55. The representative of the United States of America reported on the sixty-fifth session of GRSP (for details see the session report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/65).

38. The World Forum recalled the report of the Chair of GRSP on its sixty-fifth session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/65) and approved the report.

53. The World Forum approved the report of the Chair of GRSP on its sixty-seventh session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/65).

7. The expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the pedestrian safety IWG, introduced the amendment to M.R.1 for the new Addendum 3 to M.R.1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/4), incorporating drawings, specifications and the manual of the Flex Pedestrian Legform Impactor (FlexPLI): GRSP-65-01 and GRSP-65-02. The experts from France and the Russian Federation confirmed that the manual and technical specifications should not be translated. However, it was noted that GRSP-65-01 and GRSP-65-02 would not be displayed on the WP.29 website until a disclaimer letter would be provided (see para. 4). Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/4 unamended. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as Amendment 2 to M.R.1 for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3.

42. Discussion was concluded under agenda items 2, 3(a) and 5 (see paras. 4, 7 and 13).

7. The expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the pedestrian safety IWG, introduced the amendment to M.R.1 for the new Addendum 3 to M.R.1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/4), incorporating drawings, specifications and the manual of the Flex Pedestrian Legform Impactor (FlexPLI): GRSP-65-01 and GRSP-65-02. The experts from France and the Russian Federation confirmed that the manual and technical specifications should not be translated. However, it was noted that GRSP-65-01 and GRSP-65-02 would not be displayed on the WP.29 website until a disclaimer letter would be provided (see para. 4). Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/4 unamended. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as Amendment 2 to M.R.1 for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3.

42. Discussion was concluded under agenda items 2, 3(a) and 5 (see paras. 4, 7 and 13).

Proposal to clarify rounded-edge requirements for roof-opening roof devices.

59. The expert from France introduced GRSP-65-03 to clarify rounded edge requirements for parts of an opening roof. GRSP adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex VII to the session report and requested the secretariat to submit it as Supplement 4 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 21, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Request for interpretation of UN R17 for testing of head restraints in cases where the head restraint is not mandatory in the vehicle category in question.

19. The expert from Finland introduced GRSP-65-04 to raise concerns on head-restraint installation, testing and other interpretations issues. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-18-Rev.1, proposing an amendment to the definition of integrated, detachable and separate head-restraints. The expert from OICA noted that Amendment 1 to UN GTR No. 7 dealt with definitions of such head-restraints and suggested that the transposition of UN GTR No. 7, Phase 2 into the UN Regulation would solve the issue. [At] the same time, he urged that cross references between the UN Regulation and the UN GTR be consistent. So, he proposed to establish a Task Force (TF) to complete harmonization of the two Regulations. The expert from Germany endorsed the establishment of TF but proposed to keep GRSP-65-18-Rev.1 separated from other proposals of alignment to the UN GTR.

20. Finally, GRSP agreed with the proposal of the expert from OICA to establish a TF and to combine GRSP-65-18-Rev.1 once the proposal of amendments to align UN Regulation No. 17 with UN GTR No. 7 were finalized. In the meantime, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/7 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/9 to its December 2019 session. Moreover, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-65-18-Rev.1, as a new series of amendments with an official symbol at its December 2019 session.

3. GRSP considered and adopted the agenda (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/1) proposed for the sixty-fifth session, running order (GRSP-65-05) and annotations
(GRSP-65-25). GRSP informal working groups are listed in Annex VIII of the session report.

Proposal to introduce chest vertical acceleration (Az) criteria until such time as upper neck tension Force (Fz) and upper neck flexion moment (My) criteria can be established.

35. The expert from GlobalNCAP also introduced GRSP-65-06 proposing limit values for the chest vertical acceleration of Q-dummies during dynamic testing of Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS). The expert from CLEPA expressed general concern and raised a time reservation. The expert from United Kingdom stated that a permanent solution was needed. He added that this was not the case to implement the chest vertical acceleration but rather to develop the upper neck tension force on the basis of available data. The expert from EC stated that discussion should be deferred until data was available. The expert from CLEPA expressed similar view and suggested collecting support data before the December 2019 session of GRSP. The Chair of GRSP suggested to create a TF led by a representative of a contracting party to coordinate efforts. GRSP agreed, in principle, with the proposal of Chair and agreed to resume discussion at its December 2019 session on the basis of the outcome of above-mentioned TF research. At the same time GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-06 with an official symbol at its next session.

Proposal to update the text of UN R100, particularly in line with GTR 20 on electric vehicle safety.

30. The experts from the Netherlands and OICA introduced GRSP-65-33-Rev.1 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.297GRSP/2019/3) which proposed functional safety requirements that focused on other categories of vehicles other than M₁. The expert from the United States of America reminded GRSP that harmonization shall be kept when UN GTR No. 20 was transposed into UN Regulation No. 100. GRSP agreed to distribute GRSP-65-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol to the December 2019 session of GRSP, awaiting a proposal of amendments that align UN Regulation No. 100 to UN GTR No. 20.

31. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSP-65-07, proposing further improvement of functional safety requirements. The expert from Japan suggested that this extensive revision of safety requirements should be handed over to the IWG on UN GTR No. 20, Phase 2 to be compared or aligned with their ongoing work on the UN GTR. GRSP agreed with the proposal of Japan and to refer it to IWG UN GTR No. 20, Phase 2 and, to resume discussion at its December 2019 session.

