13. The expert from CLEPA introduced a presentation (GRSP-57-25) to explain ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/16 and GRSP-57-03 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/4) aimed at clarifying the provisions for dynamic testing of rear seat system and advanced restraint system approval. The expert from Japan argued that the proposal was not assessing the air-bag performance through UN Regulation No. 94 because it was addressing other occupants than those seating in lateral frontal positions. The expert from France clarified that the proposal was addressing the concept of restraint systems to other seating positions than front outboard positions. The expert from EC suggested aligning the proposed provisions with those of UN Regulation No. 21, concerning the speed of impact of seating position protected by an air-bag. Accordingly, the expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-57-28 incorporating the comments received during the discussion. The experts from France and Japan raised study reservations on the proposal. Moreover, the expert from the Netherlands noted that the proposal would affect not only the safety-belt component but also the vehicle. The experts from EC and OICA stated that the proposal should be discussed as a full package with the corresponding amendment to UN Regulation No. 17, namely ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/14 (see para. 19 below). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-57-28 with an official symbol.

14. GRSP considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/13, aimed at clarifying the provisions for the approval of “general-use” safety-belts. GRSP adopted the proposal as amended by Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/13 to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2015 sessions as draft Supplement 6 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16.

15. GRSP noted GRSP-57-14-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/15 to clarify the installation of different light colors on the buckle and to improve its visibility in dark conditions for the wearer and facilitate rescue of occupants. The expert from EC underlined that the proposal was not aimed at introducing a tell-tale but rather a comfort system. Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/15, as amended by Annex II to this report (including GRSP-57-14-Rev.1). The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/15 to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2015 sessions as part of (see para. 14 above) draft Supplement 6 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16.

16. The expert from Korea introduced the issue (GRSP-57-24) concerning the extension of mandatory fitting of safety-belt reminders (SBR) to rear seats as a basis to increase the low wearing rates of safety-belts in the rear seats in Asian countries. Referring to GRSP-57-24, the expert from Japan introduced GRSP-57-17-Rev.2, jointly prepared with the experts from EC and Korea, providing the basis for a proposal of amendments to the UN Regulation to introduce SBR in the rear seats. GRSP noted that the United States of America was developing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the same matter that probably would be publicly available by the end of 2015. The expert from OICA argued that the issue of wearing rate should have a multidisciplinary approach including education and that a standalone technical solution would not solve the issue, but add burden costs to consumers. The expert from Germany added that the great wearing rate of safety-belts in his country was successfully achieved thanks to strong law enforcement. The expert from the Netherlands made a similar statement. The expert from France supported the validity of the request. However, he raised a study reservation and confirmed the need of a robust cost-benefit analysis and rationale to justify the proposal. The expert from Denmark supported the proposal, though he questioned the proposed deactivation time duration of SBR and the exclusion of multi-purpose vehicles from the scope of the proposal. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this issue at its December 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-57-17-Rev.2 with an official symbol.

17. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-57-09 proposing to introduce a new fixture to verify space availability of universal lateral facing Child Restraint Systems (CRS) “lie-flat” (GRSP-57-07-Rev.1). He urged the introduction of this envelope to allow the installation of universal “lie-flat” CRS to address special medical needs such as premature born children having inability to support heads. He stated that the current ISOFIX fixture of UN Regulation No. 44 was too large and suggested through his proposal the introduction of a fixture having a volume within those representing rear-facing and forward-facing volumes (excluding side volumes). The expert from OICA suggested that the proposed fixture should not be used to identify an i-size position because otherwise it would reduce the availability of i-size positions in the vehicle. Moreover, he suggested that the proposal would refer to a vehicle specific position. The comments from the expert of OICA were generally supported by the experts from France, Germany, EC and the Netherlands. Finally, GRSP agreed to refer GRSP-57-07-Rev.1 back to the IWG, to be discussed as a full-package with the provisions of UN Regulation No. 129 (see para. 30 below).

18. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSP-57-18 aimed at ensuring that the safety retractor would work properly in the highest and the lowest adjustment positions and other issues related to testing CRS compatibility on vehicle seating positions. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this issue at its December 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-57-18 with an official symbol.