22. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRSP, given during the 153rd session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, paras. 28 – 33) and approved the report.

17. Referring to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/29, the expert from OICA announced a new revised proposal including the transitional provisions proposed by the expert from the Czech Republic (GRSP-45-14) at the forty-fifth session of GRSP. The experts from OICA, the Netherlands and EC withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/29, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/16 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/17 respectively. GRSP agreed to resume discussion of this agenda item on the basis of a revised proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA.

37. The Chair of the group of interested experts on Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems (RESS) introduced GRSP-48-01-Rev.1 (superseding GRSP-48-10) concerning the terms of reference of the group. The experts from EC and the United Kingdom expressed concerns on the lack of clarity in the programme of work and on expert participation in the group and requested a clearer framework. GRSP recommended to all the Chairs of the informal groups to ensure traceability of expert mandates for their participation in the meetings. Moreover, GRSP requested all experts to provide comments on GRSP-48-01-Rev.1 to the Chair of the group to finalize a proposal at the May 2011 session of GRSP. Finally, GRSP agreed to preliminarily inform WP.29 at its March 2011 session on the basis of an informal document.

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

49. Referring to the discussion held under agenda item 16 (see para. 36), GRSP considered and adopted GRSP-48-03-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex VI to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions, as draft Corrigendum 1 to the 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 12.

35. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/31 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/12) amended by GRSP-48-34, as amended by Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 94.

36. GRSP also noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer three corrigenda proposals on transitional provisions of Regulations Nos. 12, 94 and 95 back to GRSP for further consideration (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 54). Finally, GRSP adopted 48-04-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 94.

[Note: Annex IV can be accessed by clicking the full session report link above.]

50. Referring to the discussion held under agenda items 16 and 22© (see para. 36 and 49 above), GRSP considered and adopted GRSP-48-03-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex VII to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions, as draft Corrigendum 1 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 95.

23. GRSP considered and adopted GRSP-48-06, as reproduced in Annex III to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 2 to Revision 6 to Regulation No. 16.

24. Regarding the proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/34) for amendments to Regulation No. 16 to reintroduce side-facing seats (see para. 22), GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2011 session on the basis of a new proposal, including also GRSP-48-36, to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex III can be accessed by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

47. GRSP supported WP.29-150-22 as amended by GRSP-48-07 and GRSP-48-07tc (agreed by the Working Party on Lighting and Light Signalling devices (GRE)) and by GRSP-48-13, tabled by the expert from OICA. The secretariat was requested to transmit this to WP.29 for consideration at its March 2011 session.

47. GRSP supported WP.29-150-22 as amended by GRSP-48-07 and GRSP-48-07tc (agreed by the Working Party on Lighting and Light Signalling devices (GRE)) and by GRSP-48-13, tabled by the expert from OICA. The secretariat was requested to transmit this to WP.29 for consideration at its March 2011 session.

51. The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-48-08 aimed at providing further requirements for electric vehicles. GRSP agreed to resume discussion under this agenda item at its May 2011 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-48-08 with an official symbol.

40. The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-48-09 proposing to include the Flex-PLI into the draft Regulation with transitional provisions. Referring to the discussion on Phase 2 of the gtr on the same subject (see paras. 9–11), GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal based on GRSP-48-09-Rev.1 (including all comments received) to be jointly prepared by the experts from Japan and the United Kingdom.

37. The Chair of the group of interested experts on Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems (RESS) introduced GRSP-48-01-Rev.1 (superseding GRSP-48-10) concerning the terms of reference of the group. The experts from EC and the United Kingdom expressed concerns on the lack of clarity in the programme of work and on expert participation in the group and requested a clearer framework. GRSP recommended to all the Chairs of the informal groups to ensure traceability of expert mandates for their participation in the meetings. Moreover, GRSP requested all experts to provide comments on GRSP-48-01-Rev.1 to the Chair of the group to finalize a proposal at the May 2011 session of GRSP. Finally, GRSP agreed to preliminarily inform WP.29 at its March 2011 session on the basis of an informal document.

5. GRSP noted that the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its November 2010 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 109) agreed to transmit to GRSP two proposals amending the terms of reference of the informal group on gtr No. 7 Phase 2 (GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12). Accordingly, the Chair of the informal group, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group and its intention to focus on a revised work plan:

1. new height requirements;
   
2. a dynamic test to mitigate both short and long term whiplash injuries rather than on low and high test speed pulse;
   
3. evaluate dummies, their use and injury criteria to reflect high biofidelity human body mechanism in real world accidents.

6. He informed GRSP of his intention to submit a new proposal amending the terms of reference based on GRSP-48-33 (superseding GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12), including the extension of the mandate of the group until 2013, to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and AC.3 at their March 2011 session. GRSP recommended that its experts provide comments onto GRSP-48-33 to the expert from Japan by January 2011.

