25. The representative of the United States of America, Chair of GRSP informed WP.29 about the results made by his Group during its fifty-eighth session (for details see the session report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/58).

24. The World Forum recalled the oral report of the Chair of GRSP given during the 168th session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1120, paras. 25-28) and approved the report.

Justification of submissions GRSP/2015/20 and GRSP/2015/29 (proposals to introduce an integral fixture for lateral (lie flat, carry cot) child restraint systems).

19. The expert from CLEPA reiterated that presentation (GRSP-58-01-Rev.1) introduces provisions (GRSP-58-20 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/20) for fixtures that would verify the availability of space on universal lateral facing CRS “lie-flat”. He explained that this kind of CRS addressed children with medical needs and urged its introduction. The expert from France underlined that the issue concerning the introduction of this kind of CRS was whether to consider them as universal or non-universal, and to suggest a proper definition. The expert from the Netherlands suggested that “lie-flat” CRS cannot be considered i-Size type. The expert from CI made a similar statement which suggested that the two new proposed envelopes introduce a new category of CRS, and also added that the matter should be further discussed in the IWG. Finally GRSP agreed to refer GRSP-58-20 to the IWG on CRS for further revision.

Correction of a typo in the test speed of the Russian-language version of the regulation. The text should read 56 km/h rather than 50.

38. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSP-58-02 aiming at correcting the speed of test impact in the Russian text. GRSP adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex III to this report and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2016 sessions as draft Corrigendum 3 to the 01 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 94.

Proposal to align the definition of “i-Size” child seating used in the two regulations.

44. GRSP also noted GRSP-58-03-Rev.1, tabled by the expert from EC, aimed at promoting the use of ISOFIX and especially the ‘plug-and-play’ concept of i-Size child restraint systems (to reduce misuse of CRS). He explained that the proposal would prevent that the installation of one i-Size CRS would not impair the installation of a second i-Size CRS, and that at least two ISOFIX locations could be used at the same time. The expert from OICA suggested to leave the current text of the UN Regulations unchanged to allow more choice to parents in the allocation of i-Size CRS. The expert from Japan requested clarification on the number of fixtures to be installed at the same time to verify availability of space to install i-Size CRS.

45. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session, pending a revised proposal tabled by the expert from the EC

47. GRSP noted that the expert from EC would submit a revised proposal (superseding GRSP-58-03-Rev.1), at the December 2016 session of GRSP, aimed at promoting the use of ISOFIX and especially the ‘plug-and-play’ concept of i-Size child restraint systems (to reduce misuse of CRS).

41. Referring to agenda item 9 (see para. 17 above), the expert from EC clarified that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/21 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/24 would supersede GRSP-58-03-Rev.1, solving the “plug-and-play” concept of i-Size child restraint systems (to reduce misuse of CRS). GRSP agreed to remove this item from the agenda of its May 2017 session.

3. GRSP considered and adopted the agenda (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/17 and Add.1) proposed for the fifty-eighth session with the new agenda items 23(g) and 24 and the running order (GRSP-58-04). The list of GRSP informal working groups is in Annex VII of this report.

43. GRSP considered GRSP-58-06-Rev.1 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/25 and GRSP-58-05), tabled by the expert from the Netherlands to introduce: (i) a definition of flexible shoulder adjustment device for height, (ii) provisions for its testing and (iii) to define its strict field of installation for vehicle categories M2 and M3. The expert from the Russian Federation supported GRSP-58-06-Rev.1 but objected to the deletion of the last sentence of subparagraph 5.4.3.6.1.(a), as it was originally proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/25. GRSP, adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/25, as amended by Annex V (GRSP-58-06-Rev.1) to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions as draft Supplement 7 to the 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 14 and as draft Supplement 7 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16.

43. GRSP considered GRSP-58-06-Rev.1 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/25 and GRSP-58-05), tabled by the expert from the Netherlands to introduce: (i) a definition of flexible shoulder adjustment device for height, (ii) provisions for its testing and (iii) to define its strict field of installation for vehicle categories M2 and M3. The expert from the Russian Federation supported GRSP-58-06-Rev.1 but objected to the deletion of the last sentence of subparagraph 5.4.3.6.1.(a), as it was originally proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/25. GRSP, adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/25, as amended by Annex V (GRSP-58-06-Rev.1) to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions as draft Supplement 7 to the 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 14 and as draft Supplement 7 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16.

Further refinements to the formal proposal to amend UN R129 with regard to non-integral CRS. This informal document effectively updates the formal proposal in GRSP/2015/24.

40. The expert from France, Chair of the IWG on Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS), introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-22) on the work progress of the IWG and introducing the proposal on the 01 and 02 series of amendments to the UN Regulation. He explained that the main content of the draft 01 series of amendments introduced: (i) some corrections to the original version of the UN Regulation, (ii) the concept of non-integral CRS and (iii) type approval provisions, including arrangements of the approval mark, for modules (GRSP-58-07-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24). He explained that the 02 series of amendments represented Phase 2 of the UN Regulation introducing provisions (GRSP-58-08 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/31) for booster seats with backrest. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24, as amended by Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions as draft 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129. Finally GRSP agreed to resume consideration on the Phase 2 of the UN Regulation at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-08 with an official symbol for that session.

Updated proposal from the CRS informal group to introduce phase 2 amendments related to the booster-seat CRS category (booster seat with backrest) into UN R129. This informal document effectively supersedes the formal proposal in GRSP/2015/31.

40. The expert from France, Chair of the IWG on Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS), introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-22) on the work progress of the IWG and introducing the proposal on the 01 and 02 series of amendments to the UN Regulation. He explained that the main content of the draft 01 series of amendments introduced: (i) some corrections to the original version of the UN Regulation, (ii) the concept of non-integral CRS and (iii) type approval provisions, including arrangements of the approval mark, for modules (GRSP-58-07-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24). He explained that the 02 series of amendments represented Phase 2 of the UN Regulation introducing provisions (GRSP-58-08 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/31) for booster seats with backrest. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24, as amended by Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions as draft 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129. Finally GRSP agreed to resume consideration on the Phase 2 of the UN Regulation at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-08 with an official symbol for that session.

