27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.

14. Referring to the request made by the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work of WP.29 (WP.29/AC.2) (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1155, para. 30), GRSP resumed discussion on the belt-guide device type approved as Child Restraint System (CRS) according to UN Regulation No. 44 by the Type Approval Authority of Poland. The expert from the Netherlands introduced a presentation (GRSP-68-24), showing additional test results performed on the belt-guide. He added that the tests confirmed the conclusion laid out in document GRSP-67-05, introduced at the July 2020 session of GRSP and in addition showed that the device does not conform to the dynamic test requirements when tested with the P10 dummy. Therefore, he stated:

1. The belt-guide was not in the scope of the UN Regulation and could not be type approved; as such, the type approval should be withdrawn.
2. The device did not meet several requirements, both technical and with regard to instructions for users and therefore approval should not have been granted.
3. The car design determines the level of protection for a great deal of cases and may result in submarining and/or in injuries in the abdominal area, since the device sold as a child restraint does not offer adequate protection or guidance in this respect.
4. The device could offer better protection than the adult belt itself but lacks the additional protection of a CRS.
5. Since approval of this device was issued erroneously, it shall be withdrawn, and Market Surveillance Authorities should be informed.

The expert of the Netherlands further added that for the time being he was not requesting an arbitration process according to Schedule 6 of the 1958 Agreement, because a parallel investigation is being conducted at the European Commission level. The expert from Poland introduced GRSP-68-27 arguing against the conclusions of GRSP-68-24 and providing clarifications on the belt-guide dynamic test performances. He stated:

1. During last year there had been numerous different unsubstantiated allegations against the belt guide, e.g.: submarining (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25), vertical component (GRSP-65-20), risk of abdominal injury. However, he added these allegations were not demonstrated.
2. Type-approval tests according to the UN Regulation requirements were conducted by Polish technical service – PIMOT in 2017, which conducted more than 160 tests by using dummies required by the UN regulation (P3, P6 and P10 type), showing satisfactory results.

He concluded that in December 2019, after comparative tests with other CRS showed problems with other type-approved CRS, the discussion in GRSP should be broadened to focus on other CRS as well. The expert from Spain, stated that the focus should be on the interpretation that a belt-guide and similar devices cannot be separately approved as a CRS.

27. The expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/28 aimed at clarifying the types of belt-guides and sitting devices that would not be allowed by means of an explanation in the scope of the UN Regulation. The expert from Poland argued that the proposal from EC was restrictive and requested a facts-based discussion on this proposal or a simple rejection in full. He introduced a presentation GRSP-66-19, showing that one of the devices in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/28 was fully compliant with UN Regulation No. 44 and safer compared to other type approved CRS. The expert from Spain introduced GRSP-66-30 which provided counter evidence that belt-guide devices would not comply to a number of relevant requirements of UN Regulation No. 44. The expert from Japan introduced a presentation (GRSP-66-38) showing the sled test conducted on Q dummies to check safety-belt penetration according to UN Regulation No 129 requirements. He concluded that the abdominal pressure on the belt-guide device was found to be rather high compared to CRS type approval according to UN Regulation No. 129, but that it satisfied the requirements of the UN Regulation.

28. Finally, the majority of GRSP experts, with the exception of the expert from Poland, adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/28, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as part of (see para. 26) Supplement 18 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44, for consideration and vote at the June 2020 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

30. The expert from Poland requested deferral of discussion on the belt-guide, that was type approved by the authority of her country, to the December 2020 session of GRSP due to the research test results on the belt-guide, which had not yet been made available by the expert of EC. The experts from the Netherlands and ANEC/CI argued that discussion was needed on this subject since they considered this type of CRS as dangerous. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSP-67-05 explaining that the belt-guide was not in the scope of the UN Regulation and could not be type approved; as such, the type approval should be withdrawn. Finally, with reference to the procedure of the 1958 Agreement, Revision 3, Articles 4.2., 10.4 and Schedule 6 (paragraphs 2 and 3), he stated that through GRSP-67-05 he sought support from other contracting parties and cooperation from the expert of Poland to avoid starting the arbitration process – according to Schedule 6 of the 1958 Agreement. The expert from ANEC/CI, introduced GRSP-67-10 and GRSP-67-36 showing the high risk of abdominal injuries in both cases due to severe submarining. In anticipation of the above-mentioned test results, the expert from Poland introduced GRSP-67-32, showing some results of tests demonstrating the performance of this belt-guide type under laboratory conditions. She also clarified that the belt-guide was type approved according to Supplement 10 to the 04 series of amendments. However, she added that according to some stakeholder opinions, this belt-guide type should had been tested according to Supplement 11, thus making the device subject to different criteria. However, she stated that in her opinion there was a clear legal basis which demonstrated that the type approval granted under Supplement 10 was the correct one. The expert of the Netherlands responded by stating that, apart from the fact that this device does not comply with several requirements of UN Regulation No. 44, a supplement only clarifies existing requirements or test procedures and does not introduce new requirements. Even when Supplement 10 was in force, it was evident that a belt guide could not be approved as a child restraint.

31. The expert from EC recalled to GRSP, that the group had agreed to his former proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/28) to amend the scope of UN Regulation No 44 (Child Restraint Systems) with clarification that a belt-guide cannot be approved under Regulation 44 without being part of a child restraint system (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/66, paragraphs 27 and 28). However, he explained that EC had reconsidered the document submission to WP.29, since the interpretation that a “guide strap” and similar devices cannot be separately approved as a child restraint system, had already been endorsed by WP.29 at its March 2012 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1095, paragraph 35). Therefore, he introduced GRSP-67-31, that was only on the phase out of UN Regulation No. 44.

32. The Chair of GRSP referred to Schedule 6 of the 1958 Agreement, and stressed full consideration of the different opinions of the Type Approval Authorities of the concerned contracting parties, and of contracting parties applying UN Regulation No. 44. Therefore, the experts from France, Germany, Italy, Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom explicitly endorsed the request of the expert from the Netherlands to withdraw the type approval granted by Poland on the belt-guide, while none of the other present delegates indicated abstention or disagreement. The experts also noted that the Chair encouraged the expert of the Netherlands to continue discussions with the Type Approval Authority of Poland to seek cooperation with Poland in the aim to avoid the arbitration process according to Schedule 6 of the 1958 Agreement, which would start in the November 2020 session of WP.29.

33. GRSP also considered GRSP-67-14, tabled by the expert from France to correct a date in transitional provisions. Finally, GRSP adopted GRSP-67-14 and GRSP-67-31, as reproduced in Annex V to the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit the two proposals as draft Supplement 18 to the 04 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 44, for consideration and vote at the November 2020 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.