7. GRSP also noted that three informal groups: (i) pole side impact, (ii) harmonization of side impact dummies and (iii) gtr No. 7 Phase 2, scheduled a joint meeting in Brussels for the week 28 February to 4 March 2011.

8. Finally, GRSP took note of GRSP-48-18, GRSP-48-19 and GRSP-48-38 tabled by the expert from India and agreed to keep them for reference in the agenda of its future sessions.

5. GRSP noted that the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its November 2010 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 109) agreed to transmit to GRSP two proposals amending the terms of reference of the informal group on gtr No. 7 Phase 2 (GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12). Accordingly, the Chair of the informal group, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group and its intention to focus on a revised work plan:

1. new height requirements;
   
2. a dynamic test to mitigate both short and long term whiplash injuries rather than on low and high test speed pulse;
   
3. evaluate dummies, their use and injury criteria to reflect high biofidelity human body mechanism in real world accidents.

6. He informed GRSP of his intention to submit a new proposal amending the terms of reference based on GRSP-48-33 (superseding GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12), including the extension of the mandate of the group until 2013, to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and AC.3 at their March 2011 session. GRSP recommended that its experts provide comments onto GRSP-48-33 to the expert from Japan by January 2011.

7. GRSP also noted that three informal groups: (i) pole side impact, (ii) harmonization of side impact dummies and (iii) gtr No. 7 Phase 2, scheduled a joint meeting in Brussels for the week 28 February to 4 March 2011.

8. Finally, GRSP took note of GRSP-48-18, GRSP-48-19 and GRSP-48-38 tabled by the expert from India and agreed to keep them for reference in the agenda of its future sessions.

47. GRSP supported WP.29-150-22 as amended by GRSP-48-07 and GRSP-48-07tc (agreed by the Working Party on Lighting and Light Signalling devices (GRE)) and by GRSP-48-13, tabled by the expert from OICA. The secretariat was requested to transmit this to WP.29 for consideration at its March 2011 session.

3. GRSP considered and adopted the agenda proposed for the forty-eighth session with the new agenda items 22(e) to 22(h) and 24 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/27 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/27/Add.1) as well as the running order (GRSP-48-14). The list of GRSP informal groups is contained in Annex VIII to this report.

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

5. GRSP noted that the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its November 2010 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 109) agreed to transmit to GRSP two proposals amending the terms of reference of the informal group on gtr No. 7 Phase 2 (GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12). Accordingly, the Chair of the informal group, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group and its intention to focus on a revised work plan:

1. new height requirements;
   
2. a dynamic test to mitigate both short and long term whiplash injuries rather than on low and high test speed pulse;
   
3. evaluate dummies, their use and injury criteria to reflect high biofidelity human body mechanism in real world accidents.

6. He informed GRSP of his intention to submit a new proposal amending the terms of reference based on GRSP-48-33 (superseding GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12), including the extension of the mandate of the group until 2013, to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and AC.3 at their March 2011 session. GRSP recommended that its experts provide comments onto GRSP-48-33 to the expert from Japan by January 2011.

7. GRSP also noted that three informal groups: (i) pole side impact, (ii) harmonization of side impact dummies and (iii) gtr No. 7 Phase 2, scheduled a joint meeting in Brussels for the week 28 February to 4 March 2011.

8. Finally, GRSP took note of GRSP-48-18, GRSP-48-19 and GRSP-48-38 tabled by the expert from India and agreed to keep them for reference in the agenda of its future sessions.

5. GRSP noted that the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its November 2010 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 109) agreed to transmit to GRSP two proposals amending the terms of reference of the informal group on gtr No. 7 Phase 2 (GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12). Accordingly, the Chair of the informal group, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group and its intention to focus on a revised work plan:

1. new height requirements;
   
2. a dynamic test to mitigate both short and long term whiplash injuries rather than on low and high test speed pulse;
   
3. evaluate dummies, their use and injury criteria to reflect high biofidelity human body mechanism in real world accidents.

6. He informed GRSP of his intention to submit a new proposal amending the terms of reference based on GRSP-48-33 (superseding GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12), including the extension of the mandate of the group until 2013, to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and AC.3 at their March 2011 session. GRSP recommended that its experts provide comments onto GRSP-48-33 to the expert from Japan by January 2011.

7. GRSP also noted that three informal groups: (i) pole side impact, (ii) harmonization of side impact dummies and (iii) gtr No. 7 Phase 2, scheduled a joint meeting in Brussels for the week 28 February to 4 March 2011.

8. Finally, GRSP took note of GRSP-48-18, GRSP-48-19 and GRSP-48-38 tabled by the expert from India and agreed to keep them for reference in the agenda of its future sessions.

12. Referring to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/28, the expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the informal group on pole side impact test, introduced GRSP-48-20 including the first progress report of the group and its proposed terms of reference. He informed GRSP that the group scheduled several meetings for the year 2011: (i) week 28 February–4 March in Brussels, (ii) week 6–10 June in Washington DC and in (iii) September/October and December (dated unspecified).

