally, GRB agreed to revert to this subject at one of its future session, based on GRRF and EU deliberations.

Presentation in support of the proposal to increase the stringency of tyre noise limits from 1 November 2020.

12. The expert from the Netherlands presented a study (GRB-62-09 and Add.1) on noise emission from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) tyres of a specific size which were found to be around 1 dB(A) lower than the one from replacement tyres of the same size. The expert, thus, proposed to further reduce the limit values for OEM tyres in the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 (GRB-62-11 and Add.1).

13. The expert from Switzerland expressed his support for the general direction of the Dutch proposal. The experts from Germany and EC were of the view that, at this stage, it would be premature to tighten the tyre noise limits of Regulation No. 117. The expert from France called for a holistic approach to this issue. The experts from ETRTO and OICA expressed doubts about the representativeness of the tyre sample used in the Dutch study. The expert from ETRTO also delivered comments on the proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 117 (GRB-62-17). Finally, GRB invited all experts to further study the Dutch proposal and decided to revert to this issue at the next session.

10. The expert from the Netherlands presented several videos demonstrating tyre-rolling noise from trucks on a quiet road surface and recalled his proposal to reduce the limit values for tyres in Regulation No. 117. The expert from EC pointed out that, at this stage, EC could not express any opinion on this proposal and that internal discussions among EU member States should first be planned and held on the issue. The expert from the Netherlands informed GRB that his country had already sent a proposal to this extent to EC and the European Parliament.

12. The expert from the Netherlands recalled their earlier study on tyre performance (GRB-62-11 and Add.1) and presented the outcome of a new study on this subject. In addition to tyre noise, the new study addressed rolling resistance and wet grip for tyres sold in 2013-2016 in the Netherlands. According to the expert, the results had demonstrated a consistent trend for better performance in all aspects and tyre classes. Therefore, he proposed to tighten the limit values in the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 (GRB-62-11-Rev.1 and Add.1).

13. The expert from ETRTO made a reservation about the sampling of tyres in the Dutch study and drew the attention of GRB to the fact that the limit values in the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 117 had been introduced only in 2012 and that the transitional periods to comply with these limits were still ongoing. The expert from the Russian Federation argued in favour of setting new target values well in advance, in order to give the industry sufficient time to prepare for their introduction. The experts from Germany and OICA recalled the past experience in noise Regulations and pointed out that only tightening the tyre noise limits would not necessarily improve the real situation on the streets. The Chair shared their views and called for a more holistic approach prior to taking a decision.

14. GRB noted that the same proposals had been raised by the Netherlands at the EU level and that internal EU discussions were under way. GRB was of the view that the Working Party on Braking and Running Gear (GRRF), which also deals with Regulation No. 117, should be informed about the Dutch proposals. The expert from the Netherlands expressed his willingness to present the issue to GRRF. Finally, GRB agreed to revert to this subject at one of its future session, based on GRRF and EU deliberations.

Presentation concerning the proposals to clarify and update the texts and to align their provisions and terms.

15. The expert from EC introduced revised proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 and GRB-64-13). GRB adopted these proposals, subject to the following correction of references:

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2.3., last sentence, for 2.8 read 2.10.

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2., for 2.8 read 2.12.

16. GRB requested the secretariat to submit the above proposals to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 3 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 9, a draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 63 and a draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 92.

Proposal to update the provisions of Regulation No. 92 to a level at least equivalent to the corresponding provisions in the European Union legislation. The document proposes improved terminology and definitions, including new ones, improved sound emission testing conditions and procedures. It also introduces anti-tampering provisions and an “Additional sound emission provisions” (ASEP) statement by the manufacturer.

11. GRB noted that the expert from EC had transmitted revised proposals for amendments to Regulation No. 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5) and agreed to consider them under agenda item 8 in conjunction with proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9 and 63 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, respectively).

15. The expert from EC introduced revised proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 and GRB-64-13). GRB adopted these proposals, subject to the following correction of references:

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2.3., last sentence, for 2.8 read 2.10.

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2., for 2.8 read 2.12.