Proposal to strip ISOFIX CRS provisions from UN R44 and to cease all new type approvals for CRS under UN R44 from November 2016 in deference to UN R129 on Enhanced CRS.

35. The expert from CI introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-10) on a proposal (GRSP-58-09) to withdraw ISOFIX CRS from the UN Regulation. He added that the introduction of UN Regulation No. 129 should lead to the discontinuation in production of ISOFIX CRS according to UN Regulation No. 44 because of a lower level of protection offered (i.e. absence of side impact protection). The expert from Germany argued that deleting ISOFIX provisions from the UN Regulation was useless and that this could be simply dealt with in transitional provisions, beyond which date, type approval would no longer be granted to ISOFIX CRS. He added that, at the same time extensions of existing type approvals would be guaranteed in the future. GRSP agreed to resume consideration of a revised proposal at its May 2016 session.

35. The expert from CI introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-10) on a proposal (GRSP-58-09) to withdraw ISOFIX CRS from the UN Regulation. He added that the introduction of UN Regulation No. 129 should lead to the discontinuation in production of ISOFIX CRS according to UN Regulation No. 44 because of a lower level of protection offered (i.e. absence of side impact protection). The expert from Germany argued that deleting ISOFIX provisions from the UN Regulation was useless and that this could be simply dealt with in transitional provisions, beyond which date, type approval would no longer be granted to ISOFIX CRS. He added that, at the same time extensions of existing type approvals would be guaranteed in the future. GRSP agreed to resume consideration of a revised proposal at its May 2016 session.

Status report on the development of global technical regulations addressing the safety of electric vehicles.

15. The Chair of GRSP, co-Chair of the IWG on Electric Vehicle Safety (EVS), reported on the work progress (GRSP-58-11). He clarified that the UN GTR was expected to address unique safety risks posed by electrical vehicles and their components, in both normal and post-crash conditions. He added that it would provide the rationale for regulations, and set provisions and test protocols to ensure that the vehicle system and/or electrical components perform safely and that the vehicle occupants would be appropriately protected. He stated that while the IWG had been making good progress with the support of nine task forces, more discussion was required on some critical issues, including the more recent proposals on which research was still ongoing. He explained that, thus, the IWG had discussed the most appropriate way to establish the UN GTR within the given mandate and had agreed that the only feasible scenario was a two-step approach. Furthermore, this implied that Phase 1 of the UN GTR would cover near-term critical safety requirements, on which Contracting Parties would be expected to reach an agreement under the given mandate. He continued to say the remaining safety requirements that require long-term research as well as further improvement of the UN GTR would be covered in Phase 2. He concluded that WP.29 had recently approved a one-year extension of the mandate until the end of 2016. Future 2016 meetings of the IWG had been scheduled as follows: (i) tenth meeting would be held from 29 February to 4 March in Japan, (ii) eleventh meeting would held in June 2016 in North America and (iii) twelfth meeting scheduled in October 2016 in Europe.

48. GRSP noted a presentation (GRSP-58-12-Rev.1) tabled by the expert from Japan. He informed GRSP about the progress of the safety regulations on motorcycles as part of the Road Vehicles Act and how to develop and establish a type approval system for hydrogen fuel-cell motorcycles. GRSP agreed to continue discussion on similar national legislative initiatives at its May 2016 session.

Australian proposal to adapt UN R14 to current Australian child restraint system anchorage requirements within the context of enabling the use of UN R14 within the international whole vehicle type approval system.

17. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-58-13 that aims to: (i) solve the incompatibility of the requirements of the UN Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia, Canada and the United States of America and (ii) include Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future UN Regulation No. 0 of the IWVTA. He added that this proposal would avoid splitting UN Regulation No. 14 into two Regulations: safety-belt anchorages and child restraint anchorages (the latter would be excluded by Annex 4 of UN Regulation No. 0). He clarified that the proposal would instead propose changes to UN Regulation No. 14, making CRS anchorages suitable for both safety-belt anchored CRS and rigid ISOFIX type CRS in a larger number of countries. The Chair of GRSP introduced GRSP-58-24, which supports, in principle, the proposal and shows the benefits of harmonizing CRS standards. The expert from OICA requested time to examine the proposal in view of splitting the UN Regulation, which he considered to be the most pragmatic approach.

18. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2016 session and requested experts to provide comments on the proposal to the expert from Australia by the end of March 2016, pending other comments from the IWVTA IWG. Finally, it was agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 in the agenda of the next session of GRSP as an informal document and as a possible basis for development of proposals on harmonization in the framework of the 1998 Agreement.

15. The expert from Australia recalled the purpose of GRSP-58-13 aimed at solving the incompatibility of the requirements of the UN Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia and North America, and including UN Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future UN Regulation No. 0 on the IWVTA. He added that he received the following main comments: (i) recommending the exclusion of any provision to cover non-ISOFIX anchorages and leave to be regulated at the national level and (ii) changing the excursion limits to the test applied load. The expert from OICA reiterated his preference for splitting the UN Regulation into two Regulations: safety-belt anchorages and child restraint anchorages (the latter would be excluded by Annex 4 of UN Regulation No. 0). He explained that this solution would cope with the lack of harmonized provisions on CRS anchorages worldwide and would avoid type approval issues in countries like Australia. The expert from United Kingdom expressed his preference in a long-term solution by keeping a unique Regulation. However, he added that if this would result in design and type approval issues to vehicle manufacturers, he would eventually be in favour of the solution proposed by the expert from OICA. The expert from France supported the opinion of the expert from United Kingdom. However, he raised a study reservation to review all the consequences implied by splitting the UN Regulation.

16. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2016 session, on the basis of a possible revised proposal and to keep GRSP-58-13 on the agenda of the next session of GRSP as an informal document.