13. GRSP agreed to provide comments on GRSP-48-20 in due time to the expert from Australia, in order to submit the proposal for preliminary consideration to WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions.

27. GRSP noted a recent meeting of WP.29 secretariat with Asian Injury Prevention (AIP), FIA Foundation and the Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP), where these three organizations suggested that WP.29 develop a new Resolution providing basic requirements for light-weight protective helmets to fit the needs of some Asian Countries (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 10).

28. The expert from the FIA Foundation introduced GRSP-48-21 and GRSP-48-22 aimed at developing a proposal of these basic requirements through an informal group. He stated that compliance to the current provisions of Regulation No. 22 led to: (i) production of heavy helmets providing little ventilation, (ii) quite high price of helmets in developing countries, (iii) low usage of helmets in these countries, (iv) diffusion of counterfeit helmets which provide no protection to the motorcyclists and (v) financial and technical difficulties to implement technical services and conformity of production in developing countries. He also added that introducing lighter helmets through the above-mentioned resolution could be a first step towards the use of protective helmets conforming with the current provisions of Regulation No. 22 in these countries.

29. Some experts of GRSP expressed concerns on introducing alternative less stringent requirements to Regulation No. 22 that would compromise safety. In their opinion, this initiative could lead to a false sense of consumer protection and disharmonize already well-proved existing requirements. The expert from FIA Foundation pointed out that the objective of this effort was not to disharmonize with Regulation No. 22 but to promote helmet use in countries where protective helmets are not typically worn. In addition, GRSP noted that Regulation No. 22 does not prevent the construction of ventilated helmets.

30. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on the basis of a concrete proposal to be prepared by the expert from FIA Foundation and to keep GRSP-48-21 and GRSP-48-22 for reference only on the agenda of further sessions of GRSP.

27. GRSP noted a recent meeting of WP.29 secretariat with Asian Injury Prevention (AIP), FIA Foundation and the Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP), where these three organizations suggested that WP.29 develop a new Resolution providing basic requirements for light-weight protective helmets to fit the needs of some Asian Countries (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 10).

28. The expert from the FIA Foundation introduced GRSP-48-21 and GRSP-48-22 aimed at developing a proposal of these basic requirements through an informal group. He stated that compliance to the current provisions of Regulation No. 22 led to: (i) production of heavy helmets providing little ventilation, (ii) quite high price of helmets in developing countries, (iii) low usage of helmets in these countries, (iv) diffusion of counterfeit helmets which provide no protection to the motorcyclists and (v) financial and technical difficulties to implement technical services and conformity of production in developing countries. He also added that introducing lighter helmets through the above-mentioned resolution could be a first step towards the use of protective helmets conforming with the current provisions of Regulation No. 22 in these countries.

29. Some experts of GRSP expressed concerns on introducing alternative less stringent requirements to Regulation No. 22 that would compromise safety. In their opinion, this initiative could lead to a false sense of consumer protection and disharmonize already well-proved existing requirements. The expert from FIA Foundation pointed out that the objective of this effort was not to disharmonize with Regulation No. 22 but to promote helmet use in countries where protective helmets are not typically worn. In addition, GRSP noted that Regulation No. 22 does not prevent the construction of ventilated helmets.

30. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on the basis of a concrete proposal to be prepared by the expert from FIA Foundation and to keep GRSP-48-21 and GRSP-48-22 for reference only on the agenda of further sessions of GRSP.

9. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRSP-48-23-Rev.1) on the possible phases of introducing the flexible pedestrian legform (Flex-PLI) into the gtr and into the draft 01 series of amendment to the Regulation (1958 Agreement) on pedestrian safety. He also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/37 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/4).

The expert from OICA opposed the concept of options in a gtr. In order to avoid this problem, he proposed that introducing the Flex-PLI in the draft Regulation on pedestrian safety (1958 Agreement) be given priority and then align provisions of Phase 2 of the gtr, in order to fix dates for its mandatory use. Some GRSP experts argued that this could create a precedent that would hamper harmonization. GRSP agreed to seek guidance from WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions on this issue.

10. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal based on GRSP-48-41 (including all comments received and GRSP-48-28) to be prepared by the expert from Japan.

11. GRSP noted GRSP-48-27 aimed at clarifying the head form test procedure amended recently by Corrigendum 2 to the gtr. It was agreed to resume discussion at the May 2011 session of GRSP based on a proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA.

41. The Chair of the informal group on child restraints systems (CRS) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38 and the amendments agreed upon in the last meeting of his group convened on 8 December 2010, prior to the GRSP session. He also announced that the group needed a further meeting in February to complete the proposal. He added that one of the most relevant pending issues was support-leg contact volume requirement (Z axis direction) and that would likely be solved in that meeting. He clarified that the intention of the proposal was to provide Integral Universal ISOFIX Child Restraint Systems (“i-Size”) to the wider range of children’s size. GRSP noted a presentation made by the expert from CLEPA regarding the side impact test proposed by the group (GRSP-48-26). Moreover, GRSP noted GRSP-48-24 and GRSP-48-30, transmitted for information to GRSP by the experts from International Consumers and CLEPA to endorse the work accomplished by the informal group.