16. GRB requested the secretariat to submit the above proposals to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 3 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 9, a draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 63 and a draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 92.

26. GRB recalled the WP.29 request to introduce, in the medium term, an alternative acronym for ‘Replacement Exhaust Silencing System’ (RESS) in Regulation No. 92 (WP.29-165-16). GRB noted that this issue was addressed in document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 adopted at this session (see para. 15 above).

Based on the outcomes of a European Commission study, proposal to clarify the text and align its provisions with other vehicle sound regulations, especially UN R41.

11. GRB noted that the expert from EC had transmitted revised proposals for amendments to Regulation No. 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5) and agreed to consider them under agenda item 8 in conjunction with proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9 and 63 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, respectively).

15. The expert from EC introduced revised proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 and GRB-64-13). GRB adopted these proposals, subject to the following correction of references:

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2.3., last sentence, for 2.8 read 2.10.

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2., for 2.8 read 2.12.

16. GRB requested the secretariat to submit the above proposals to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 3 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 9, a draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 63 and a draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 92.

Based on the outcomes of a European Commission study, proposal to clarify the text and align its provisions with other vehicle sound regulations, especially UN R41, including to replace references to “two wheeled moped” with the term “L1 category vehicles” (and consequently to replace references to “moped” with “vehicle”) and to replace the term “noise” with “sound” (except for references to background noise) throughout the regulation. It proposes improved terminology and definitions, including new ones, improved sound emission testing conditions and procedures. It also introduces sound emission measurement through new testing of in use vehicles in motion.

11. GRB noted that the expert from EC had transmitted revised proposals for amendments to Regulation No. 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5) and agreed to consider them under agenda item 8 in conjunction with proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9 and 63 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, respectively).

15. The expert from EC introduced revised proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 and GRB-64-13). GRB adopted these proposals, subject to the following correction of references:

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2.3., last sentence, for 2.8 read 2.10.

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2., for 2.8 read 2.12.

16. GRB requested the secretariat to submit the above proposals to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 3 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 9, a draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 63 and a draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 92.

Proposal to update and clarify the text and to align the text with other UN Regulations and adopted proposals.

17. The expert from EC introduced additional amendments on powered cycles to Regulation No. 63 (GRB-64-11) and, to this end, also proposed to include new subcategories L1-A and L1-B in the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3) (GRB-64-18). The experts from Germany, Japan, Italy, Netherlands and IMMA requested more time to study the proposals and pointed out that R.E.3 would need first to be amended with the new definitions of powered cycles. GRB agreed to come back to this subject at the next session.

Proposal to amend the classification criteria of L1-category vehicles (e.g., mopeds) under R.E.3 in line with technical progress.

17. The expert from EC introduced additional amendments on powered cycles to Regulation No. 63 (GRB-64-11) and, to this end, also proposed to include new subcategories L1-A and L1-B in the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3) (GRB-64-18). The experts from Germany, Japan, Italy, Netherlands and IMMA requested more time to study the proposals and pointed out that R.E.3 would need first to be amended with the new definitions of powered cycles. GRB agreed to come back to this subject at the next session.

27. GRB noted that the draft proposal by the expert from the European Commission (GRB-64-18) was addressed under agenda item 8 (para. 17 above).

28. The expert from OICA indicated the need to include new definitions on special vehicles into the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). He added that OICA would submit proposals to the GRSG session in October 2016.

18. The expert from China gave an overview of the national implementation of the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 51 and related issues (GRB-64-24).

Proposal for the establishment of a new UN Regulation governing the approval of audible vehicle alerting systems for quiet vehicles moving at low speeds. This proposal can be considered as the first phase of the regulation. In response to concerns raised by the World Blind Union, GRB agreed to extend the mandate of the informal working group that developed this text in order to consider further measures to address the WBU concerns.

16. The experts from France and Germany, in their capacity of Co-chairs of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on a Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV) Regulation under 1958 Agreement, reported on the status of QRTV-related work (GRB-63-13). GRB noted that WP.29, at its March 2016 session, would consider a draft QRTV Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/26). At its November 2015 session, WP.29 decided to extend the mandate IWG on QRTV Regulation with a view to addressing concerns raised by WBU (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1118, paras. 24, 100-102), namely sound pressure levels, optional installation of the Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System (AVAS) pause switches and sound emissions when stationary. IWG on QRTV Regulation would also consider the possible extension of the scope of the QRTV regulation to vehicles of L categories.