14. The expert from OICA introduced two proposals: (a) GRSP-60-04 to remove ISOFIX anchorages from the Regulation and (b) GRSP-60-05 to incorporate them into a new one dedicated to these anchorages only. He explained that, in his opinion, the two proposals constitute the most viable solution aimed at solving the incompatibility of the requirements of the Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia and including Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future Regulation No. 0 on the International Whole Vehicle Type Approval (IWVTA). The expert from Australia supported the solution proposed by the expert from OICA as well as the experts from Italy, Japan and Sweden. However, the experts from the Netherlands and EC argued that the improvement proposed by Australia and covering harmonization issues should not be disregarded. The experts from France and the United Kingdom supported the splitting of Regulation No. 14 and urged that some improvements on ISOFIX provisions were needed once that the new Regulation was established.

15. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2017 session, on the basis of revised proposals tabled by OICA including the replacement of dynamic with static references in Regulation No. 14 and in a number of other Regulations. In the meantime, it was agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 on the next GRSP agenda for future development of ISOFIX provisions.

45. The expert from OICA introduced the draft new UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/7) on ISOFIX. He also provided for information the list of UN Regulations (GRSP-61-11) affected by the splitting of UN Regulation No. 14. He also introduced GRSP-61-06-Rev.1, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/7. GRSP adopted the proposal as amended by Annex VIII to the report for submission to WP.29 in November 2017.

46. Finally, GRSP agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 as a reference in the agenda of the next session for possible future discussion on harmonization of requirements on ISOFIX.

42. The expert from Australia withdrew GRSP-58-13 and GRSP agreed to delete this item from the agenda of its May 2018 session.

Australia wishes to accept the new full-width rigid barrier crash test regulation (expected as UN R137) as an alternative to its ADR 69/00; however, Australia wishes to avoid possible confusion over the use of an airbag deactivation device (such as used to turn off an airbag when a child seat is used in the front seat). Therefore, Australia proposes to clarify the provisions of UN R16 to avoid misunderstandings or misuse of such devices along the lines of requirements found in Euro NCAP and US FMVSS 208.

24. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-58-14 proposing to introduce a provision on airbag de-activation switches; this would be in line with EuroNCAP requirements and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session and experts were recommended to provide comments on GRSP-58-14 to the expert from Australia before the end of January 2016 to allow the submission of a revised official proposal.

Proposal to simplify the UN R16 consumer handbook information pursuant to discussions on the development of UN R129 on enhanced child restraint systems.

20. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/21, aimed at better clarifying the availability of space for CRS installation. He suggested that a clear classification and schematic ranking of CRS be discussed within the IWG. The expert from OICA made a presentation (GRSP-58-33) to introduce a proposal of amendments (GRSP-58-15-Rev.1) that simplify information for consumers in the owner’s manual. He reminded GRSP that i-Size was conceived to completely eliminate the need for vehicle handbook instructions since all positions were marked. Specifically, he proposed to define two types of information: (i) customer needs and (ii) CRS manufacturers when type approving their systems. The proposal received comments addressing transitional provisions and the possibility of removing them from the proposal.

21. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/21 and on GRSP-58-15-Rev.1, pending possible revision by the IWG at its May 2016 session.

18. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/8, intended to better clarify the availability of space for CRS installation. The expert from OICA also introduced a revised proposal of amendments (GRSP-59-20 superseding GRSP-58-15-Rev.1) to simplify information for consumers in the owner’s manual. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/8, as amended by Annex II to this report and GRSP-59-20, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit both proposals for consideration and vote at the November 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 8 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16.

Proposal to amend the toxicity and flammability declarations via references to EN71 (European safety standards).

36. The expert from CLEPA introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-25) to clarify the content of a proposal (GRSP-58-16 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/6) aimed at introducing new provisions on toxicity and flammability of CRS materials. The experts from Denmark and Sweden had proposed GRSP-58-23 to introduce the flammability test procedure applied in FMVSS 302, which was commonly used throughout the industry. The experts from Denmark, Sweden and CLEPA jointly then prepared GRSP-58-16-Rev.1. Following the request of a study reservation from the experts of France, Germany and Japan. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this proposal at its May 2016 session. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-58-16-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next session of GRSP.

Proposal to correct a reference in UN R134, Annex 3, paragraph 3.4. The reference to paragraph 6.2.2.2. was transposed from GTR No. 13; however, it ostensibly refers paragraph 2.2 of Annex 3 in UN R134.

54. GRSP noted GRSP-58-17, tabled by the expert from Germany, to amend the reference to target pressure in the test on chemical exposure and ambient-temperature pressure cycling. GRSP adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex VI. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions, as draft Supplement 2 to UN Regulation No. 134.

Background presentation on the draft amendment to the GTR on head restraints. The amendment concerns changes to head restraint height measurement, use of the BioRID test dummy, and improvements to the overall text.

5. The expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on the UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 – Phase 2, made a presentation (GRSP-58-18) on the Group’s progress. He clarified that the IWG intends to proceed with a more empirical approach on the correlation between Post Mortem Human Subjects (PMHS) and Biomechanical Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID). The results would be submitted as a subsequent amendment proposal on injury criteria (perhaps for adoption) at the May 2016 session of GRSP. He also introduced draft UN GTR Phase 2 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/34 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/24).

6. GRSP, in principle, agreed to change the height requirements of head restraints in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/34 to take into account ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/17.

7. The expert from Japan, secretary of the IWG, presented information on the status report of the Group (GRSP-58-19-Rev.2).

Proposal to introduce provisions for a new fixture to verify space availability of universal lateral facing “lie-flat” Child Restraint Systems.

19. The expert from CLEPA reiterated that presentation (GRSP-58-01-Rev.1) introduces provisions (GRSP-58-20 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/20) for fixtures that would verify the availability of space on universal lateral facing CRS “lie-flat”. He explained that this kind of CRS addressed children with medical needs and urged its introduction. The expert from France underlined that the issue concerning the introduction of this kind of CRS was whether to consider them as universal or non-universal, and to suggest a proper definition. The expert from the Netherlands suggested that “lie-flat” CRS cannot be considered i-Size type. The expert from CI made a similar statement which suggested that the two new proposed envelopes introduce a new category of CRS, and also added that the matter should be further discussed in the IWG. Finally GRSP agreed to refer GRSP-58-20 to the IWG on CRS for further revision.