Proposal to introduce an optional (on the choice of the manufacturer) test procedure for frontal airbags in combination with rearward facing child restraint systems in the rear seat to demonstrate that no deactivation of the airbag is needed.

17. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-65-08 with a presentation (GRSP-65-09), aimed to introduce an alternative (at the choice of the manufacturer) to the airbag switch-off for frontal airbags in combination with rearward-facing child restraint systems in the rear seat. With a new test procedure, the manufacturer can demonstrate that deactivation of the airbag is not needed. He explained that the proposal aimed to promote new airbag technologies while ensuring the current level of protection for children in rearward faced CRS. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2019 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-08 with an official symbol.

Presentation in support of the proposal to allow an option for demonstration that an airbag deployment is safe in the presence of a rear-facing child restraint system in a rear seating position.

17. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-65-08 with a presentation (GRSP-65-09), aimed to introduce an alternative (at the choice of the manufacturer) to the airbag switch-off for frontal airbags in combination with rearward-facing child restraint systems in the rear seat. With a new test procedure, the manufacturer can demonstrate that deactivation of the airbag is not needed. He explained that the proposal aimed to promote new airbag technologies while ensuring the current level of protection for children in rearward faced CRS. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2019 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-08 with an official symbol.

55. The expert from Japan, on behalf of the IWVTA Ambassador of GRSP, informed GRSP about IWVTA IWG progress and introduced GRSP-65-10 on the six UN Regulations that GRSP had been asked to prioritise as candidates to be inserted in Annex IV of UN Regulation No. 0: UN Regulations Nos. 44, 129, 134, 135, 137, and 145. The expert from CLEPA stated that UN Regulation No. 129 should also be on the priority list to protect children, even though some countries were still considering UN Regulation No. 44. GRSP agreed in principle with the priority list proposed by GRSP-65-10 and agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2019 session.

43. The expert from Spain introduced GRSP-65-11, showing that there were no specific requirements for children travelling in buses and coaches, unlike children in passenger cars. She added that specifications in UN Regulations Nos. 44 and 129 were only to secure children on M₁ category of vehicles. Therefore, she stated that it was time to establish requirements for securing children in M₂ and M₃ vehicles, based on real accidents in these type of vehicles with the priority of avoiding ejection of occupants. She therefore proposed to develop a new UN Regulation for securing children in buses and coaches and to establish an IWG to develop the work. The expert from Sweden introduced GRSP-65-26, showing that generally, buses in his country were not designed for the transportation of children. The expert from the United States of America provided information through links to how children were transported in his country:
School Bus Safety (NHTSA)
School Bus Facts: Safety Features
Child Safety Restraint Systems Basics video
Introduction to Child Safety Restraint Systems on School Buses video

44. The expert from EC underlined how the rate of wearing safety-belts was dramatically low in buses. He suggested that wearing should be combined with safety-belt reminders and that a study on cost-benefit analysis on their presence on buses would be considered in the work of the IWG proposed by the expert from Spain. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, CLEPA and GlobalNCAP supported the proposal to establish an IWG and to provide a contribution.

45. Finally, GRSP agreed to seek consent of WP.29 at its June 2019 session to establish an IWG on “Securing of Children in buses and coaches” and to request the secretariat to inform the Working Party on General Safety (GRSG) at its October 2019 session.

Proposal to expand the scope of the Regulation (to vehicles of category M₁ with a maximum permissible mass not exceeding 3500 kg and to vehicles of category N₁, to provide appropriate transitional provisions and to make minor adaptations and clarifications to the existing requirements.

39. The expert from EC, introduced GRSP-65-12, covering the same subjects introduced under agenda items 14, 15 and 28 (a) on frontal impact with focus on restraint systems. GRSP agreed to hand over GRSP-65-12 to the TF (see paras. 28 and 29 above).

Proposal to remove restrictions on the scope of the Regulation to M₁ and N₁ vehicles, to provide appropriate transitional provisions and to make minor adaptations and clarifications to the existing requirements.

29. The expert from EC, introduced GRSP-65-13, on the same subjects introduced under agenda items 14 and 28 (a) in the framework of lateral impact. He also added that barrier structure would be updated at a later stage. GRSP agreed to hand over GRSP-65-13 to TF (see para. 28 above).

Proposal to expand the scope of the Regulation to cover vehicles of category M₁ with a total permissible mass not exceeding 3500 kg and to vehicles of category N₁ with a total permissible mass not exceeding 2500 kg, to provide transitional provisions (May 2022/May 2024) and to make minor adaptations and clarifications to the existing requirements.

27. Referring to the presentation of the revised General Safety Regulation of the European Union (see agenda item 28 (a)), the expert from EC introduced GRSP-65-14 aimed at broadening the scope to cover, e.g. heavy vans and Sport Utility Vehicles, and proposing an evacuation of occupants through a front door in a crash instead of displacement systems for the front seats. He also mentioned that the dates proposed of entry into force of the draft supplement to the UN Regulation were needed to trigger those of the General Safety Regulation. The expert from Italy suggested a new series of amendments instead of a supplement. The expert from OICA argued that the proposal was demanding for manufacturers of N₁ vehicles and that further discussions on this proposal should start shortly. He added that the provisions for electric vehicles would be amended by the transposition of UN GTR No. 20 into UN Regulation No. 94 in near future so contracting parties should carefully agree on transitional provisions. Therefore, he proposed to establish a TF to cover all crash configurations. The expert from Germany endorsed the proposed TF as the most viable solution.