17. To reflect the above new tasks, the experts from France and Germany proposed to update the Terms of Reference (ToR) of IWG on QRTV Regulation (GRB-63-14). GRB adopted the revised ToR, as reproduced in Annex VII.

66. The World Forum considered the draft proposal for a new Regulation concerning the approval of quiet road transport vehicles (QRTV) under item 4.13.1 and recommended its submission to AC.1 for voting.

20. GRB noted that the draft Regulation on quiet road transport vehicles (QRTV) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/26) had been adopted by WP.29 and AC.1 at their March 2016 sessions and would enter into force as Regulation No. 138 in October 2016 (Depository Notification C.N.125.2016.TREATIES-XI.B.16 of 5 April 2016).

21. The expert from EC briefed GRB on how the technical and administrative provisions of Regulation No. 138 on the Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System (AVAS) requirements would be incorporated in Annex VIII to EU Regulation No. 540/2014 (GRB-64-19).

Proposal to refine the scope by replacing the phrase “can travel” by “can be propelled”. The use of “travel” in the scope can be interpreted to include vehicles using using electrical systems for purposes other than propulsion (e.g., energy recuperation) that fall outside the test conditions of UN R138. The proposal further amends:

1. Paragraph 2.7. to make clear the “pause function” refers to systems that allow the driver to deactivate an AVAS system;
2. Paragraph 6.2.6.: The vehicle operator shall not deactivate AVAS while driving. However, the manufacturer shall be enabled to activate or deactivate AVAS, including automatically, by regional coding according to legal provisions of various markets.
3. Paragraph 11.: the transitional provisions were added according to the rules of WP.29 for new series of amendments. Paragraph 11.6. has been added to maintain approvals that also comply with the new series of amendments, as is the case for vehicles that do not have a pause function according to the newly suggested paragraph 6.2.6.
4. Annex 1, Addendum to the communication form No …, Technical Information: technical information regarding “Pause switch (yes/no)” will be no longer necessary.

22. The experts from Japan and OICA proposed an editorial change as well as further amendments to Regulation No. 138 to prohibit the pause function for AVAS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/9 and GRB-64-03). These proposals were supported by the experts of Germany, Italy, Poland, United States of America and WBU. GRB adopted the proposals, as laid down in Annex V, and requested the secretariat to submit them WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 1 to the original series and a new draft 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 138.

Proposal to prohibit the use of a pause function for the acoustic vehicle alert system.

22. The experts from Japan and OICA proposed an editorial change as well as further amendments to Regulation No. 138 to prohibit the pause function for AVAS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/9 and GRB-64-03). These proposals were supported by the experts of Germany, Italy, Poland, United States of America and WBU. GRB adopted the proposals, as laid down in Annex V, and requested the secretariat to submit them WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 1 to the original series and a new draft 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 138.

Proposal to clarify the regulation with regard to propulsion of the vehicle (replace the term “travel”), definition of the “pause function” (including taking into account the Japanese proposal to prohibit the use of a pause function), and provisions for deactivating AVAS coding in accordance with local market requirements and under conditions outside the scope of the regulation.

22. The experts from Japan and OICA proposed an editorial change as well as further amendments to Regulation No. 138 to prohibit the pause function for AVAS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/9 and GRB-64-03). These proposals were supported by the experts of Germany, Italy, Poland, United States of America and WBU. GRB adopted the proposals, as laid down in Annex V, and requested the secretariat to submit them WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 1 to the original series and a new draft 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 138.

23. The expert from France, in his capacity of Co-chair of the IWG on a Quiet Road Transport Vehicles (QRTV) Regulation under 1958 Agreement, reported on the status of QRTV-related work (GRB-64-14).