Completion of missing Integral fixtures for Regulation 129. The Universal Fixture was compatible with 39 of 40 vehicle types (97.5%) tested, but a lateral fixture (lie flat, carry cot) is needed for certain special cases.

41. Referring to discussion held under agenda item 10 (see para. 17 above), GRSP noted GRSP-58-21 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/29) tabled by the expert from CLEPA to introduce provisions for “lie-flat” into the UN Regulation. Accordingly, GRSP agreed to refer GRSP-58-21 to the IWG on CRS.

40. The expert from France, Chair of the IWG on Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS), introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-22) on the work progress of the IWG and introducing the proposal on the 01 and 02 series of amendments to the UN Regulation. He explained that the main content of the draft 01 series of amendments introduced: (i) some corrections to the original version of the UN Regulation, (ii) the concept of non-integral CRS and (iii) type approval provisions, including arrangements of the approval mark, for modules (GRSP-58-07-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24). He explained that the 02 series of amendments represented Phase 2 of the UN Regulation introducing provisions (GRSP-58-08 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/31) for booster seats with backrest. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24, as amended by Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions as draft 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129. Finally GRSP agreed to resume consideration on the Phase 2 of the UN Regulation at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-08 with an official symbol for that session.

Proposal to introduce test procedures from the US FMVSS 302 with regard to the burning behavior/flammability of materials used in child restraint systems. The proposal requests a GRSP decision on the maximum burn rate limit.

36. The expert from CLEPA introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-25) to clarify the content of a proposal (GRSP-58-16 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/6) aimed at introducing new provisions on toxicity and flammability of CRS materials. The experts from Denmark and Sweden had proposed GRSP-58-23 to introduce the flammability test procedure applied in FMVSS 302, which was commonly used throughout the industry. The experts from Denmark, Sweden and CLEPA jointly then prepared GRSP-58-16-Rev.1. Following the request of a study reservation from the experts of France, Germany and Japan. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this proposal at its May 2016 session. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-58-16-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next session of GRSP.

42. Moreover, GRSP considered parallel draft provisions (GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 superseding GRSP-58-23) on toxicity and flammability as discussed under agenda item 15 (see para. 33 above). GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 with an official symbol at that session.

US comments on child restraint systems based upon NHTSA’s National Child Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS), including recommendations on their installation, use, and testing thresholds.

17. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-58-13 that aims to: (i) solve the incompatibility of the requirements of the UN Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia, Canada and the United States of America and (ii) include Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future UN Regulation No. 0 of the IWVTA. He added that this proposal would avoid splitting UN Regulation No. 14 into two Regulations: safety-belt anchorages and child restraint anchorages (the latter would be excluded by Annex 4 of UN Regulation No. 0). He clarified that the proposal would instead propose changes to UN Regulation No. 14, making CRS anchorages suitable for both safety-belt anchored CRS and rigid ISOFIX type CRS in a larger number of countries. The Chair of GRSP introduced GRSP-58-24, which supports, in principle, the proposal and shows the benefits of harmonizing CRS standards. The expert from OICA requested time to examine the proposal in view of splitting the UN Regulation, which he considered to be the most pragmatic approach.

18. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2016 session and requested experts to provide comments on the proposal to the expert from Australia by the end of March 2016, pending other comments from the IWVTA IWG. Finally, it was agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 in the agenda of the next session of GRSP as an informal document and as a possible basis for development of proposals on harmonization in the framework of the 1998 Agreement.

Presentation in support of the proposal (document GRSP-58-16) to amend the toxicity and flammability declarations via references to EN71.

36. The expert from CLEPA introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-25) to clarify the content of a proposal (GRSP-58-16 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/6) aimed at introducing new provisions on toxicity and flammability of CRS materials. The experts from Denmark and Sweden had proposed GRSP-58-23 to introduce the flammability test procedure applied in FMVSS 302, which was commonly used throughout the industry. The experts from Denmark, Sweden and CLEPA jointly then prepared GRSP-58-16-Rev.1. Following the request of a study reservation from the experts of France, Germany and Japan. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this proposal at its May 2016 session. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-58-16-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next session of GRSP.

Updated draft of amendments to the regulation with regard to head restraint height, use of the BioRID test dummy, and to improve the overall text. This document includes revisions made during the 58th GRSP session (December 2015).

8. GRSP finally agreed to refer GRSP-58-26 back to the IWG, to incorporate all the comments from ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/34, and resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session.

Proposal for pictogram label to indicate that booster cushions without a backrest are only suitable for children between 125 and 150 cm tall while boosters with a backrest may be used for children from 105 cm tall.

33. The expert from France on behalf of the IWG on CRS, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/32 on limiting the use of booster cushions (booster seat without backrest) for children of a stature over 125 cm and on the application for type approval of these CRS only in mass Group III for children from 22 kg to 36 kg. The expert from Sweden introduced a possible alternative symbol (GRSP-58-27), to better clarify the use of this type of CRS for consumers. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/32, as amended by Annex II to this report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal for consideration and vote at the June 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 11 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

Proposal of draft text to transpose GTR No. 7 (head restraints) into UN R17, including the draft Amendment 1 to GTR 7 addressing use of the BioRID II test dummy, backset measurement method revision, and new head restraint height thresholds.

28. Moreover, the expert from Japan introduced GRSP-58-28-Rev.1, proposing to align UN Regulation No. 17 to the provisions of the draft UN GTR No. 7, Phase 2. GRSP agreed to keep GRSP-58-28-Rev.1 as an informal document for its May 2016 session awaiting possible updates.

26. The expert from Japan also reminded GRSP about informal document GRSP-58-28-Rev.1, proposing to align UN Regulation No. 17 to those of draft UN GTR No. 7, Phase 2. GRSP agreed to keep GRSP-58-28-Rev.1 as a reference document on the agenda of its December 2016 session, awaiting the outcome of the IWG on UN GTR No. 7, Phase 2.

Proposal to require seat-belt reminders for all seating positions, including rear positions, and to clarify the scope of the regulation.