28. GRSP agreed with establishing a TF, led by EC and handed over GRSP-65-14 as a reference, awaiting an official document delivered by TF before the deadline for submission of official documents of 13 September 2019.

60. GRSP noted that Mr. N. Nguyen (United States of America), Chair of GRSP, would no longer attend the sessions. GRSP listened to his farewell letter, read by the secretariat on his behalf (GRSP-65-15), acknowledged his commitment as Chair of GRSP and continued contributions during all the years of his participation in the sessions. GRSP wished Mr. Nguyen all the best in his future activities and recognized his commitment with a long applause.

Provisional edition of the adopted text for new vehicle safety requirements in the European Union.

47. The expert from the EC introduced GRSP-65-16, explaining the content of the amended General Safety Regulation of the European Union. The new requirements aimed to reduce or to eliminate accidents and injuries in road transport. Moreover, he added that in addition to the safety measures to protect vehicle occupants, the implementation of specific measures to prevent fatalities and injuries of vulnerable users, such as cyclists and pedestrians. As a follow-up, he introduced a new proposal of amendments to UN Regulations (see agenda items Nos. 14, 15 and 23).

Proposal to ensure pedestrian safety across the vehicle height variations that may be produced by active suspensions.

8. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-17, explaining that the intention of the pedestrian protection test procedures as described in UN GTR No. 9 and UN Regulation No. 127 was to deliver an adequate level of protection for pedestrians in accidents up to an impact velocity of 40 km/h. International Harmonized Research Agenda research has shown that the cumulative frequency curves versus vehicle impact speed for pedestrian injuries and their respective injury causing parts showed that 58 per cent of the child head abbreviated injury scale (AIS) 2+ injuries were addressed to a vehicle impact speed up to 40 km/h, 40 per cent to adult head AIS2+ injuries and 50 per cent of the adult leg AIS2+ injuries respectively. He added that test procedures described in UN Regulation No. 127 and UN GTR No. 9 were meant to represent worst case scenarios. However, it was agreed that this was not the case for all possible scenarios and that also at lower impact speeds higher injury risk could occur due for example to different heights of the vehicle because of adjustable suspension systems. The representative from OICA reminded that during the type approval process the worst case scenario will be considered. GRSP agreed to keep GRSP-65-17 as an informal document for the December 2019 session of GRSP, awaiting further rationales to develop a proposal of amendments.

4. The expert from Germany reiterated his intention to find a solution (GRSP-65-17) to represent worst case scenarios, due to, for example, different heights of the vehicle from adjustable suspension systems. He also indicated that a concrete proposal had been submitted under agenda item 11 on UN Regulation No. 127. GRSP agreed to defer discussion to its December 2020 session, pending consideration of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its November 2020 session.

Proposal to clarify the definitions of integrated and detachable head restraints.

19. The expert from Finland introduced GRSP-65-04 to raise concerns on head-restraint installation, testing and other interpretations issues. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-18-Rev.1, proposing an amendment to the definition of integrated, detachable and separate head-restraints. The expert from OICA noted that Amendment 1 to UN GTR No. 7 dealt with definitions of such head-restraints and suggested that the transposition of UN GTR No. 7, Phase 2 into the UN Regulation would solve the issue. [At] the same time, he urged that cross references between the UN Regulation and the UN GTR be consistent. So, he proposed to establish a Task Force (TF) to complete harmonization of the two Regulations. The expert from Germany endorsed the establishment of TF but proposed to keep GRSP-65-18-Rev.1 separated from other proposals of alignment to the UN GTR.

20. Finally, GRSP agreed with the proposal of the expert from OICA to establish a TF and to combine GRSP-65-18-Rev.1 once the proposal of amendments to align UN Regulation No. 17 with UN GTR No. 7 were finalized. In the meantime, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/7 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/9 to its December 2019 session. Moreover, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-65-18-Rev.1, as a new series of amendments with an official symbol at its December 2019 session.

Proposal to correct the cross-reference to paragraph 5.11. in paragraph 6.4.3.5. The text should refer to paragraph 5.12.

21. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-19, proposing a Corrigendum to the UN Regulation. GRSP adopted GRSP-65-19, as reproduced in Annex II to the session report and requested the secretariat to submit it as Corrigendum 2 to Revision 5 and as Corrigendum 1 to the 09 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 17, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Request for guidance in order to resolve conflicting interpretations of paragraph 7.1.4.2.2. The paragraphs reads, " The vertical component of the acceleration from the abdomen towards the head shall not exceed 30 g except during periods whose sum does not exceed 3 ms.” However, an explanatory note for Technical Services on performing the tests under Annex 15 adds, "The wording of this paragraph [7.1.4.2.2.] refers to accelerations representing tensile loads in the spine of the dummy.” Differing interpretations have resulted in a CRS being approved but then rejected during Conformity of Production review by a separate Technical Service.

25. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-20 aimed at introducing clarifications on the direction of the vertical component of the chest acceleration, to provide consistency on the test performed by different Technical Services on Child Restraint Systems in accordance to paragraph 7.1.4.2.2. of the UN Regulation. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-65-28 which superseded GRSP-65-20. Finally, GRSP adopted GRSP-65-28 as reproduced in Annex III of the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit GRSP-65-28 as Supplement 17 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Proposal to ensure pedestrian protection across the vehicle height variations that may be produced by an active suspension system.

