Proposal to strip ISOFIX CRS provisions from UN R44 and to cease all new type approvals for CRS under UN R44 from November 2016 in deference to UN R129 on Enhanced CRS. Presently, all the Contracting Parties applying UN R44 also apply UN R129. Therefore, the proposal seeks to eliminate the possibility to seek new type approvals under either UN R44 or UN R129 by restricting ISOFIX CRS to UN R129.
33. The expert from Consumer International (CI) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/11 to withdraw ISOFIX CRS from UN Regulation No. 44. The expert from CLEPA questioned the proposal since too many ISOFIX products were already in the market. Therefore, he suggested that the proposal would set a proper sunset clause for extension of ISOFIX CRS type approvals according to the UN Regulation and, thus, to avoid distortions in the type approval system. Thus, the expert from CI introduced GRSP-59-15-Rev.1, in cooperation with the experts from CLEPA and OICA. The expert from OICA suggesting that a supplement, rather than a new series of amendments would better fit the scope the proposal. The expert from China explained that the proposal would cause a backlash of costs in his country: national legislation GB 14166 had taken over a great part of the provisions of UN Regulation No. 44 including ISOFIX provisions. Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/11, as amended by Annex III to this report (GRSP-59-15-Rev.1). The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal (as a separate official document) for consideration and vote at the November 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as part of (see para. 31) draft Supplement 12 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.
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.