42. The expert from the EC stated that, while supporting the work achieved to date, he continued to request strengthening of the frontal impact test on CRS. In this respect, he said that the mandate of the informal group should be extended by one year to continue discussion. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that according to benefit analysis studies in her country, increasing the severity of the test pulse may not necessarily translate into an significant increase in benefits. This analysis is based on a study of real-world crashes. She also noted that the test pulse in the US is more stringent than the test pulse in Regulation No. 44.

43. The majority of experts in GRSP, agreed not to delay adopting the draft proposal and to a two stages approach: (i) adoption of the current draft proposal at the May 2011 session of GRSP and (ii) develop definitions, performance criteria and test methods for ISOFIX non-Integral “Universal” CRS by the May 2012 session of GRSP. In this respect, GRSP invited the expert from France to propose terms of reference, based on GRSP-48-31, to seek consent on the new programme of work of the informal group at the March 2011 session of WP.29.

44. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal provided by the informal group based on GRSP-48-42 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38) encompassing the comments received during the session. Finally, GRSP also agreed to consider at its next session proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 16 and 14 to be prepared by the expert from OICA to match the provisions introduced by the draft Regulation on CRS.

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

41. The Chair of the informal group on child restraints systems (CRS) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38 and the amendments agreed upon in the last meeting of his group convened on 8 December 2010, prior to the GRSP session. He also announced that the group needed a further meeting in February to complete the proposal. He added that one of the most relevant pending issues was support-leg contact volume requirement (Z axis direction) and that would likely be solved in that meeting. He clarified that the intention of the proposal was to provide Integral Universal ISOFIX Child Restraint Systems (“i-Size”) to the wider range of children’s size. GRSP noted a presentation made by the expert from CLEPA regarding the side impact test proposed by the group (GRSP-48-26). Moreover, GRSP noted GRSP-48-24 and GRSP-48-30, transmitted for information to GRSP by the experts from International Consumers and CLEPA to endorse the work accomplished by the informal group.

42. The expert from the EC stated that, while supporting the work achieved to date, he continued to request strengthening of the frontal impact test on CRS. In this respect, he said that the mandate of the informal group should be extended by one year to continue discussion. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that according to benefit analysis studies in her country, increasing the severity of the test pulse may not necessarily translate into an significant increase in benefits. This analysis is based on a study of real-world crashes. She also noted that the test pulse in the US is more stringent than the test pulse in Regulation No. 44.

43. The majority of experts in GRSP, agreed not to delay adopting the draft proposal and to a two stages approach: (i) adoption of the current draft proposal at the May 2011 session of GRSP and (ii) develop definitions, performance criteria and test methods for ISOFIX non-Integral “Universal” CRS by the May 2012 session of GRSP. In this respect, GRSP invited the expert from France to propose terms of reference, based on GRSP-48-31, to seek consent on the new programme of work of the informal group at the March 2011 session of WP.29.

44. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal provided by the informal group based on GRSP-48-42 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38) encompassing the comments received during the session. Finally, GRSP also agreed to consider at its next session proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 16 and 14 to be prepared by the expert from OICA to match the provisions introduced by the draft Regulation on CRS.

9. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRSP-48-23-Rev.1) on the possible phases of introducing the flexible pedestrian legform (Flex-PLI) into the gtr and into the draft 01 series of amendment to the Regulation (1958 Agreement) on pedestrian safety. He also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/37 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/4).

The expert from OICA opposed the concept of options in a gtr. In order to avoid this problem, he proposed that introducing the Flex-PLI in the draft Regulation on pedestrian safety (1958 Agreement) be given priority and then align provisions of Phase 2 of the gtr, in order to fix dates for its mandatory use. Some GRSP experts argued that this could create a precedent that would hamper harmonization. GRSP agreed to seek guidance from WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions on this issue.

10. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal based on GRSP-48-41 (including all comments received and GRSP-48-28) to be prepared by the expert from Japan.

11. GRSP noted GRSP-48-27 aimed at clarifying the head form test procedure amended recently by Corrigendum 2 to the gtr. It was agreed to resume discussion at the May 2011 session of GRSP based on a proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA.

9. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRSP-48-23-Rev.1) on the possible phases of introducing the flexible pedestrian legform (Flex-PLI) into the gtr and into the draft 01 series of amendment to the Regulation (1958 Agreement) on pedestrian safety. He also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/37 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/4).

The expert from OICA opposed the concept of options in a gtr. In order to avoid this problem, he proposed that introducing the Flex-PLI in the draft Regulation on pedestrian safety (1958 Agreement) be given priority and then align provisions of Phase 2 of the gtr, in order to fix dates for its mandatory use. Some GRSP experts argued that this could create a precedent that would hamper harmonization. GRSP agreed to seek guidance from WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions on this issue.

10. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal based on GRSP-48-41 (including all comments received and GRSP-48-28) to be prepared by the expert from Japan.

11. GRSP noted GRSP-48-27 aimed at clarifying the head form test procedure amended recently by Corrigendum 2 to the gtr. It was agreed to resume discussion at the May 2011 session of GRSP based on a proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA.

48. GRSP considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/145 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2009/123, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2009/123/Corr.1, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2009/123/Corr.2, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2009/123/Corr.3, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2009/123/Corr.4) with GRSP-48-29. The proposed amendments are reproduced in Annex V to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2011 sessions as draft amendments of GRSP to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/145.

41. The Chair of the informal group on child restraints systems (CRS) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38 and the amendments agreed upon in the last meeting of his group convened on 8 December 2010, prior to the GRSP session. He also announced that the group needed a further meeting in February to complete the proposal. He added that one of the most relevant pending issues was support-leg contact volume requirement (Z axis direction) and that would likely be solved in that meeting. He clarified that the intention of the proposal was to provide Integral Universal ISOFIX Child Restraint Systems (“i-Size”) to the wider range of children’s size. GRSP noted a presentation made by the expert from CLEPA regarding the side impact test proposed by the group (GRSP-48-26). Moreover, GRSP noted GRSP-48-24 and GRSP-48-30, transmitted for information to GRSP by the experts from International Consumers and CLEPA to endorse the work accomplished by the informal group.

42. The expert from the EC stated that, while supporting the work achieved to date, he continued to request strengthening of the frontal impact test on CRS. In this respect, he said that the mandate of the informal group should be extended by one year to continue discussion. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that according to benefit analysis studies in her country, increasing the severity of the test pulse may not necessarily translate into an significant increase in benefits. This analysis is based on a study of real-world crashes. She also noted that the test pulse in the US is more stringent than the test pulse in Regulation No. 44.

43. The majority of experts in GRSP, agreed not to delay adopting the draft proposal and to a two stages approach: (i) adoption of the current draft proposal at the May 2011 session of GRSP and (ii) develop definitions, performance criteria and test methods for ISOFIX non-Integral “Universal” CRS by the May 2012 session of GRSP. In this respect, GRSP invited the expert from France to propose terms of reference, based on GRSP-48-31, to seek consent on the new programme of work of the informal group at the March 2011 session of WP.29.

44. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal provided by the informal group based on GRSP-48-42 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38) encompassing the comments received during the session. Finally, GRSP also agreed to consider at its next session proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 16 and 14 to be prepared by the expert from OICA to match the provisions introduced by the draft Regulation on CRS.

41. The Chair of the informal group on child restraints systems (CRS) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38 and the amendments agreed upon in the last meeting of his group convened on 8 December 2010, prior to the GRSP session. He also announced that the group needed a further meeting in February to complete the proposal. He added that one of the most relevant pending issues was support-leg contact volume requirement (Z axis direction) and that would likely be solved in that meeting. He clarified that the intention of the proposal was to provide Integral Universal ISOFIX Child Restraint Systems (“i-Size”) to the wider range of children’s size. GRSP noted a presentation made by the expert from CLEPA regarding the side impact test proposed by the group (GRSP-48-26). Moreover, GRSP noted GRSP-48-24 and GRSP-48-30, transmitted for information to GRSP by the experts from International Consumers and CLEPA to endorse the work accomplished by the informal group.

42. The expert from the EC stated that, while supporting the work achieved to date, he continued to request strengthening of the frontal impact test on CRS. In this respect, he said that the mandate of the informal group should be extended by one year to continue discussion. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that according to benefit analysis studies in her country, increasing the severity of the test pulse may not necessarily translate into an significant increase in benefits. This analysis is based on a study of real-world crashes. She also noted that the test pulse in the US is more stringent than the test pulse in Regulation No. 44.

43. The majority of experts in GRSP, agreed not to delay adopting the draft proposal and to a two stages approach: (i) adoption of the current draft proposal at the May 2011 session of GRSP and (ii) develop definitions, performance criteria and test methods for ISOFIX non-Integral “Universal” CRS by the May 2012 session of GRSP. In this respect, GRSP invited the expert from France to propose terms of reference, based on GRSP-48-31, to seek consent on the new programme of work of the informal group at the March 2011 session of WP.29.

44. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal provided by the informal group based on GRSP-48-42 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38) encompassing the comments received during the session. Finally, GRSP also agreed to consider at its next session proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 16 and 14 to be prepared by the expert from OICA to match the provisions introduced by the draft Regulation on CRS.

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

5. GRSP noted that the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its November 2010 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 109) agreed to transmit to GRSP two proposals amending the terms of reference of the informal group on gtr No. 7 Phase 2 (GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12). Accordingly, the Chair of the informal group, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group and its intention to focus on a revised work plan:

1. new height requirements;
   
2. a dynamic test to mitigate both short and long term whiplash injuries rather than on low and high test speed pulse;
   
3. evaluate dummies, their use and injury criteria to reflect high biofidelity human body mechanism in real world accidents.