22. The expert from the Republic of Korea, jointly with the experts from Japan and EC prepared a presentation (GRSP-58-30) on a proposal to introduce provisions on Safety-Belt Reminders (SBRs) in all vehicle seats (GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/19). He mentioned the cost benefit analysis carried out by EC and stated that the benefits outweighed costs in Asian countries (available at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/6662/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf). He added that SBRs had great lifesaving potential, and that from safety-belt use data, it was clear that enforcement was not equal in all countries and may depend on the priorities of the police forces and public protection organisms. He concluded that the use of SBRs, would be an added value. The expert from OICA argued that there was no evidence from cost benefit analyses that SBR devices were effective in increasing the use of safety belts. He also questioned the need of SBRs in commercial vehicles, where the transportation rate of passengers was very low. The expert from Denmark strongly supported the proposal. However, he questioned the need for an activation time on the device. The expert from France supported in principle the proposal, however, he also underlined the need to avoid any misinterpretation in the type approval procedure of these devices and requested a study reservation on the proposal. The expert from the United Kingdom supported, in principle, the intention. However, he argued that a high percentage of vehicle occupants already wore safety belts in his country and he, thus, questioned how much value added could be provided by a mandatory installation of SBRs. Finally, he requested a time reservation to study the proposal in detail. The expert from Germany underlined the need for a practical solution and that the mandatory installation of SBR would increase vehicle prices. He also proposed differing approaches for vehicle categories, and questioned the need in the N2/N3 or in the M2/M3 category, where the crew were responsible for fastening the safety belts of occupants. The expert from EC stated that the rate of use was very low in some European countries while the voluntary fitting of SBRs by manufacturers was very high. He also stated that cheap cars without SBRs were sold in European low income countries where the rate of safety belt use was very low.

23. Finally GRSP agreed to establish a task force led by Japan, the Republic of Korea and EC to submit a revised proposal at its May 2016 session. In the meantime, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next GRSP session.

Responses to questions regarding seat-belt reminders asked during the last GRSP session (May 2015) based upon various selected studies.

22. The expert from the Republic of Korea, jointly with the experts from Japan and EC prepared a presentation (GRSP-58-30) on a proposal to introduce provisions on Safety-Belt Reminders (SBRs) in all vehicle seats (GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/19). He mentioned the cost benefit analysis carried out by EC and stated that the benefits outweighed costs in Asian countries (available at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/6662/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf). He added that SBRs had great lifesaving potential, and that from safety-belt use data, it was clear that enforcement was not equal in all countries and may depend on the priorities of the police forces and public protection organisms. He concluded that the use of SBRs, would be an added value. The expert from OICA argued that there was no evidence from cost benefit analyses that SBR devices were effective in increasing the use of safety belts. He also questioned the need of SBRs in commercial vehicles, where the transportation rate of passengers was very low. The expert from Denmark strongly supported the proposal. However, he questioned the need for an activation time on the device. The expert from France supported in principle the proposal, however, he also underlined the need to avoid any misinterpretation in the type approval procedure of these devices and requested a study reservation on the proposal. The expert from the United Kingdom supported, in principle, the intention. However, he argued that a high percentage of vehicle occupants already wore safety belts in his country and he, thus, questioned how much value added could be provided by a mandatory installation of SBRs. Finally, he requested a time reservation to study the proposal in detail. The expert from Germany underlined the need for a practical solution and that the mandatory installation of SBR would increase vehicle prices. He also proposed differing approaches for vehicle categories, and questioned the need in the N2/N3 or in the M2/M3 category, where the crew were responsible for fastening the safety belts of occupants. The expert from EC stated that the rate of use was very low in some European countries while the voluntary fitting of SBRs by manufacturers was very high. He also stated that cheap cars without SBRs were sold in European low income countries where the rate of safety belt use was very low.

23. Finally GRSP agreed to establish a task force led by Japan, the Republic of Korea and EC to submit a revised proposal at its May 2016 session. In the meantime, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next GRSP session.

Proposal to introduce provisions for “deployable pedestrian protection systems in the bonnet area” (e.g., active hood systems where a pedestrian impact triggers tge hood release to allow for greater impact absorption and exterior frontal airbags).

10. The experts from the Republic of Korea and OICA introduced a proposal of amendments to UN GTR (GRSP-58-31), to incorporate provisions for active deployable systems in the bonnet area. The expert from OICA clarified that the proposal aimed to use a well-established procedure that had been presented several years ago and that had been recommended to Contracting Parties (CPs) for consideration. The Chair of GRSP informed the Group that he would be able to provide some NHTSA research information on pedestrian safety active systems at the national level to GRSP at its May 2016 session.

11. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on these matters at its May 2016 session and to keep GRSP-58-31 as an informal document for further development.

Proposal to amend the toxicity and flammability declarations via references to EN71 (European safety standards).

42. Moreover, GRSP considered parallel draft provisions (GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 superseding GRSP-58-23) on toxicity and flammability as discussed under agenda item 15 (see para. 33 above). GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 with an official symbol at that session.

20. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/21, aimed at better clarifying the availability of space for CRS installation. He suggested that a clear classification and schematic ranking of CRS be discussed within the IWG. The expert from OICA made a presentation (GRSP-58-33) to introduce a proposal of amendments (GRSP-58-15-Rev.1) that simplify information for consumers in the owner’s manual. He reminded GRSP that i-Size was conceived to completely eliminate the need for vehicle handbook instructions since all positions were marked. Specifically, he proposed to define two types of information: (i) customer needs and (ii) CRS manufacturers when type approving their systems. The proposal received comments addressing transitional provisions and the possibility of removing them from the proposal.

21. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/21 and on GRSP-58-15-Rev.1, pending possible revision by the IWG at its May 2016 session.

Proposal to amend the toxicity and flammability provisions. This proposal runs in parallel with the proposal to amend the 00 series of amendments (document GRSP-58-32).

42. Moreover, GRSP considered parallel draft provisions (GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 superseding GRSP-58-23) on toxicity and flammability as discussed under agenda item 15 (see para. 33 above). GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-32 and GRSP-58-34 with an official symbol at that session.