25. The expert from OICA presented the outcome of their survey of owners (drivers) of a specific electric vehicle model on their experiences with AVAS (GRB-64-20 and GRB-64-21). GRB welcomed the study and called for more AVAS surveys, in particular of vulnerable road users (e.g. cyclists, pedestrians, blind or people with impaired vision).

25. The expert from OICA presented the outcome of their survey of owners (drivers) of a specific electric vehicle model on their experiences with AVAS (GRB-64-20 and GRB-64-21). GRB welcomed the study and called for more AVAS surveys, in particular of vulnerable road users (e.g. cyclists, pedestrians, blind or people with impaired vision).

Proposal to update the provisions of Regulation No. 92 to a level at least equivalent to the corresponding provisions in the European Union legislation. The document proposes improved terminology and definitions, including new ones, improved sound emission testing conditions and procedures. It also introduces anti-tampering provisions and an “Additional sound emission provisions” (ASEP) statement by the manufacturer.

11. GRB noted that the expert from EC had transmitted revised proposals for amendments to Regulation No. 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5) and agreed to consider them under agenda item 8 in conjunction with proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9 and 63 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, respectively).

15. The expert from EC introduced revised proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 9, 63 and 92 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 and GRB-64-13). GRB adopted these proposals, subject to the following correction of references:

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/6, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2.3., last sentence, for 2.8 read 2.10.

ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/7, Annex 3, paragraph 3.1.2.2., for 2.8 read 2.12.

16. GRB requested the secretariat to submit the above proposals to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2017 sessions as a draft Supplement 3 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 9, a draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 63 and a draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to Regulation No. 92.

26. GRB recalled the WP.29 request to introduce, in the medium term, an alternative acronym for ‘Replacement Exhaust Silencing System’ (RESS) in Regulation No. 92 (WP.29-165-16). GRB noted that this issue was addressed in document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 adopted at this session (see para. 15 above).

Status report on the work to harmonize definitions and terms.

28. [The GRPE Chair] announced that the IWG on Vehicle Propulsion System Definitions (VPSD) would submit a formal proposal for a new Mutual Resolution on Vehicle Powertrain Definitions for the June 2015 session of GRPE.

29. He introduced the informal documents, which list the acronyms and abbreviations used in UN Regulations (WP.29-165-17) and highlighted the problem of using the acronym ‘RESS’ to describe both the ‘Non-original Replacement Exhaust Silencer System’ and the ‘Non-original Replacement Exhaust System and Rechargeable Energy Storage System’ (WP.29-165-16). The World Forum endorsed the content of document WP.29-165-16 and referred the choice to its subsidiary bodies. The secretariat added that the document WP.29-165-17 would be made available on the UNECE website and it would continue to be updated on a regular basis.

23. GRB noted that WP.29, at its March 2015 session, had considered a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in Regulations (WP.29-165-17) and noted that the acronym RESS “Replacement Exhaust Silencing System” is used in Regulation No. 92. However, RESS is widely used as “Rechargeable Energy Storage System”, for example, in Regulations Nos. 10, 12, 94, 95 and 100. For this reason, WP.29 had requested GRB to introduce, in the medium term, an alternative acronym for “Replacement Exhaust Silencing System” in Regulation No. 92 (WP.29-165-16). GRB invited experts and, in particular, IMMA to study this issue and decided to revert to it at the next session.

20. GRB recalled the WP.29 request to introduce, in the medium term, an alternative acronym for “Replacement Exhaust Silencing System” (RESS) in Regulation No. 92 (WP.29-165-16). As a replacement, the experts from IMMA and OICA proposed a new term “Non-Original Replacement Exhaust Silencing System” (NORESS). GRB preliminary agreed with this proposal and noted that it was already used in the amendment proposal for Regulation No. 92 (GRB-63-09).

26. GRB recalled the WP.29 request to introduce, in the medium term, an alternative acronym for ‘Replacement Exhaust Silencing System’ (RESS) in Regulation No. 92 (WP.29-165-16). GRB noted that this issue was addressed in document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2016/5 adopted at this session (see para. 15 above).

Proposal to amend the classification criteria of L1-category vehicles (e.g., mopeds) under R.E.3 in line with technical progress.