6. He informed GRSP of his intention to submit a new proposal amending the terms of reference based on GRSP-48-33 (superseding GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12), including the extension of the mandate of the group until 2013, to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and AC.3 at their March 2011 session. GRSP recommended that its experts provide comments onto GRSP-48-33 to the expert from Japan by January 2011.

7. GRSP also noted that three informal groups: (i) pole side impact, (ii) harmonization of side impact dummies and (iii) gtr No. 7 Phase 2, scheduled a joint meeting in Brussels for the week 28 February to 4 March 2011.

8. Finally, GRSP took note of GRSP-48-18, GRSP-48-19 and GRSP-48-38 tabled by the expert from India and agreed to keep them for reference in the agenda of its future sessions.

35. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/31 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/12) amended by GRSP-48-34, as amended by Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 94.

36. GRSP also noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer three corrigenda proposals on transitional provisions of Regulations Nos. 12, 94 and 95 back to GRSP for further consideration (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 54). Finally, GRSP adopted 48-04-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 94.

[Note: Annex IV can be accessed by clicking the full session report link above.]

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

23. GRSP considered and adopted GRSP-48-06, as reproduced in Annex III to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 2 to Revision 6 to Regulation No. 16.

24. Regarding the proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/34) for amendments to Regulation No. 16 to reintroduce side-facing seats (see para. 22), GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2011 session on the basis of a new proposal, including also GRSP-48-36, to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex III can be accessed by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

25. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/15, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/23 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/24 to its May 2011 session.

26. Following the discussion on side-facing seats (see paras. 22 and 24 above), GRSP agreed to resume discussion on the basis of a revised proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/35, superseded by GRSP-48-37) amending Regulation No. 17, to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

5. GRSP noted that the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its November 2010 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 109) agreed to transmit to GRSP two proposals amending the terms of reference of the informal group on gtr No. 7 Phase 2 (GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12). Accordingly, the Chair of the informal group, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group and its intention to focus on a revised work plan:

1. new height requirements;
   
2. a dynamic test to mitigate both short and long term whiplash injuries rather than on low and high test speed pulse;
   
3. evaluate dummies, their use and injury criteria to reflect high biofidelity human body mechanism in real world accidents.

6. He informed GRSP of his intention to submit a new proposal amending the terms of reference based on GRSP-48-33 (superseding GRSP-48-11 and GRSP-48-12), including the extension of the mandate of the group until 2013, to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and AC.3 at their March 2011 session. GRSP recommended that its experts provide comments onto GRSP-48-33 to the expert from Japan by January 2011.

7. GRSP also noted that three informal groups: (i) pole side impact, (ii) harmonization of side impact dummies and (iii) gtr No. 7 Phase 2, scheduled a joint meeting in Brussels for the week 28 February to 4 March 2011.

8. Finally, GRSP took note of GRSP-48-18, GRSP-48-19 and GRSP-48-38 tabled by the expert from India and agreed to keep them for reference in the agenda of its future sessions.

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

14. The expert from the United States of America introduced the second progress report (GRSP-48-40) of the informal group on the harmonization of side impact dummies and announced its submission as an Informal document for preliminary consideration to WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions.

9. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRSP-48-23-Rev.1) on the possible phases of introducing the flexible pedestrian legform (Flex-PLI) into the gtr and into the draft 01 series of amendment to the Regulation (1958 Agreement) on pedestrian safety. He also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/37 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/4).

The expert from OICA opposed the concept of options in a gtr. In order to avoid this problem, he proposed that introducing the Flex-PLI in the draft Regulation on pedestrian safety (1958 Agreement) be given priority and then align provisions of Phase 2 of the gtr, in order to fix dates for its mandatory use. Some GRSP experts argued that this could create a precedent that would hamper harmonization. GRSP agreed to seek guidance from WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions on this issue.

10. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal based on GRSP-48-41 (including all comments received and GRSP-48-28) to be prepared by the expert from Japan.

11. GRSP noted GRSP-48-27 aimed at clarifying the head form test procedure amended recently by Corrigendum 2 to the gtr. It was agreed to resume discussion at the May 2011 session of GRSP based on a proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA.

41. The Chair of the informal group on child restraints systems (CRS) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38 and the amendments agreed upon in the last meeting of his group convened on 8 December 2010, prior to the GRSP session. He also announced that the group needed a further meeting in February to complete the proposal. He added that one of the most relevant pending issues was support-leg contact volume requirement (Z axis direction) and that would likely be solved in that meeting. He clarified that the intention of the proposal was to provide Integral Universal ISOFIX Child Restraint Systems (“i-Size”) to the wider range of children’s size. GRSP noted a presentation made by the expert from CLEPA regarding the side impact test proposed by the group (GRSP-48-26). Moreover, GRSP noted GRSP-48-24 and GRSP-48-30, transmitted for information to GRSP by the experts from International Consumers and CLEPA to endorse the work accomplished by the informal group.