33. Referring to agenda item 3(b) (see paragraph 8 above), the expert from Germany suggested postponing discussion on GRSP-65-21 to allow careful consideration of the new provisions of the General Safety Regulation of the European Union, which had proposed an extension of the head impact zone. GRSP agreed to defer discussion of GRSP-65-21 to its December 2019 session and to distribute it with an official symbol.

Report on Korea regulation obligating a check of school buses to ensure that all children have left the vehicle. The check involves installation of a device at the back of the bus that will sound an alarm unless engaged within three minutes after engine shutoff.

48. The expert from the Republic of Korea introduced GRSP-65-22, explaining that his Government had been trying to reinforce safety regulations on school bus that would secure the traffic safety of children. He added that several regulations have been introduced into KMVSS, such as mandatory installation of stop sign, rear view camera and alarm system when driving in reverse, speed limiter and assistant stairs for getting on/off. He mentioned that last year the Government of Korea had improved the road traffic act so that operation of device in school bus would be mandated to check if all children had gotten off. He explained that the Korean vehicle safety regulations had also been amended to specify requirements on this device and that relevant requirements were added that apply to all kinds of school buses, such as an unloading child confirmation alert system. The additions referred to the requirements of Californian law in the United States of America.

Information on the regulation of category L7 micro four-wheeled vehicles.

51. The expert from Korea introduced GRSP-65-23, explaining the Korean safety regulations on micromobility. He explained that the safety regulations were based on requirements of L₇ category vehicle from regulation 168/2013 of the European Union and opinions from manufacturers. He added that this kind of vehicle should be considered as a new category of vehicles and not as a motorcycle category. He further explained four major categories in passive safety for this vehicle: (a) door latch and hinge, (b) strength of safety-belt anchorages, (c) seat anchorages and (d) test of electrical safety of high-voltage system through crash tests. He concluded that a test plan would cover in the future all the main collision configurations with the aim of introducing proper injury criterion for micromobility in KNCAP.

Updated proposal (based on document GRSP/2019/5) to specify a head restraint height between 720 mm and 830 mm including a new method for measuring the effective height of head restraints, use of the Biofidelic Rear Impact Device (BioRID II) test dummy, and to improve the overall text. This proposal also eliminates the backset measurement test procedure using the HRMD method.

4. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-32, to present the proposed Amendment 2 (GRSP-65-24 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/5) to UN GTR No. 7 (Phase 2 of the UN GTR on head restraints), jointly prepared with the experts from Japan and the Netherlands. He explained that the proposal has removed several square brackets and therefore solving the main issues. He added that the draft amendment would introduce: (a) injury criteria focusing on Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) namely upper and lower neck flexion and extension, (b) BioRID as an option for contracting parties to Hybrid III still and © procedure for establishing the height of the head restraint based on the head contact rather than at its absolute height. He clarified that the proposal that would need still some changes, will be complemented by a proposal of Addendum 1 to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 to insert drawings and specifications of the BioRID, to be presented at the December 2019 session of GRSP. Moreover, the experts from France and Russian Federation announced that they would not need the translation of the BioRID manual or other dummy specification and can be dealt with in English only. GRSP noted that all these specifications, when they would be submitted, shall need a disclaimer letter from the dummy manufacturer concerning copyright claims and that they might be upload on the M.R.1 website without any copyright infringements.

5. [At] the same time, the expert from Japan introduced the ninth status report of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Head Restraints (GRSP-65-31). The expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/8 and introduced GRSP-65-30 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/10 amending the static options of the proposal.

6. Finally, GRSP experts were invited to provide comments to GRSP-65-24 to the expert from Japan by 13 September 2019. Moreover, GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-30 and GRSP-65-31 with an official symbol and agreed to seek consent of WP.29 and AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until June 2020.

3. GRSP considered and adopted the agenda (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/1) proposed for the sixty-fifth session, running order (GRSP-65-05) and annotations
(GRSP-65-25). GRSP informal working groups are listed in Annex VIII of the session report.

43. The expert from Spain introduced GRSP-65-11, showing that there were no specific requirements for children travelling in buses and coaches, unlike children in passenger cars. She added that specifications in UN Regulations Nos. 44 and 129 were only to secure children on M₁ category of vehicles. Therefore, she stated that it was time to establish requirements for securing children in M₂ and M₃ vehicles, based on real accidents in these type of vehicles with the priority of avoiding ejection of occupants. She therefore proposed to develop a new UN Regulation for securing children in buses and coaches and to establish an IWG to develop the work. The expert from Sweden introduced GRSP-65-26, showing that generally, buses in his country were not designed for the transportation of children. The expert from the United States of America provided information through links to how children were transported in his country:
School Bus Safety (NHTSA)
School Bus Facts: Safety Features
Child Safety Restraint Systems Basics video
Introduction to Child Safety Restraint Systems on School Buses video

44. The expert from EC underlined how the rate of wearing safety-belts was dramatically low in buses. He suggested that wearing should be combined with safety-belt reminders and that a study on cost-benefit analysis on their presence on buses would be considered in the work of the IWG proposed by the expert from Spain. The experts from Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, CLEPA and GlobalNCAP supported the proposal to establish an IWG and to provide a contribution.

45. Finally, GRSP agreed to seek consent of WP.29 at its June 2019 session to establish an IWG on “Securing of Children in buses and coaches” and to request the secretariat to inform the Working Party on General Safety (GRSG) at its October 2019 session.

Final refinements developed during the May 2019 GRSP session to the proposal to include booster cushion categories within the scope of the 03 series of amendments to UN R129 (Supplement 3 to the 03 series).

34. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/12 and its amendment, GRSP-65-27-Rev.1. He explained that the proposal introduced the booster cushion without a backrest, and concluded the development of UN Regulation No. 129. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/12, as amended by Annex V to the session report, and requested the secretariat to submit it as Supplement 3 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Proposal to clarify the chest Z axis measurement requirement.

25. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-20 aimed at introducing clarifications on the direction of the vertical component of the chest acceleration, to provide consistency on the test performed by different Technical Services on Child Restraint Systems in accordance to paragraph 7.1.4.2.2. of the UN Regulation. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-65-28 which superseded GRSP-65-20. Finally, GRSP adopted GRSP-65-28 as reproduced in Annex III of the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit GRSP-65-28 as Supplement 17 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Proposal to raise requirements for the attachments and fittings of the seat (as a prelude to the eventual deletion of static test methods in favor of dynamic testing).

26. The expert from Germany informed GRSP that TF on UN Regulation No. 80 had not started work due to the absence of new proposals as an alternative to the previous proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2018/10, that had aimed at removing Appendix 5 (static test requirements and procedure) from UN Regulation No. 80. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-65-29-Rev.1 which proposed a compromise to the complete deletion of the static test as the static test will provide the basis for a simpler testing of small projects or Class I vehicles. He proposed a two-step approach: (a) the first step was presented with GRSP-65-29 Rev.1 with more stringent requirement for the attachments and fittings of the seat and (b) the second step would be a revision of the static and dynamic test. The expert from the United Kingdom acknowledged the need of small manufacturers to retain a static test as alternative and supported the proposal as a viable compromise. The experts from Finland, Italy and Russian Federation expressed similar views. The expert from Germany acknowledged that GRSP-65-29-Rev.1 had partially solved the problem of construction and fixation, and thus should be intended as a compromise that could be improved in the future. The expert from the Netherlands suggested that in the future, only the dynamic test should be used. Finally, GRSP adopted GRSP-65-29-Rev.1, as reproduced in Annex IV of the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit GRSP-65-29-Rev.1 as new 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 80, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Proposal to amend document GRSP/2019/10. The proposal clarifies the way to apply and to understand GTR7 phase 2 static alternative provisions and aligns the area where the gap is measured to actual practice in UN R17 and FMVSS 202a which consider only gaps over a height of 540mm.

4. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-32, to present the proposed Amendment 2 (GRSP-65-24 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/5) to UN GTR No. 7 (Phase 2 of the UN GTR on head restraints), jointly prepared with the experts from Japan and the Netherlands. He explained that the proposal has removed several square brackets and therefore solving the main issues. He added that the draft amendment would introduce: (a) injury criteria focusing on Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) namely upper and lower neck flexion and extension, (b) BioRID as an option for contracting parties to Hybrid III still and © procedure for establishing the height of the head restraint based on the head contact rather than at its absolute height. He clarified that the proposal that would need still some changes, will be complemented by a proposal of Addendum 1 to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 to insert drawings and specifications of the BioRID, to be presented at the December 2019 session of GRSP. Moreover, the experts from France and Russian Federation announced that they would not need the translation of the BioRID manual or other dummy specification and can be dealt with in English only. GRSP noted that all these specifications, when they would be submitted, shall need a disclaimer letter from the dummy manufacturer concerning copyright claims and that they might be upload on the M.R.1 website without any copyright infringements.

5. [At] the same time, the expert from Japan introduced the ninth status report of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Head Restraints (GRSP-65-31). The expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/8 and introduced GRSP-65-30 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/10 amending the static options of the proposal.

6. Finally, GRSP experts were invited to provide comments to GRSP-65-24 to the expert from Japan by 13 September 2019. Moreover, GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-30 and GRSP-65-31 with an official symbol and agreed to seek consent of WP.29 and AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until June 2020.

4. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-32, to present the proposed Amendment 2 (GRSP-65-24 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/5) to UN GTR No. 7 (Phase 2 of the UN GTR on head restraints), jointly prepared with the experts from Japan and the Netherlands. He explained that the proposal has removed several square brackets and therefore solving the main issues. He added that the draft amendment would introduce: (a) injury criteria focusing on Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) namely upper and lower neck flexion and extension, (b) BioRID as an option for contracting parties to Hybrid III still and © procedure for establishing the height of the head restraint based on the head contact rather than at its absolute height. He clarified that the proposal that would need still some changes, will be complemented by a proposal of Addendum 1 to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 to insert drawings and specifications of the BioRID, to be presented at the December 2019 session of GRSP. Moreover, the experts from France and Russian Federation announced that they would not need the translation of the BioRID manual or other dummy specification and can be dealt with in English only. GRSP noted that all these specifications, when they would be submitted, shall need a disclaimer letter from the dummy manufacturer concerning copyright claims and that they might be upload on the M.R.1 website without any copyright infringements.

5. [At] the same time, the expert from Japan introduced the ninth status report of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Head Restraints (GRSP-65-31). The expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/8 and introduced GRSP-65-30 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/10 amending the static options of the proposal.

6. Finally, GRSP experts were invited to provide comments to GRSP-65-24 to the expert from Japan by 13 September 2019. Moreover, GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-30 and GRSP-65-31 with an official symbol and agreed to seek consent of WP.29 and AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until June 2020.

4. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-32, to present the proposed Amendment 2 (GRSP-65-24 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/5) to UN GTR No. 7 (Phase 2 of the UN GTR on head restraints), jointly prepared with the experts from Japan and the Netherlands. He explained that the proposal has removed several square brackets and therefore solving the main issues. He added that the draft amendment would introduce: (a) injury criteria focusing on Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) namely upper and lower neck flexion and extension, (b) BioRID as an option for contracting parties to Hybrid III still and © procedure for establishing the height of the head restraint based on the head contact rather than at its absolute height. He clarified that the proposal that would need still some changes, will be complemented by a proposal of Addendum 1 to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 to insert drawings and specifications of the BioRID, to be presented at the December 2019 session of GRSP. Moreover, the experts from France and Russian Federation announced that they would not need the translation of the BioRID manual or other dummy specification and can be dealt with in English only. GRSP noted that all these specifications, when they would be submitted, shall need a disclaimer letter from the dummy manufacturer concerning copyright claims and that they might be upload on the M.R.1 website without any copyright infringements.

5. [At] the same time, the expert from Japan introduced the ninth status report of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Head Restraints (GRSP-65-31). The expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/8 and introduced GRSP-65-30 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/10 amending the static options of the proposal.

6. Finally, GRSP experts were invited to provide comments to GRSP-65-24 to the expert from Japan by 13 September 2019. Moreover, GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-30 and GRSP-65-31 with an official symbol and agreed to seek consent of WP.29 and AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until June 2020.

Proposal to clarify that the warning signal to alert a driver of an M₂ or M₃ vehicle with more than 22 seating positions if the vehicle is in active-driving-possible mode when the driver leaves the seat shall be activated upon leaving the seat, not the vehicle.

30. The experts from the Netherlands and OICA introduced GRSP-65-33-Rev.1 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.297GRSP/2019/3) which proposed functional safety requirements that focused on other categories of vehicles other than M₁. The expert from the United States of America reminded GRSP that harmonization shall be kept when UN GTR No. 20 was transposed into UN Regulation No. 100. GRSP agreed to distribute GRSP-65-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol to the December 2019 session of GRSP, awaiting a proposal of amendments that align UN Regulation No. 100 to UN GTR No. 20.

31. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSP-65-07, proposing further improvement of functional safety requirements. The expert from Japan suggested that this extensive revision of safety requirements should be handed over to the IWG on UN GTR No. 20, Phase 2 to be compared or aligned with their ongoing work on the UN GTR. GRSP agreed with the proposal of Japan and to refer it to IWG UN GTR No. 20, Phase 2 and, to resume discussion at its December 2019 session.

41. The expert from GlobalNCAP introduced a presentation (GRSP-65-34) that highlighted cases of ISOFIX anchorage ruptures of forward-facing CRS. He then proposed to review the UN Regulation that allowed deformations and load configuration tests. The expert from CLEPA stated that these failures should be further investigated, and requested more time and data. The expert from GlobalNCAP clarified that he was only highlighting the issue and was not a position to quantify the number of failures. The expert from OICA requested that all available findings should be analysed to identify the causes. Finally, GRSP agreed to create a group of interested experts to coordinate the research, and to resume discussion on this agenda item awaiting further evidence at its December 2019 session.

52. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-35, providing information on impact attenuating devices to protect motorcyclists from guardrail posts. The expert from the Republic of Korea expressed a strong interest to develop more effective guard rails for all types of vehicles. The Chair of GRSP underlined that vehicle safety and road barriers shall be triggered to better improve road safety. The expert from Russian Federation fully supported the importance of safe guardrail design and suggested that WP.29 and the Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) should cooperate on this subject. He suggested that a UN Regulation should be developed on this subject. The expert from IMMA underlined the importance of motorcycle friendly infrastructure as part of a safe system design. He supported the proposal to start an exchange on this issue between the relevant fora. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that the Federal Highway Administration provides solutions and initiatives to promote safe guardrails: US Federal Highway Administration

Moreover, he also informed GRSP that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials had developed a “Roadside Design Guide” and a “Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware”, available at:transportation.org.

53. Finally, GRSP agreed to report to the June 2019 session of WP.29 on this issue and receive guidance.

Proposal to introduce objective criteria for evaluating whether a door remains latched following the pole impact test. Under UN R135, rear doors on the impacted side of the vehicle not directly struck by the pole may nonetheless be subjected to heavy loads and therefore need to be assessed. This proposal corresponds to a similar clarification already introduced into UN R95 on side impacts.

37. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/13, clarifying that rear doors on the impacted side which were not directly struck by the pole, might be subjected to heavy loads. He proposed a similar amendment that had already been adopted for UN Regulation No. 95. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-65-36, agreed with the expert from France to delete the applied force on the front door. Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/13, as amended by Annex VI to the session report and requested the secretariat to resume discussion at its May 2019 session and to submit it as Supplement 2 to the original series and to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 135, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

3. GRSP considered and adopted the agenda (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/1) proposed for the sixty-fifth session, running order (GRSP-65-05) and annotations
(GRSP-65-25). GRSP informal working groups are listed in Annex VIII of the session report.

Proposal to introduce a tolerance for the position of the loading device during the test. The loading device is required to be parallel to the x-y plane of the chassis. This proposal would add a z dimension to the x-y plane and set a tolerance such that the loading device may not deviate by more than 5° along the z-axis.

24. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/2, proposing tolerances for the position of the loading device during the test. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/2, not amended. The secretariat was requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/2 as Supplement 5 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 29, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Proposal to explicitly state that functional safety requirements apply to categories of vehicles beyond M₁ through the addition of the following text marked in bold:

When leaving the vehicle, the driver shall be informed by a signal (e.g. optical or audible signal) if the vehicleis still in the active driving possible mode. Moreover, in case of vehicles of category M₂ and M₃, such signal shall already be given when leaving the driver seat.

30. The experts from the Netherlands and OICA introduced GRSP-65-33-Rev.1 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.297GRSP/2019/3) which proposed functional safety requirements that focused on other categories of vehicles other than M₁. The expert from the United States of America reminded GRSP that harmonization shall be kept when UN GTR No. 20 was transposed into UN Regulation No. 100. GRSP agreed to distribute GRSP-65-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol to the December 2019 session of GRSP, awaiting a proposal of amendments that align UN Regulation No. 100 to UN GTR No. 20.

31. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSP-65-07, proposing further improvement of functional safety requirements. The expert from Japan suggested that this extensive revision of safety requirements should be handed over to the IWG on UN GTR No. 20, Phase 2 to be compared or aligned with their ongoing work on the UN GTR. GRSP agreed with the proposal of Japan and to refer it to IWG UN GTR No. 20, Phase 2 and, to resume discussion at its December 2019 session.

Proposal to add the specifications of flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor (FlexPLI) to the Resolution on test devices.

7. The expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the pedestrian safety IWG, introduced the amendment to M.R.1 for the new Addendum 3 to M.R.1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/4), incorporating drawings, specifications and the manual of the Flex Pedestrian Legform Impactor (FlexPLI): GRSP-65-01 and GRSP-65-02. The experts from France and the Russian Federation confirmed that the manual and technical specifications should not be translated. However, it was noted that GRSP-65-01 and GRSP-65-02 would not be displayed on the WP.29 website until a disclaimer letter would be provided (see para. 4). Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/4 unamended. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as Amendment 2 to M.R.1 for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3.

Proposal to specify a head restraint height between 720 mm and 830 mm including a new method for measuring the effective height of head restraints, use of the Biofidelic Rear Impact Device (BioRID II) test dummy, and to improve the overall text. This proposal also eliminates the backset measurement test procedure using the HRMD method.

4. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-32, to present the proposed Amendment 2 (GRSP-65-24 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/5) to UN GTR No. 7 (Phase 2 of the UN GTR on head restraints), jointly prepared with the experts from Japan and the Netherlands. He explained that the proposal has removed several square brackets and therefore solving the main issues. He added that the draft amendment would introduce: (a) injury criteria focusing on Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) namely upper and lower neck flexion and extension, (b) BioRID as an option for contracting parties to Hybrid III still and © procedure for establishing the height of the head restraint based on the head contact rather than at its absolute height. He clarified that the proposal that would need still some changes, will be complemented by a proposal of Addendum 1 to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 to insert drawings and specifications of the BioRID, to be presented at the December 2019 session of GRSP. Moreover, the experts from France and Russian Federation announced that they would not need the translation of the BioRID manual or other dummy specification and can be dealt with in English only. GRSP noted that all these specifications, when they would be submitted, shall need a disclaimer letter from the dummy manufacturer concerning copyright claims and that they might be upload on the M.R.1 website without any copyright infringements.

5. [At] the same time, the expert from Japan introduced the ninth status report of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Head Restraints (GRSP-65-31). The expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/8 and introduced GRSP-65-30 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/10 amending the static options of the proposal.

6. Finally, GRSP experts were invited to provide comments to GRSP-65-24 to the expert from Japan by 13 September 2019. Moreover, GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-30 and GRSP-65-31 with an official symbol and agreed to seek consent of WP.29 and AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until June 2020.

Proposal to clarify that modifications need only be notified to the Type Approval Authority when they have an influence on the performance (compliance with technical requirements of UN R16) and/or the documentation required by the UN Regulation.

18. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/6 to clarify which modification of the vehicle type or the safety-belt or restraint system shall be notified to the Type Approval Authority. GRSP agreed to combine ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/6 with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2018/25 to extend the requirements for the safety-belt reminder installation not only to the driver’s seat (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/64, para. 15). GRSP finally agreed with both proposals, neither amended, and requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/6 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2018/25 as Supplement 12 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 and as Supplement 5 to the 07 series of amendments, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Proposal to amend the dynamic option of the draft 10 series of amendments (document GRSP/2018/34). CLEPA proposes that injury risk limits should be based not only on the injury risk curves, but also on technical feasibility given the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the BioRID II test tool. This proposal also corrects the definition of T(end) which is different from T-HRC.

Proposal to amend the dynamic option of the proposal of amendment 1 of UN Global Technical Regulation No. 7 submitted by the Informal Working Group on the Phase 2 of UN GTR No. 7 (document GRSP/2018/27).

4. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-32, to present the proposed Amendment 2 (GRSP-65-24 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/5) to UN GTR No. 7 (Phase 2 of the UN GTR on head restraints), jointly prepared with the experts from Japan and the Netherlands. He explained that the proposal has removed several square brackets and therefore solving the main issues. He added that the draft amendment would introduce: (a) injury criteria focusing on Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) namely upper and lower neck flexion and extension, (b) BioRID as an option for contracting parties to Hybrid III still and © procedure for establishing the height of the head restraint based on the head contact rather than at its absolute height. He clarified that the proposal that would need still some changes, will be complemented by a proposal of Addendum 1 to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 to insert drawings and specifications of the BioRID, to be presented at the December 2019 session of GRSP. Moreover, the experts from France and Russian Federation announced that they would not need the translation of the BioRID manual or other dummy specification and can be dealt with in English only. GRSP noted that all these specifications, when they would be submitted, shall need a disclaimer letter from the dummy manufacturer concerning copyright claims and that they might be upload on the M.R.1 website without any copyright infringements.