17. The expert from EC introduced additional amendments on powered cycles to Regulation No. 63 (GRB-64-11) and, to this end, also proposed to include new subcategories L1-A and L1-B in the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3) (GRB-64-18). The experts from Germany, Japan, Italy, Netherlands and IMMA requested more time to study the proposals and pointed out that R.E.3 would need first to be amended with the new definitions of powered cycles. GRB agreed to come back to this subject at the next session.

27. GRB noted that the draft proposal by the expert from the European Commission (GRB-64-18) was addressed under agenda item 8 (para. 17 above).

28. The expert from OICA indicated the need to include new definitions on special vehicles into the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). He added that OICA would submit proposals to the GRSG session in October 2016.

Document prepared by the WP.29 secretariat to provide a consolidated updated version of the proposed Revision 3 to the 1958 Agreement. The secretariat anticipates a decision by the World Forum to seek unanimous agreement on this proposed final text during its March 2016 session.

123. The representative of the EU, on behalf of the Chair of the IWG on Environmental and Propulsion Performance Requirements (EPPR) for L-category vehicles, summarized the work progress of the group. He noted that progress had been made in two of the three priority subjects identified. He announced that EPPR IWG had submitted ECE/TRANS/GRPE/2016/2 on a new UN GTR on evaporative and crankcase emissions for consideration at the next GRPE session in January 2016. He added that this proposal would be submitted to the June 2016 session of AC.3, if adopted by GRPE in January 2016. He underlined that the IWG was already working on a new UN GTR on On-Board Diagnostics systems (OBD) with the intention to submit a first daft at the next GRPE session. He informed AC.3 that work on revising UN GTR No.2 would be resumed in 2016. He recalled the agreement by AC.3 at its last session with the extension of the mandate of the EPPR IWG until December 2020 as reproduced in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2015/113.

124. The representative of EU announced that Mr. P. Åsman would step down as Chair of EPPR IWG as of 18 November 2015. He expressed his gratitude to Mr. Åsman for his commitment and excellent work. He informed AC.3 that Mr. A. Perujo from the Joint Research Centre would be the candidate to replace Mr. Åsman.

125. The representative of IMMA expressed her support for the updated mandate and welcomed Mr. Perujo as the new Chair of EPPR IWG. She thanked Mr. Åsman for the excellent work done and assured AC.3 that IMMA would continue to support the work of EPPR IWG. She recalled the priority on two-wheeled vehicles, whereas progressively other vehicles categories could be considered to be included.

126. AC.3 adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2015/113 and requested the secretariat to convert it into an official AC.3 document.

48. The World Forum noted the final version ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/2 of draft Revision 3 to the 1958 Agreement, including the comments received by Ukraine and the four-fifth voting majority threshold as agreed upon by WP.29 at its previous session.

49. The representative of EU informed WP.29 delegates that the document had already received positive feedback from the European Council and that EU Member States were currently in the process of consultation for consent on draft Revision 3 at the level of the European Parliament. He announced that he would provide more detailed information on a possible common position at the next sessions of WP.29.

50. The representative of Germany recalled his position at the recent meeting of the IWG on IWVTA and clarified that his Government had not been in the position to support that document. He expressed their preference to strengthen, due the recent incidents of non-compliant vehicles and approvals, the provisions of the type approval procedure to avoid possible future conflicts. He added that Germany had nevertheless to follow the EU decision as a result of the qualified majority voting in favour of draft Revision 3 as reproduced in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/2.

51. The Representative of the Russian Federation informed WP.29 that from 1 January 2016 the Eurasian Economic Union used a system of the vehicle type approval for all categories and plans to start development of an electronic database.

52. The World Forum agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its forthcoming session in June 2016.

48. The representative of EU informed WP.29 that following the decision by the European Council the EU was ready to endorse the text of draft Revision 3 to the 1958 Agreement as reflected in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/2. The representative of Australia stated that following notification by the UN Office for Legal Affairs (OLA), internal proceedings must be followed and he was hopeful to receive a positive outcome in the following six months.

