| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | Presentation in support of the proposal to remove ISOFIX from UN R44 and cease new UN R44 approvals | ||||||||
| Reference Number | GRSP-58-10 | ||||||||
| Date |
4 Dec 2015
|
||||||||
| Source(s) | ANEC and CI | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | UN R44 Child Restraint Systems and UN R129 Enhanced Child Restraints | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Related Documents | |||||||||
| GRSP-58-09 | Proposal for a new series of amendments to Regulation No. 44 (superseded) | ||||||||
| GRSP/2016/11 | Proposal for 05 series of amendments to Regulation No. 44 (superseded) | ||||||||
| GRSP-59-15/Rev.1 | Proposal for 05 series of amendments to Regulation No. 44 (superseded) | ||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .pdf format | .ppt format | |||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| GRSP | Session 58 | 8-11 Dec 2015 |
35. The expert from CI introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-10) on a proposal (GRSP-58-09) to withdraw ISOFIX CRS from the UN Regulation. He added that the introduction of UN Regulation No. 129 should lead to the discontinuation in production of ISOFIX CRS according to UN Regulation No. 44 because of a lower level of protection offered (i.e. absence of side impact protection). The expert from Germany argued that deleting ISOFIX provisions from the UN Regulation was useless and that this could be simply dealt with in transitional provisions, beyond which date, type approval would no longer be granted to ISOFIX CRS. He added that, at the same time extensions of existing type approvals would be guaranteed in the future. GRSP agreed to resume consideration of a revised proposal at its May 2016 session. 35. The expert from CI introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-10) on a proposal (GRSP-58-09) to withdraw ISOFIX CRS from the UN Regulation. He added that the introduction of UN Regulation No. 129 should lead to the discontinuation in production of ISOFIX CRS according to UN Regulation No. 44 because of a lower level of protection offered (i.e. absence of side impact protection). The expert from Germany argued that deleting ISOFIX provisions from the UN Regulation was useless and that this could be simply dealt with in transitional provisions, beyond which date, type approval would no longer be granted to ISOFIX CRS. He added that, at the same time extensions of existing type approvals would be guaranteed in the future. GRSP agreed to resume consideration of a revised proposal at its May 2016 session. |
||||||||