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.

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

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.

34. GRSP noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/10, tabled by the expert from the Netherlands to clarify that the adjustment device for the height of the effective upper anchorage (introduced recently for buses) might be part of the anchorage or of the safety-belt requirements. The expert from Denmark expressed concerns that the system would be used as a CRS in buses, as has happened in the past because it is cheaper than a real CRS. The expert from France supported in principle the proposal pending further clarifications. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2015 session on the basis of a revised proposal voluntarily prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

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.

23. Finally, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13 to its December 2016 session due to lack of time.

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.

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.

17. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-57-09 proposing to introduce a new fixture to verify space availability of universal lateral facing Child Restraint Systems (CRS) “lie-flat” (GRSP-57-07-Rev.1). He urged the introduction of this envelope to allow the installation of universal “lie-flat” CRS to address special medical needs such as premature born children having inability to support heads. He stated that the current ISOFIX fixture of UN Regulation No. 44 was too large and suggested through his proposal the introduction of a fixture having a volume within those representing rear-facing and forward-facing volumes (excluding side volumes). The expert from OICA suggested that the proposed fixture should not be used to identify an i-size position because otherwise it would reduce the availability of i-size positions in the vehicle. Moreover, he suggested that the proposal would refer to a vehicle specific position. The comments from the expert of OICA were generally supported by the experts from France, Germany, EC and the Netherlands. Finally, GRSP agreed to refer GRSP-57-07-Rev.1 back to the IWG, to be discussed as a full-package with the provisions of UN Regulation No. 129 (see para. 30 below).

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.

16. The expert from Korea introduced the issue (GRSP-57-24) concerning the extension of mandatory fitting of safety-belt reminders (SBR) to rear seats as a basis to increase the low wearing rates of safety-belts in the rear seats in Asian countries. Referring to GRSP-57-24, the expert from Japan introduced GRSP-57-17-Rev.2, jointly prepared with the experts from EC and Korea, providing the basis for a proposal of amendments to the UN Regulation to introduce SBR in the rear seats. GRSP noted that the United States of America was developing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the same matter that probably would be publicly available by the end of 2015. The expert from OICA argued that the issue of wearing rate should have a multidisciplinary approach including education and that a standalone technical solution would not solve the issue, but add burden costs to consumers. The expert from Germany added that the great wearing rate of safety-belts in his country was successfully achieved thanks to strong law enforcement. The expert from the Netherlands made a similar statement. The expert from France supported the validity of the request. However, he raised a study reservation and confirmed the need of a robust cost-benefit analysis and rationale to justify the proposal. The expert from Denmark supported the proposal, though he questioned the proposed deactivation time duration of SBR and the exclusion of multi-purpose vehicles from the scope of the proposal. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this issue at its December 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-57-17-Rev.2 with an official symbol.

19. The expert from Japan showed a presentation (GRSP-59-12) to introduce GRSP-59-06-Rev.2 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/2) aimed at introducing provisions on safety-belt reminders (SBRs) in all vehicle seats. The expert from the United Kingdom recognised technological and operational constraints and supported exemptions for certain vehicle categories and seats (e.g. Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles, removable seats and suspension seats). He thought that some of these need only be temporary to allow for the development of robust solutions. The expert from Italy highlighted the need for a definition of “suspension seat” missing in the current text of the UN Regulation No. 16 and in GRSP-59-06-Rev.2. Moreover, he questioned the reproducibility of the alternative use of human representing a 5th percentile adult female to test the activation of SBRs.

20. GRSP finally adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/2, as amended by Annex II to this report (GRSP-59-06-Rev.2). The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal for consideration and vote at the November 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as draft 07 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16. It was agreed that possible changes to transitional provisions (paragraphs 15.4. to 15.10.) could be proposed and submitted as an informal document seven weeks before WP.29 November 2016 to allow consideration by the European Union Council and voting the proposal by AC.1.

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.

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.

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

22. GRSP also considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/15, aimed at clarifying the provisions for dynamic testing of rear seat systems. GRSP adopted the proposal not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal for consideration and vote at the November 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as part of (see paras. 18 and 21) draft Supplement 8 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16.

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.

