Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Alternative from OICA to the proposal offered by Germany (document GRSG/2013/27 which is expected to be updated and presented as GRSG/2014/18) to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Proposal to clarify restrictions on the application of an RUPS according to specific vehicle chassis characteristics (e.g., stiffness, profile dimensions) under Annex 1 (item 9) the test set-up Annex 1 item 9 and to adapt the test procedure of Annex 5 (paragraph 1.1.3.) accordingly by the use of representative side rails. The proposal would also specify that the device used to distribute the test force over the stated flat surface be connected to the force actuator through a swivel joint since a wholly rigid set up can result in very different and unintended outcomes.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.

Editorial changes to the proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices (document GRSG/2014/18).

Comparison of the OICA and German proposals to set new requirements for rear under-run protection devices.

Query concerning the intent of the proposed changes to the test procedures for rear underrun protection devices (RUPD). Sweden believes that the wording of the amendments proposed in document GRSG/2014/18 would change the nature of RUPD from being generic devices for installation across ranges of vehicle types to being vehicle-specific devices requiring repetitive testing for approval to be installed on a range of vehicles. Therefore, Sweden raises the question of whether this is the intent of the German proposal.

Proposal to introduce more stringent requirements for rear underrun protection devices.