Proposal to clarify UN R16 provisions for the dynamic testing of rear seat systems, advanced restraint system approval and transitional provisions.

25. Finally, GRSP agreed to refer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/18 and GRSP-58-35 to agenda item 11.

3. GRSP considered and adopted the agenda (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/17 and Add.1) proposed for the fifty-eighth session with the new agenda items 23(g) and 24 and the running order (GRSP-58-04). The list of GRSP informal working groups is in Annex VII of this report.

Proposal to clarify UN R16 provisions for the dynamic testing of rear seat systems, advanced restraint system approval and transitional provisions.

25. Finally, GRSP agreed to refer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/18 and GRSP-58-35 to agenda item 11.

26. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/18, aimed at clarifying the provisions for dynamic testing of the rear seat restraint systems. She explained that the proposal aimed at updating requirements that were originally designed for seating positions that did not yet require three-point safety-belts; she added that the situation had developed with the introduction of load limiters that allowed for further displacement of occupants. Comments from GRSP experts on the proposal were incorporated into GRSP-58-35 during discussion. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/27 that was also linked to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/18 because the of displacement of occupants due to safety belt load limiters that were installed on seats other than front seats. He explained that the proposal needed corresponding amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 21, 25 and 80. The expert from OICA argued that the proposal should address just those seating positions that needed energy absorption requirements. The expert from CLEPA also underlined the need to focus the energy dissipation tests on the parts of back seats where actual impacts occur.

27. Finally, GRSP agreed to establish a group of interested experts, led by the expert from the Netherlands, on new restraint system technology to develop provisions on this matter for all the relevant UN Regulations. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session and to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/18, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/27 and GRSP-58-35 to the group of interested experts.

Proposal to require seat-belt reminders for all seating positions, including rear positions, and to clarify the scope of the regulation.

22. The expert from the Republic of Korea, jointly with the experts from Japan and EC prepared a presentation (GRSP-58-30) on a proposal to introduce provisions on Safety-Belt Reminders (SBRs) in all vehicle seats (GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/19). He mentioned the cost benefit analysis carried out by EC and stated that the benefits outweighed costs in Asian countries (available at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/6662/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf). He added that SBRs had great lifesaving potential, and that from safety-belt use data, it was clear that enforcement was not equal in all countries and may depend on the priorities of the police forces and public protection organisms. He concluded that the use of SBRs, would be an added value. The expert from OICA argued that there was no evidence from cost benefit analyses that SBR devices were effective in increasing the use of safety belts. He also questioned the need of SBRs in commercial vehicles, where the transportation rate of passengers was very low. The expert from Denmark strongly supported the proposal. However, he questioned the need for an activation time on the device. The expert from France supported in principle the proposal, however, he also underlined the need to avoid any misinterpretation in the type approval procedure of these devices and requested a study reservation on the proposal. The expert from the United Kingdom supported, in principle, the intention. However, he argued that a high percentage of vehicle occupants already wore safety belts in his country and he, thus, questioned how much value added could be provided by a mandatory installation of SBRs. Finally, he requested a time reservation to study the proposal in detail. The expert from Germany underlined the need for a practical solution and that the mandatory installation of SBR would increase vehicle prices. He also proposed differing approaches for vehicle categories, and questioned the need in the N2/N3 or in the M2/M3 category, where the crew were responsible for fastening the safety belts of occupants. The expert from EC stated that the rate of use was very low in some European countries while the voluntary fitting of SBRs by manufacturers was very high. He also stated that cheap cars without SBRs were sold in European low income countries where the rate of safety belt use was very low.

23. Finally GRSP agreed to establish a task force led by Japan, the Republic of Korea and EC to submit a revised proposal at its May 2016 session. In the meantime, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next GRSP session.

Proposal to introduce provisions for a new fixture to verify space availability of universal lateral facing “lie-flat” Child Restraint Systems.

19. The expert from CLEPA reiterated that presentation (GRSP-58-01-Rev.1) introduces provisions (GRSP-58-20 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/20) for fixtures that would verify the availability of space on universal lateral facing CRS “lie-flat”. He explained that this kind of CRS addressed children with medical needs and urged its introduction. The expert from France underlined that the issue concerning the introduction of this kind of CRS was whether to consider them as universal or non-universal, and to suggest a proper definition. The expert from the Netherlands suggested that “lie-flat” CRS cannot be considered i-Size type. The expert from CI made a similar statement which suggested that the two new proposed envelopes introduce a new category of CRS, and also added that the matter should be further discussed in the IWG. Finally GRSP agreed to refer GRSP-58-20 to the IWG on CRS for further revision.

Proposal to clarify and improve the belt routing and positioning of the universal child restraint system seat fixture during testing.

20. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/21, aimed at better clarifying the availability of space for CRS installation. He suggested that a clear classification and schematic ranking of CRS be discussed within the IWG. The expert from OICA made a presentation (GRSP-58-33) to introduce a proposal of amendments (GRSP-58-15-Rev.1) that simplify information for consumers in the owner’s manual. He reminded GRSP that i-Size was conceived to completely eliminate the need for vehicle handbook instructions since all positions were marked. Specifically, he proposed to define two types of information: (i) customer needs and (ii) CRS manufacturers when type approving their systems. The proposal received comments addressing transitional provisions and the possibility of removing them from the proposal.

21. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/21 and on GRSP-58-15-Rev.1, pending possible revision by the IWG at its May 2016 session.

The provisions of UN Regulation No. 16 (paragraph 6.4.1.4.1.) only allow contact of the chest of the dummy driver with the steering assembly, provided that this contact fulfils certain energy-dissipation test requirements and that contact does not occur at a speed higher than 24 km/h. In response to the updated provisions of UN Regulation No. 16 which allow greater forward displacement of occupants, UN Regulation No. 17 will be updated to provide requirements on improved energy-dissipation criteria for those areas of the rear of seats and head restraints where impact of the head of the rear occupant may occur. Given the update to UN R17, this proposal would amend the scope of UN R25 (which has not been updated with regard to energy dissipation) to cover only vehicle categories M2 < 3.5 tons and N1 and mention explicitly that application to N2 and N3 vehicle categories is optional.

32. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/22 on changing the scope of the UN Regulation and removing alternative routing for approval of seat backs which are fitted with head restraints (see also agenda items 11 and 12). GRSP, agreed to refer the proposal to the group of interested experts on new restraint system technology (see paras. 27 and 30 above) and resume discussion at its May 2016 session.

30. No new information was provided under this agenda item (see paras. 24 and 27 regarding UN Regulation No. 17 for related information).

26. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its May 2017 session of GRSP, awaiting new justification on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/22 provided by the expert from the Netherlands.

27. The expert from the Netherlands withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/22. GRSP agreed to remove this item from the agenda of the December 2017 session.

In response to proposals to allow greater forward displacement of occupants under UN R16 and the resulting changes in impact energy-dissipation criteria under UN R17, UN R25 (with regard to head restraints) is also subject to change. This proposal would accordingly update a reference in UN R80 to UN R25.

37. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/23 to update cross references to UN Regulation No. 25 (see also agenda items 11, 12 and 14). GRSP agreed to refer the proposal to the group of interested experts on new restraint system technology (see paras. 27, 30 and 32 above) and resume discussion at its May 2016 session.

Revised version of the proposal (formal document GRSP/2015/9 ) to extend the scope of UN Regulation No. 129 to include non-Integral child restraint systems (“Universal Booster” or “Specific to vehicle Booster”). This version includes all corrections to the text made by the Informal Working Group on Child Restraint Systems through its September session. (The CRS informal group will discuss this version during its October session.)

40. The expert from France, Chair of the IWG on Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS), introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-22) on the work progress of the IWG and introducing the proposal on the 01 and 02 series of amendments to the UN Regulation. He explained that the main content of the draft 01 series of amendments introduced: (i) some corrections to the original version of the UN Regulation, (ii) the concept of non-integral CRS and (iii) type approval provisions, including arrangements of the approval mark, for modules (GRSP-58-07-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24). He explained that the 02 series of amendments represented Phase 2 of the UN Regulation introducing provisions (GRSP-58-08 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/31) for booster seats with backrest. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24, as amended by Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions as draft 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129. Finally GRSP agreed to resume consideration on the Phase 2 of the UN Regulation at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-08 with an official symbol for that session.

Proposal to clarify the texts related to the recently expanded height requirements for the effective upper belt anchorage (Supplement 4 to the 07 series of amendments to Regulation No. 14).

43. GRSP considered GRSP-58-06-Rev.1 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/25 and GRSP-58-05), tabled by the expert from the Netherlands to introduce: (i) a definition of flexible shoulder adjustment device for height, (ii) provisions for its testing and (iii) to define its strict field of installation for vehicle categories M2 and M3. The expert from the Russian Federation supported GRSP-58-06-Rev.1 but objected to the deletion of the last sentence of subparagraph 5.4.3.6.1.(a), as it was originally proposed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/25. GRSP, adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/25, as amended by Annex V (GRSP-58-06-Rev.1) to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions as draft Supplement 7 to the 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 14 and as draft Supplement 7 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16.

Proposal to introduce provisions to prevent the unintentional opening of rear doors while the vehicle is in motion.

16. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/26, proposing alternative possibilities to ensure adequate protection against accidental opening of the back door while the vehicle was in motion. GRSP adopted the proposal not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/26 to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions as draft Supplement 4 to the 03 series and as draft Supplement 1 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 11.

Proposal to expand the application area of the energy absorption criteria for seating in order to facilitate the optimization of seat-belt load limiters by allowing limited occupant contact with these seat areas.

26. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/18, aimed at clarifying the provisions for dynamic testing of the rear seat restraint systems. She explained that the proposal aimed at updating requirements that were originally designed for seating positions that did not yet require three-point safety-belts; she added that the situation had developed with the introduction of load limiters that allowed for further displacement of occupants. Comments from GRSP experts on the proposal were incorporated into GRSP-58-35 during discussion. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/27 that was also linked to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/18 because the of displacement of occupants due to safety belt load limiters that were installed on seats other than front seats. He explained that the proposal needed corresponding amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 21, 25 and 80. The expert from OICA argued that the proposal should address just those seating positions that needed energy absorption requirements. The expert from CLEPA also underlined the need to focus the energy dissipation tests on the parts of back seats where actual impacts occur.

27. Finally, GRSP agreed to establish a group of interested experts, led by the expert from the Netherlands, on new restraint system technology to develop provisions on this matter for all the relevant UN Regulations. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session and to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/18, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/27 and GRSP-58-35 to the group of interested experts.

24. The expert from the Netherlands informed GRSP on the progress of work of the “Task Force on Energy Absorption of Seats” (former group of interested experts on new restraint system technology). He clarified that the group met recently in Paris and was still working to update ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/27. He added that the proposal would cover cases with more forward displacement of the restrained occupants in the fitment of new safety-belts equipped with load limiter devices. GRSP also noted that the task force would continue work as well on parallel amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 21, 25 and 80.

Changes to NCAP testing oblige the use of load limiters on safety-belts with lower threshold values that yield less thorax compression but also allow for greater forward displacement of the occupants. To address the greater forward displacement of rear occupants, UN R17 is under revision to require more stringent energy dissipation performance for those areas of the rear of seats (including the head restraints and parts mounted on the seat) where the head of the rear occupant may come into contact. UN R21 allows for alternative testing of the rear parts of seats (paras. 5.7-5.7.3. ) However, in light of the changes to UN R17, this alternative approach is no longer valid. This proposal would delete the alternate method and expands the scope of UN R21 to include testing of any parts mounted on the seats.

29. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/28 on the testing of the rear parts of seats which is covered exclusively by UN Regulation No. 17 (see agenda item 11). The expert from Germany argued that UN Regulation No. 21 allowed dynamic testing of these parts by the use of mathematical simulations, and that the above proposal would remove this possibility.

30. GRSP, agreed to refer the proposal to the group of interested experts on new restraint system technology (see para. 27 above) and resume discussion at its May 2016 session.