42. The expert from the EC stated that, while supporting the work achieved to date, he continued to request strengthening of the frontal impact test on CRS. In this respect, he said that the mandate of the informal group should be extended by one year to continue discussion. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that according to benefit analysis studies in her country, increasing the severity of the test pulse may not necessarily translate into an significant increase in benefits. This analysis is based on a study of real-world crashes. She also noted that the test pulse in the US is more stringent than the test pulse in Regulation No. 44.

43. The majority of experts in GRSP, agreed not to delay adopting the draft proposal and to a two stages approach: (i) adoption of the current draft proposal at the May 2011 session of GRSP and (ii) develop definitions, performance criteria and test methods for ISOFIX non-Integral “Universal” CRS by the May 2012 session of GRSP. In this respect, GRSP invited the expert from France to propose terms of reference, based on GRSP-48-31, to seek consent on the new programme of work of the informal group at the March 2011 session of WP.29.

44. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal provided by the informal group based on GRSP-48-42 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38) encompassing the comments received during the session. Finally, GRSP also agreed to consider at its next session proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 16 and 14 to be prepared by the expert from OICA to match the provisions introduced by the draft Regulation on CRS.

22. Concerning side-facing seats (see paras. 17 and 20), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/8, as amended by Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2011 sessions, as draft Supplement 1 to the 08 series of amendments to Regulation No. 17.

23. The expert from CLEPA gave a presentation (GRSP-49-33) on clarifying provisions for integrated head restraints. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/11 (amended by GRSP-49-35 and superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/23) as reproduced in Annex IV to the report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2011 sessions, as part of (see. para. 22) draft Supplement 1 to the 08 series of amendments to Regulation No. 17.

24. GRSP noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/10, dealing with provisions of folding seats. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this agenda item on the basis of a revised proposal voluntarily prepared by the expert from Germany.

25. Finally, GRSP agreed to defer discussion of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/15 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/24 to its future sessions, awaiting the outcome of the informal group on gtr No. 7 Phase 2.

25. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/15, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/23 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/24 to its May 2011 session.

26. Following the discussion on side-facing seats (see paras. 22 and 24 above), GRSP agreed to resume discussion on the basis of a revised proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/35, superseded by GRSP-48-37) amending Regulation No. 17, to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

17. Referring to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/29, the expert from OICA announced a new revised proposal including the transitional provisions proposed by the expert from the Czech Republic (GRSP-45-14) at the forty-fifth session of GRSP. The experts from OICA, the Netherlands and EC withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/29, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/16 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/17 respectively. GRSP agreed to resume discussion of this agenda item on the basis of a revised proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA.

17. Referring to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/29, the expert from OICA announced a new revised proposal including the transitional provisions proposed by the expert from the Czech Republic (GRSP-45-14) at the forty-fifth session of GRSP. The experts from OICA, the Netherlands and EC withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/29, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/16 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/17 respectively. GRSP agreed to resume discussion of this agenda item on the basis of a revised proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA.

16. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/17, aimed at covering the risk of ejection of vehicle occupants in the scope of the UN Regulation and correcting the transitional provisions. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/17 not amended and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 sessions as draft Supplement 3 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 11.

17. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue consideration of this agenda item on the basis of a possible proposal aligning the Regulation with the draft Amendment 1 to UN GTR No. 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/3).

3. GRSP considered and adopted the agenda proposed for the forty-eighth session with the new agenda items 22(e) to 22(h) and 24 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/27 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/27/Add.1) as well as the running order (GRSP-48-14). The list of GRSP informal groups is contained in Annex VIII to this report.

3. GRSP considered and adopted the agenda proposed for the forty-eighth session with the new agenda items 22(e) to 22(h) and 24 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/27 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/27/Add.1) as well as the running order (GRSP-48-14). The list of GRSP informal groups is contained in Annex VIII to this report.

4. GRSP considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/3 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/28) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/4 (final progress report) as the final consolidated proposal for amendments to gtr No. 1. GRSP noted that the proposal introduced new provisions with respect to the present text of Regulation No. 11. Accordingly, it was agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its December 2011 session, to adopt the amendment to the gtr aligned with provisions of Regulation No. 11 as a whole package (see para. 16).

4. As requested by the expert from the United States of America, GRSP agreed to postpone the discussion on [Global technical regulation No. 1 (Door locks and door retention components) until] its May 2011 session.

4. GRSP considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/3 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/28) and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/4 (final progress report) as the final consolidated proposal for amendments to the UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 1. GRSP noted that no further proposal was available aligning UN Regulation No. 11 to the UN GTR as a whole package (see para. 17).

