24. The expert from CLEPA presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2026/2 to remove rebound head contact from the head acceleration requirement in UN Regulation No. 129 for all Child Restraint Systems (CRS). He recalled that the proposal had already been discussed in previous sessions, based on an informal document. He also corrected a mistake in the supplement number contained in the title of the proposal. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2026/2 and requested the secretariat to submit it as proposals for supplement 6 to the 04 series of amendments and supplement 1 to the 05 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129 to the November 2026 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1.

25. The expert from the Kingdom of the Netherlands presented informal document GRSP-79-24 with a first draft of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129 prepared by the special interest group on electronics and inserts. The proposal introduces provisions on electronic components and clarifies the provisions on inserts. He explained that there was no need to introduce requirements for electromagnetic compatibility. The expert from Italy suggested to use 2029 for the date in the new transitional provision 16.18.2. The expert from the Russian Federation asked for more clarity on the interpretation of the expression “within reach of children” in the new paragraph 6.9.

26. The expert from CI delivered a presentation (informal document GRSP-79-34) discussing the results of a testing campaign where some child restraint systems had failed to meet more stringent requirements than those specified in UN Regulation No. 129. Furthermore, he highlighted that several of the products that had failed the test corresponded to the same type approval but were being commercialized under different brands. He then argued that even though marketing CRSs with a common type approval under different brands was allowed by the regulation and had been common for years, the low threshold for engaging in this practice for online retailers and the large scale on which this was now taking place was problematic for both consumers and market surveillance authorities. He proposed several measures to mitigate this problem. Answering questions from the expert from the United Kingdom, the expert from CI clarified that he had no indication that the products that failed the test would have also failed the type approval tests or that they might have been counterfeit products. The expert from the Kingdom of the Netherlands clarified that for type approval purposes, it was the manufacturer name which was relevant, not the brand name, and that a single type approval would cover all brands with the same design and manufacturer. He also cautioned that a cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken before increasing the pulse used for testing during type approval, as this could result in more expensive CRSs and could ultimately result in users using less appropriate restraints. He informed that his country, as a consequence of these results and in line with a risk-based approach, would be launching a market surveillance program. Finally, he agreed that the proposal by CI to add the manufacturer name in the product could be a good idea and that the special interest group on UN Regulation No. 129 would look into it. Several experts supported this idea.