27. GRSP noted that no new information to updated ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/28 was yet available on this agenda item (see para. 24 above) and agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2016 session.

Proposal to introduce an integral fixture for lateral (lie flat, carry cot) child restraint systems.

41. Referring to discussion held under agenda item 10 (see para. 17 above), GRSP noted GRSP-58-21 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/29) tabled by the expert from CLEPA to introduce provisions for “lie-flat” into the UN Regulation. Accordingly, GRSP agreed to refer GRSP-58-21 to the IWG on CRS.

Proposal to harmonize information in the airbag warning label on the correct installation of Child Restraint Systems (CRS).

46. The expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30, aimed at clarifying guidance to parents installing a CRS on a seating position protected by an air-bag. He suggested that experts study the proposal until the May 2016 session of GRSP and to provide fully detailed comments. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its next session.

48. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP (GRSP-59-01) about his support to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30, to harmonize the information of the airbag warning label on the correct installation of Child Restraint Systems (CRS). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2016 session to allow experts to provide fully their detailed comments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30.

42. In absence of new information, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this subject to its May 2017 session.

43. The expert from EC introduced GRSP-61-29, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30, to harmonize the information of the airbag warning label on the correct installation of CRS. The expert from France argued that the proposed size of the area for part number marking (5 mm x 20 mm) was too small. The expert from OICA raised the same concern and a study reservation. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2017 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-61-29 with an official symbol.

Proposal to introduce phase 2 amendments related to the booster seat category (booster seat with backrest) into UN R129. The text includes all modifications proposed by GRSP up to and including its 57th session (Geneva, 18–22 May 2015) as well as those of the IWG CRS up to and including its 53rd session (London, 2 September 2015). The proposal builds on the original UN Regulation No. 129, Corrigendum 1, Supplements 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well as the draft 01 series of amendments to the UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24) Phase 1.

40. The expert from France, Chair of the IWG on Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS), introduced a presentation (GRSP-58-22) on the work progress of the IWG and introducing the proposal on the 01 and 02 series of amendments to the UN Regulation. He explained that the main content of the draft 01 series of amendments introduced: (i) some corrections to the original version of the UN Regulation, (ii) the concept of non-integral CRS and (iii) type approval provisions, including arrangements of the approval mark, for modules (GRSP-58-07-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24). He explained that the 02 series of amendments represented Phase 2 of the UN Regulation introducing provisions (GRSP-58-08 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/31) for booster seats with backrest. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/24, as amended by Annex IV to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2016 sessions as draft 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129. Finally GRSP agreed to resume consideration on the Phase 2 of the UN Regulation at its May 2016 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-58-08 with an official symbol for that session.

Proposal to limit the use of a booster cushion (booster seat without backrest) with children of a stature greater than 125 cm and the application for type approval of such CRS only in mass Group III for children of mass from 22 kg to 36 kg. The proposal is submitted on behalf of the CRS informal working group.

33. The expert from France on behalf of the IWG on CRS, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/32 on limiting the use of booster cushions (booster seat without backrest) for children of a stature over 125 cm and on the application for type approval of these CRS only in mass Group III for children from 22 kg to 36 kg. The expert from Sweden introduced a possible alternative symbol (GRSP-58-27), to better clarify the use of this type of CRS for consumers. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/32, as amended by Annex II to this report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal for consideration and vote at the June 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 11 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

Proposal to clarify that a guide strap which constrains the shoulder strap of the adult seat belt in a position to suit the child in a child restraint system cannot be approved as a separate CRS under UN R44.

34. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/33 on excluding the possibility of approval for child restraint systems with a guide strap. GRSP adopted the proposal, as amended by Annex II to this report and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal for consideration and vote at the June 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as part of (see para. 33 above) draft Supplement 11 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

The GTR7 Informal Working Group has been preparing amendments to the regulation with regard to head restraint height, use of the BioRID test dummy, and to improve the overall text. This document provides the current draft text with open items enclosed in brackets.

5. The expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on the UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 – Phase 2, made a presentation (GRSP-58-18) on the Group’s progress. He clarified that the IWG intends to proceed with a more empirical approach on the correlation between Post Mortem Human Subjects (PMHS) and Biomechanical Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID). The results would be submitted as a subsequent amendment proposal on injury criteria (perhaps for adoption) at the May 2016 session of GRSP. He also introduced draft UN GTR Phase 2 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/34 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/24).

6. GRSP, in principle, agreed to change the height requirements of head restraints in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/34 to take into account ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/17.

8. GRSP finally agreed to refer GRSP-58-26 back to the IWG, to incorporate all the comments from ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/34, and resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session.

6. The expert from the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on the UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 – Phase 2, clarified that the IWG was following a more empirical approach to determine biomechanical criteria and that alternative methodologies were under study. He reported that the IWG expected to finalize proposals for the December 2016 session of GRSP on UN GTR No. 7 and on Addendum 1 to Mutual Resolution No. 1 (M.R.1) to incorporate Bio Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID) specifications. He concluded that an extension of the mandate of the IWG until March 2017 was needed to complete the final proposals and that AC.3 endorsed this request at its March 2016 session.

4. The expert from the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on the UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 – Phase 2, clarified that the IWG had suspended its activity because of a lack of results on biomechanical criteria. He added that the Chair’s intention was to resume the activity of the IWG and that he would contact the group’s members. He concluded that the Chair of the IWG would inform GRSP at its December 2017 session on the follow-up of activities of the IWG. The Chair of GRSP, on behalf of the expert of the United States of America, informed GRSP that the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) could possibly re-start correlation testing between dummy and the Post Mortem Human Subjects (PHMS). He volunteered to update GRSP about the plan of NHTSA on this subject at the December 2017 session.

4. The expert from the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 – Phase 2, informed GRSP that for the time being the IWG had not yet decided when to resume its activity. He added that further information would be provided at the May 2018 session of GRSP.

4. The expert from the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 – Phase 2, informed GRSP that the IWG had not made progress in its activities and that no new information for the future development of the UN GTR to report. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that the Vehicle Research Testing Center of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will resume and finalize its testing activity on the injury criteria by the end of 2018.