13. The expert from CLEPA introduced a presentation (GRSP-57-25) to explain ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/16 and GRSP-57-03 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/4) aimed at clarifying the provisions for dynamic testing of rear seat system and advanced restraint system approval. The expert from Japan argued that the proposal was not assessing the air-bag performance through UN Regulation No. 94 because it was addressing other occupants than those seating in lateral frontal positions. The expert from France clarified that the proposal was addressing the concept of restraint systems to other seating positions than front outboard positions. The expert from EC suggested aligning the proposed provisions with those of UN Regulation No. 21, concerning the speed of impact of seating position protected by an air-bag. Accordingly, the expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-57-28 incorporating the comments received during the discussion. The experts from France and Japan raised study reservations on the proposal. Moreover, the expert from the Netherlands noted that the proposal would affect not only the safety-belt component but also the vehicle. The experts from EC and OICA stated that the proposal should be discussed as a full package with the corresponding amendment to UN Regulation No. 17, namely ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/14 (see para. 19 below). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-57-28 with an official symbol.

22. GRSP also considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/15, aimed at clarifying the provisions for dynamic testing of rear seat systems. GRSP adopted the proposal not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal for consideration and vote at the November 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as part of (see paras. 18 and 21) draft Supplement 8 to the 06 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16.

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.

16. The expert from Korea introduced the issue (GRSP-57-24) concerning the extension of mandatory fitting of safety-belt reminders (SBR) to rear seats as a basis to increase the low wearing rates of safety-belts in the rear seats in Asian countries. Referring to GRSP-57-24, the expert from Japan introduced GRSP-57-17-Rev.2, jointly prepared with the experts from EC and Korea, providing the basis for a proposal of amendments to the UN Regulation to introduce SBR in the rear seats. GRSP noted that the United States of America was developing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the same matter that probably would be publicly available by the end of 2015. The expert from OICA argued that the issue of wearing rate should have a multidisciplinary approach including education and that a standalone technical solution would not solve the issue, but add burden costs to consumers. The expert from Germany added that the great wearing rate of safety-belts in his country was successfully achieved thanks to strong law enforcement. The expert from the Netherlands made a similar statement. The expert from France supported the validity of the request. However, he raised a study reservation and confirmed the need of a robust cost-benefit analysis and rationale to justify the proposal. The expert from Denmark supported the proposal, though he questioned the proposed deactivation time duration of SBR and the exclusion of multi-purpose vehicles from the scope of the proposal. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this issue at its December 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-57-17-Rev.2 with an official symbol.

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.

17. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-57-09 proposing to introduce a new fixture to verify space availability of universal lateral facing Child Restraint Systems (CRS) “lie-flat” (GRSP-57-07-Rev.1). He urged the introduction of this envelope to allow the installation of universal “lie-flat” CRS to address special medical needs such as premature born children having inability to support heads. He stated that the current ISOFIX fixture of UN Regulation No. 44 was too large and suggested through his proposal the introduction of a fixture having a volume within those representing rear-facing and forward-facing volumes (excluding side volumes). The expert from OICA suggested that the proposed fixture should not be used to identify an i-size position because otherwise it would reduce the availability of i-size positions in the vehicle. Moreover, he suggested that the proposal would refer to a vehicle specific position. The comments from the expert of OICA were generally supported by the experts from France, Germany, EC and the Netherlands. Finally, GRSP agreed to refer GRSP-57-07-Rev.1 back to the IWG, to be discussed as a full-package with the provisions of UN Regulation No. 129 (see para. 30 below).

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 GRSP-57-18 aimed at ensuring that the safety retractor would work properly in the highest and the lowest adjustment positions and other issues related to testing CRS compatibility on vehicle seating positions. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this issue at its December 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-57-18 with an official symbol.

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.

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.

34. GRSP noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/10, tabled by the expert from the Netherlands to clarify that the adjustment device for the height of the effective upper anchorage (introduced recently for buses) might be part of the anchorage or of the safety-belt requirements. The expert from Denmark expressed concerns that the system would be used as a CRS in buses, as has happened in the past because it is cheaper than a real CRS. The expert from France supported in principle the proposal pending further clarifications. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2015 session on the basis of a revised proposal voluntarily prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

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.

43. The expert from EC introduced GRSP-57-11-Rev.1, showing that some vehicle manufacturers are providing disharmonized information in the airbag warning label to protect children. He explained that his proposal aimed at providing clearer guidance to parents installing CRS on seating position protected by an air-bag. The expert from OICA stated that the proposal needed a study reservation and the expert from Germany required further rationales and justification to substantiate the proposal. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2015 session on the basis of a new proposal prepared by the expert from EC in coordination with the experts from CLEPA and OICA.

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.