Accordingly, GRSP agreed to recommend ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/3, and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/4, both not amended, to AC.3 for their establishment in the Global Registry. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal and its final report to WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2012 sessions, as draft Amendment 1 to UN GTR No. 1.

17. Referring to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/29, the expert from OICA announced a new revised proposal including the transitional provisions proposed by the expert from the Czech Republic (GRSP-45-14) at the forty-fifth session of GRSP. The experts from OICA, the Netherlands and EC withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/29, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/16 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/17 respectively. GRSP agreed to resume discussion of this agenda item on the basis of a revised proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA.

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

35. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/31 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/12) amended by GRSP-48-34, as amended by Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 94.

36. GRSP also noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer three corrigenda proposals on transitional provisions of Regulations Nos. 12, 94 and 95 back to GRSP for further consideration (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 54). Finally, GRSP adopted 48-04-Rev.2 as reproduced in Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 94.

[Note: Annex IV can be accessed by clicking the full session report link above.]

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

23. GRSP considered and adopted GRSP-48-06, as reproduced in Annex III to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 2 to Revision 6 to Regulation No. 16.

24. Regarding the proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/34) for amendments to Regulation No. 16 to reintroduce side-facing seats (see para. 22), GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2011 session on the basis of a new proposal, including also GRSP-48-36, to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex III can be accessed by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]

25. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/15, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/23 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/24 to its May 2011 session.

26. Following the discussion on side-facing seats (see paras. 22 and 24 above), GRSP agreed to resume discussion on the basis of a revised proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/35, superseded by GRSP-48-37) amending Regulation No. 17, to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

29. Concerning side-facing seats (see paras. 17, 20 and 22), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/36, as amended by Annex V to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2011 sessions, as draft 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 80. The expert from Japan withdrew GRSP-49-04.

34. Referring to the discussion held on side-facing seats (see paras. 22, 24 and 26) GRSP agreed to resume discussion on the corresponding proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/36) of amendments to Regulation No. 80 at its May 2011 session.

9. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRSP-48-23-Rev.1) on the possible phases of introducing the flexible pedestrian legform (Flex-PLI) into the gtr and into the draft 01 series of amendment to the Regulation (1958 Agreement) on pedestrian safety. He also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/37 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/4).

The expert from OICA opposed the concept of options in a gtr. In order to avoid this problem, he proposed that introducing the Flex-PLI in the draft Regulation on pedestrian safety (1958 Agreement) be given priority and then align provisions of Phase 2 of the gtr, in order to fix dates for its mandatory use. Some GRSP experts argued that this could create a precedent that would hamper harmonization. GRSP agreed to seek guidance from WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions on this issue.

10. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal based on GRSP-48-41 (including all comments received and GRSP-48-28) to be prepared by the expert from Japan.

11. GRSP noted GRSP-48-27 aimed at clarifying the head form test procedure amended recently by Corrigendum 2 to the gtr. It was agreed to resume discussion at the May 2011 session of GRSP based on a proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA.

41. The Chair of the informal group on child restraints systems (CRS) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38 and the amendments agreed upon in the last meeting of his group convened on 8 December 2010, prior to the GRSP session. He also announced that the group needed a further meeting in February to complete the proposal. He added that one of the most relevant pending issues was support-leg contact volume requirement (Z axis direction) and that would likely be solved in that meeting. He clarified that the intention of the proposal was to provide Integral Universal ISOFIX Child Restraint Systems (“i-Size”) to the wider range of children’s size. GRSP noted a presentation made by the expert from CLEPA regarding the side impact test proposed by the group (GRSP-48-26). Moreover, GRSP noted GRSP-48-24 and GRSP-48-30, transmitted for information to GRSP by the experts from International Consumers and CLEPA to endorse the work accomplished by the informal group.

42. The expert from the EC stated that, while supporting the work achieved to date, he continued to request strengthening of the frontal impact test on CRS. In this respect, he said that the mandate of the informal group should be extended by one year to continue discussion. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that according to benefit analysis studies in her country, increasing the severity of the test pulse may not necessarily translate into an significant increase in benefits. This analysis is based on a study of real-world crashes. She also noted that the test pulse in the US is more stringent than the test pulse in Regulation No. 44.

43. The majority of experts in GRSP, agreed not to delay adopting the draft proposal and to a two stages approach: (i) adoption of the current draft proposal at the May 2011 session of GRSP and (ii) develop definitions, performance criteria and test methods for ISOFIX non-Integral “Universal” CRS by the May 2012 session of GRSP. In this respect, GRSP invited the expert from France to propose terms of reference, based on GRSP-48-31, to seek consent on the new programme of work of the informal group at the March 2011 session of WP.29.

44. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal provided by the informal group based on GRSP-48-42 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/38) encompassing the comments received during the session. Finally, GRSP also agreed to consider at its next session proposals for amendments to Regulations Nos. 16 and 14 to be prepared by the expert from OICA to match the provisions introduced by the draft Regulation on CRS.

18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.

20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.

21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.

22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.

[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]