5. [At] the same time, the expert from Japan introduced the ninth status report of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Head Restraints (GRSP-65-31). The expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/8 and introduced GRSP-65-30 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/10 amending the static options of the proposal.

6. Finally, GRSP experts were invited to provide comments to GRSP-65-24 to the expert from Japan by 13 September 2019. Moreover, GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-30 and GRSP-65-31 with an official symbol and agreed to seek consent of WP.29 and AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until June 2020.

Proposal to clarify the application of GTR 7 Phase 2 static alternative provisions and to modify the allowed range of tolerances under the backset retention and energy dissipations test. The proposal would re-introduce certain paragraphs in the 09 series of amendments removed by the draft 10 series (GRSP/2018/34). In addition, the proposals adds the area where the gap measurement procedure by the sphere is appropriate per the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 202a (i.e. only gaps in the area over 540 mm).

12. The expert from Japan introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2020/8 in a presentation (GRSP-67-17) on behalf of the Task Force on aligning UN Regulation No. 17 with UN GTR No. 7, Phase 2 provisions. The expert from Italy requested a delay on transitional provision for all new vehicles (paragraphs. 13.13.2 and 13.13.3). Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2020/8, as amended by Annex IV to the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as the draft 10 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 17, for consideration and vote at the November 2020 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1. At the same time, the expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/9.

Proposal to amend the static options of the proposal of amendment 1 of UN Global Technical Regulation No. 7 submitted by the Informal Working Group on the Phase 2 of UN GTR No. 7 (document GRSP/2018/27).

4. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-32, to present the proposed Amendment 2 (GRSP-65-24 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/5) to UN GTR No. 7 (Phase 2 of the UN GTR on head restraints), jointly prepared with the experts from Japan and the Netherlands. He explained that the proposal has removed several square brackets and therefore solving the main issues. He added that the draft amendment would introduce: (a) injury criteria focusing on Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) namely upper and lower neck flexion and extension, (b) BioRID as an option for contracting parties to Hybrid III still and © procedure for establishing the height of the head restraint based on the head contact rather than at its absolute height. He clarified that the proposal that would need still some changes, will be complemented by a proposal of Addendum 1 to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 to insert drawings and specifications of the BioRID, to be presented at the December 2019 session of GRSP. Moreover, the experts from France and Russian Federation announced that they would not need the translation of the BioRID manual or other dummy specification and can be dealt with in English only. GRSP noted that all these specifications, when they would be submitted, shall need a disclaimer letter from the dummy manufacturer concerning copyright claims and that they might be upload on the M.R.1 website without any copyright infringements.

5. [At] the same time, the expert from Japan introduced the ninth status report of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Head Restraints (GRSP-65-31). The expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/8 and introduced GRSP-65-30 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/10 amending the static options of the proposal.

6. Finally, GRSP experts were invited to provide comments to GRSP-65-24 to the expert from Japan by 13 September 2019. Moreover, GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-30 and GRSP-65-31 with an official symbol and agreed to seek consent of WP.29 and AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until June 2020.

Proposal developed by the informal working group on protective helmets to introduce new categories of helmets and update provisions, including for sun visors. The new series would tentatively be phased in during 2022-2024.

22. The expert from Italy, Chair of IWG on Protective Helmets (IWG-PH), informed GRSP about the work progress of the group which had last convened on 13 May 2019 in Geneva. He explained that IWG had examined and, in principle, agreed on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/11. He underlined that the proposal would be further updated by IWG, according to the results of ongoing research and that the main goal of the proposal was rotational acceleration requirements. The expert from Germany stated that the proposal should be considered as a two-step approach. He clarified that rotational acceleration needed keener research. He added that the proposed, agreed amendment was a compromise stemming from the existing requirements of the UN Regulation. He stated that the draft amendment should be revised within the next two years to incorporate research results. The experts from France and the Netherlands agreed with the expert from Germany and clarified that research should be kept ongoing to incorporate better solutions in the future.

23. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2019 session on the basis of a revised version of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/11, submitted by IWG.

Proposal to include booster cushion categories within the scope of the 03 series of amendments to UN R129.

34. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/12 and its amendment, GRSP-65-27-Rev.1. He explained that the proposal introduced the booster cushion without a backrest, and concluded the development of UN Regulation No. 129. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/12, as amended by Annex V to the session report, and requested the secretariat to submit it as Supplement 3 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

Proposal to introduce objective criteria for evaluating whether a door remains latched following the pole impact test. Under UN R135, rear doors on the impacted side of the vehicle not directly struck by the pole may nonetheless be subjected to heavy loads and therefore need to be assessed. This proposal corresponds to a similar clarification already introduced into UN R95 on side impacts.

37. The expert from France introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/13, clarifying that rear doors on the impacted side which were not directly struck by the pole, might be subjected to heavy loads. He proposed a similar amendment that had already been adopted for UN Regulation No. 95. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-65-36, agreed with the expert from France to delete the applied force on the front door. Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/13, as amended by Annex VI to the session report and requested the secretariat to resume discussion at its May 2019 session and to submit it as Supplement 2 to the original series and to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 135, for consideration and vote at the November 2019 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.