49. The World Forum welcomed the good news and noted no objection from the represented Contracting Parties to the 1958 Agreement. Recalling the offer by EU at a former session of WP.29 (report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1112, para. 13), WP.29 invited the representative of EU to proceed with the notification process to OLA on Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement.

29. GRB was informed that WP.29, at its June 2016 session, had noted no objection to Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement from the Contracting Parties and that the European Union had offered to formally transmit the revised Agreement (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/2) to the United Nations Office for Legal Affairs (OLA). The secretariat also briefed GRB on the recent activities of the Subgroup on UN Regulation No. 0 on IWVTA and about the development of an electronic database for the exchange of type approval documentation (DETA).

64. The World Forum welcomed the information by the representative of EU that the notification to the United Nations Secretary-General on Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement had recently been sent out by the EU President. The secretariat informed the World Forum that the process for the entry into force of Revision 3 would take another nine months.

63. The secretariat informed the World Forum that Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement was expected to enter into force in mid-September 2017.

34. GRE noted that Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/2) had entered into force on 14 September 2017 and that a special webpage had been created by the secretariat with the text of the revised Agreement and frequently asked questions (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/131). GRE was informed that the IWG on the International Whole Vehicle Type Approval (IWVTA) had submitted the final draft of UN Regulation No. 0 and explanations on IWVTA for consideration and approval at the November 2017 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/108 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2017/109). GRE also took note that, following the adoption in June 2017 of amendments to Regulation No. 48, IWG IWVTA would consider the need to keep in Annex 4 to UN Regulation No. 0 references to the individual Regulations on lighting and light-signalling devices.

30. The secretariat reported on the highlights of the 168th and 169th sessions of WP.29 (GRB-64-12).

ISO update on noise testing standard

31. The expert from ISO reported on the progress of standard ISO 362-3 on indoor testing of pass-by noise (GRB-64-07). The expert from OICA stressed the importance of including indoor testing as an alternative to type approval tests of Annex 3 to Regulation No. 51, in particular for vehicle manufacturers in countries where the local weather conditions allow the use of outdoor test tracks only for a limited period per year. The expert of Germany pointed out that, at this stage, it would be premature to replace type approval tests with indoor testing. To make progress, GRB invited the experts from ISO and OICA to prepare for the next session an informal document with draft amendment proposals to Regulation No. 51 that would include ISO 362-3.

32. The Chair presented a revised list of possible issues for the future GRB activities compiled at the third informal meeting in July 2016 (GRB-64-08). The expert from Japan proposed modifications to the time limits of some activities listed in this document. The expert from France presented proposals to improve efficiency of road vehicle noise Regulations by tackling such issues as day-to-day and track-to-track dispersion between measurements and different interpretations of the same text (GRB-64-15). The expert from EC proposed to include three additional points related to L-category vehicles (GRB-64-17). The expert from OICA reported on a meeting between ETRTO and OICA which concluded that a harmonized test procedure for tyre and vehicle noise measurements would be beneficial for industry and environment. Finally, GRB invited all experts to submit their comments in writing to the Chair and requested the Chair to update the list accordingly.

32. The Chair presented a revised list of possible issues for the future GRB activities compiled at the third informal meeting in July 2016 (GRB-64-08). The expert from Japan proposed modifications to the time limits of some activities listed in this document. The expert from France presented proposals to improve efficiency of road vehicle noise Regulations by tackling such issues as day-to-day and track-to-track dispersion between measurements and different interpretations of the same text (GRB-64-15). The expert from EC proposed to include three additional points related to L-category vehicles (GRB-64-17). The expert from OICA reported on a meeting between ETRTO and OICA which concluded that a harmonized test procedure for tyre and vehicle noise measurements would be beneficial for industry and environment. Finally, GRB invited all experts to submit their comments in writing to the Chair and requested the Chair to update the list accordingly.

