15. The expert from Japan presented GRSG-129-20 to reintroduce ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2024/38, amended by GRSG-129-21, that improves the effectiveness of Lateral Protection Device (LPD) in preventing left- and right-turn collisions. He underlined the benefits of low ground clearance making LPD more effective by summarizing accidentology data. The expert from the United Kingdom recommended a careful assessment of accidentology, since many of the vehicles still in circulation required exemptions on side guards. He then introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2025/3 and GRSG-129-41 amending it, which propose different transitional provisions. The expert from Italy introduced GRSG-129-47-Rev.2, to ensure the correct interpretation of the exemptions on the height of LPD by the Type Approval Authorities. The expert from CLCCR introduced GRSG-129-46 urging that the proposal be paused pending further review, since an impact assessment is needed to confirm costs versus expected benefits. He added that the correct method involves calculating the angle between two ramps using the tangent function based on ground clearance and wheelbase. Finally, GRSG adopted GRSG-129-21-Rev.5, superseding GRSG-129-22, which incorporates the proposals from the experts of the United Kingdom and GRSG-129-47-Rev.2; see annex V of this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the amendments as the proposal of the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 73, for consideration and vote at the November 2025 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

70. WP.29 considered draft amendment under agenda item 4.7.2. (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2025/104) and recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting, subject to the following amendment:

71. The representative of Switzerland pointed out that the proposed amendment under item 4.7.2 regarding the lowering of LPD could affect intermodal transport as certain vehicle configurations would no longer be compatible with train wagons. In Switzerland alone, over one thousand train wagons would be affected. Hence, Switzerland thought that further technical assessments were necessary to fully understand the impacts on intermodal transport. For the above reasons, the representative of Switzerland informed WP.29 about her intention to abstain from vote in AC.1 on this proposal. The representative of OICA shared the concern expressed by the representative of Switzerland.