32. The Chair presented a revised list of possible issues for the future GRB activities compiled at the third informal meeting in July 2016 (GRB-64-08). The expert from Japan proposed modifications to the time limits of some activities listed in this document. The expert from France presented proposals to improve efficiency of road vehicle noise Regulations by tackling such issues as day-to-day and track-to-track dispersion between measurements and different interpretations of the same text (GRB-64-15). The expert from EC proposed to include three additional points related to L-category vehicles (GRB-64-17). The expert from OICA reported on a meeting between ETRTO and OICA which concluded that a harmonized test procedure for tyre and vehicle noise measurements would be beneficial for industry and environment. Finally, GRB invited all experts to submit their comments in writing to the Chair and requested the Chair to update the list accordingly.

Brief summary of GRRF discussions related to the performance of products in conditions outside the scope of test procedures (i.e., assuring satisfactory performance under all normal road conditions). GRRF agreed with Russia that this issue should be put before the full World Forum.

38. The representative of the United Kingdom informed the World Forum about a discussion that took place at GRRF in the context of IWVTA (WP.29-168-15) and, separately, on the issue of the performance of automotive systems in conditions other than those tested according to the regulated test procedures. He added that there are inherent risks that some systems, especially those relying on software (e.g. TPMS and AEBS) could be designed to work only in the limited conditions corresponding to those tested rather than in all the relevant driving conditions. He sought guidance from WP.29 and concluded by proposing that the new regulation on TPMS systems could serve as a case study to inform future consideration by the working party. The representative of the European Union supported such an approach.

39. WP.29 agreed to refer the document WP.29-168-15 to all GRs to receive feedback and agreed that, in the meantime, GRRF continues to address this matter.

57. The Secretary of GRRF reported to the follow-up to the decision of WP.29 at its March 2016 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1120, para. 38): (i) discussion of GRRF in the framework of IWVTA (WP.29-168-15), (ii) the performance of automotive systems (e.g. Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems) in conditions other than those tested according to the regulated test procedures. He informed GRSP that some safety systems, especially those relying on software, could possibly be designed to only work in limited conditions corresponding to those tested rather than in all the relevant driving conditions. GRSP did not provide any feedback on this subject and agreed to remove the item from the agenda of the next sessions.

62. Referring to the decision of WP.29 at its March 2016 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1120, para. 38), the Secretary of GRRF reported on a discussion that took place at GRRF in the context of IWVTA (WP.29-168-15) and on the issue of the performance of automotive systems (e.g. Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems) in conditions other than those tested according to the regulated test procedures. He added that some safety systems, especially those relying on software, could be designed to only work in limited conditions corresponding to those tested rather than in all the relevant driving conditions.

63. GRSG noted the information and agreed on the need to discuss in the Working Parties subsidiary to the World Forum the possible risks of such systems. However, GRSG was of the opinion that type approval authorities should rely on the test provisions of the UN Regulations in force and should not perform a “fishing expedition” during the type approval procedure.

33. GRB was informed that WP.29, at its March and June 2016 sessions, had had a discussion on the performance of automotive systems, in particular the ones relying on software, in conditions other than those tested during the type approval test procedures (WP.29-168-15 and WP.29-169-13). WP.29 had requested its subsidiary Working Parties to give feedback on the issue. GRB invited its experts to provide comments and decided to revert to this matter at the next session.

67. The Secretary informed GRRF, as recommended by WP.29, about discussions that took place at WP.29 in March and June 2016 on the performance of automotive systems (especially those relying on software) in conditions other than those tested according to the regulated test procedures. He presented WP.29-168-15 and WP.29-169-13 and highlighted some parts of the documents (a) providing some examples showing the relevance of the question and compelling experts to be vigilant when reviewing, amending or drafting technical regulations, (b) listing existing regulatory instruments available to experts when drafting regulations applicable for such software-based systems.

68. The Chair of GRRF stated the importance of being vigilant to this matter and encouraged experts to keep it in mind when reviewing, amending or drafting technical regulations.

Paper by the WP.29 secretariat to outline possibilities for regulatory provisions covering the performance of automotive systems under conditions other than those tested in the framework of type-approval or self-certification, with TPMS as a case study.

92. The secretariat introduced WP.29-169-13, recalling the discussion that took place at GRRF in the context of IWVTA (WP.29-168-15) and, separately, on the issue of the performance of automotive systems in conditions other than those tested according to the regulated test procedures as well as the fact that the new regulation on TPMS systems could serve as a case study for consideration by the Working Parties. He added that the document had listed the existing tools used to regulate the performance of automotive systems in conditions other than those tested in the framework of type-approval or self-certification.

93. The representative of the Russian Federation supported the document and noted that the importance of taking into consideration the wide variety of intelligent systems in vehicles. In his opinion, there should be requirements for the reliability of the vehicles and components and requirements for the performance of the vehicles in use. The first group of requirements could be covered by the methodology applied by the manufacturer to the design process and the information, which should be disclosed to the technical service, for type approval purposes.

94. He noted that the performance of vehicles “in service” differs from performance prescribed for a new motor vehicle in UN Regulations and referred to R.E.3, paragraphs. 8.1.1.1. and 8.1.1.2. According to these paragraphs, the braking performance may be verified by methods and at speeds different from those prescribed in the relevant UN Regulations No. 13 and 13-H. The representative of the Russian Federation proposed an approach to install limits for decreasing performance of vehicles in use and verify them in the frame of the 1997 Agreement Rules. He proposed that the task could be reviewed by IWG on PTI to develop related proposals.

95. The representative of the EU welcomes a discussion on this important topic on the basis of this document yet sees the need for further horizontal reflections at the level of WP.29.

96. The representative of the United Kingdom, Chair of GRRF stated that the matter might be considered under the PTI view point, but that the first priority would be to verify the fitness of UN Regulations with regard to the points raised in the document.

97. Following the intervention of the representative of EU, WP.29 welcomed the document and agreed that the Chairs of Working Parties should check the suitability of Regulations dealing with complex electronic systems and software and, specifically focus on the responsibilities of the approval applicant, the technical service and the Type Approval Authorities, the precision of the requirements and identify, if needed, provisions that could provide clarification to avoid ambiguity.

33. GRB was informed that WP.29, at its March and June 2016 sessions, had had a discussion on the performance of automotive systems, in particular the ones relying on software, in conditions other than those tested during the type approval test procedures (WP.29-168-15 and WP.29-169-13). WP.29 had requested its subsidiary Working Parties to give feedback on the issue. GRB invited its experts to provide comments and decided to revert to this matter at the next session.

42. GRE was informed that WP.29, at its March and June 2016 sessions, had had a discussion on the performance of automotive systems, in particular the ones relying on software, in conditions other than those tested during the type approval test procedures (WP.29-168-15 and WP.29-169-13). WP.29 had requested its subsidiary Working Parties to give feedback on the issue. GRE invited its experts to provide comments and decided to revert to this matter at the next session.

21. AC.2 discussed and confirmed the need to continue the general discussion on the performance of automotive systems in conditions other than those tested in the framework of type-approval or self-certification at WP.29 based on WP.29-169-13.

51. The secretariat presented informal document WP.29-169-13 regarding cycle beating by software based systems, with TPMS as an example. The expert from EC noted a general concern about test optimisation, not only linked to software-based systems, but instead from the utilisation of certain tolerances or corridors that were provided in testing provisions for conventional product performance checks. He added that, for instance, a type-approval test should be considered valid when a deceleration pulse trace was close to the lower boundary of a corridor, but this should not mean that a re-test would be invalid for conformity of production or for market surveillance checks when a product fails performance requirements if the deceleration pulse trace would be toward the upper boundary of the corridor. Thus, he concluded that the requirements should be met regardless of the tolerances provided (e.g. deceleration, temperature, pressure, speed).

67. The Secretary informed GRRF, as recommended by WP.29, about discussions that took place at WP.29 in March and June 2016 on the performance of automotive systems (especially those relying on software) in conditions other than those tested according to the regulated test procedures. He presented WP.29-168-15 and WP.29-169-13 and highlighted some parts of the documents (a) providing some examples showing the relevance of the question and compelling experts to be vigilant when reviewing, amending or drafting technical regulations, (b) listing existing regulatory instruments available to experts when drafting regulations applicable for such software-based systems.

68. The Chair of GRRF stated the importance of being vigilant to this matter and encouraged experts to keep it in mind when reviewing, amending or drafting technical regulations.