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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

43. The expert from France, Chair of the IWG on Enhanced Child Restraint Systems (ECRS), gave a presentation (GRSP-59-14) on the work progress of the IWG which introducing the latest changes (GRSP-59-08-Rev.1) to the official proposal of the 02 series of amendments to the UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/4). He explained that the proposed new series of amendments aimed at including: (i) ECRS from the booster seat category (booster seat with backrest) into the scope of UN Regulation No. 129 and (ii) the proposal from Spain (GRSP-59-03-Rev.1). He concluded that this latest draft series would be acknowledged as Phase 2 of the UN Regulation.

44. GRSP finally adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/4, as reproduced in Addendum 1 to this report. 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 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129.

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.

33. The expert from Consumer International (CI) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/11 to withdraw ISOFIX CRS from UN Regulation No. 44. The expert from CLEPA questioned the proposal since too many ISOFIX products were already in the market. Therefore, he suggested that the proposal would set a proper sunset clause for extension of ISOFIX CRS type approvals according to the UN Regulation and, thus, to avoid distortions in the type approval system. Thus, the expert from CI introduced GRSP-59-15-Rev.1, in cooperation with the experts from CLEPA and OICA. The expert from OICA suggesting that a supplement, rather than a new series of amendments would better fit the scope the proposal. The expert from China explained that the proposal would cause a backlash of costs in his country: national legislation GB 14166 had taken over a great part of the provisions of UN Regulation No. 44 including ISOFIX provisions. Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/11, as amended by Annex III to this report (GRSP-59-15-Rev.1). The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal (as a separate official document) for consideration and vote at the November 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as part of (see para. 31) draft Supplement 12 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

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.

33. The expert from Consumer International (CI) introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/11 to withdraw ISOFIX CRS from UN Regulation No. 44. The expert from CLEPA questioned the proposal since too many ISOFIX products were already in the market. Therefore, he suggested that the proposal would set a proper sunset clause for extension of ISOFIX CRS type approvals according to the UN Regulation and, thus, to avoid distortions in the type approval system. Thus, the expert from CI introduced GRSP-59-15-Rev.1, in cooperation with the experts from CLEPA and OICA. The expert from OICA suggesting that a supplement, rather than a new series of amendments would better fit the scope the proposal. The expert from China explained that the proposal would cause a backlash of costs in his country: national legislation GB 14166 had taken over a great part of the provisions of UN Regulation No. 44 including ISOFIX provisions. Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/11, as amended by Annex III to this report (GRSP-59-15-Rev.1). The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal (as a separate official document) for consideration and vote at the November 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as part of (see para. 31) draft Supplement 12 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

24. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/6 through a presentation (GRSP-57-26), aimed at updating the references to the European standard on toxicity and flammability of materials used to manufacture CRS. The expert from Germany informed GRSP about the latest amendments introduced in UN Regulation No. 118 by GRSG, on matters of vertical burning rate much more severe than standard EN 71 mentioned in the proposal. The expert from OICA requested exemption for built-in CRS subject to national/regional legislation (i.e.: EU Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2015 session on the basis of a revised proposal tabled by the expert from CLEPA in cooperation with the expert from OICA.

31. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/3 and GRSP-59-04 proposing to update the references to the European standard on toxicity and flammability of materials used to manufacture Child Restraint Systems (CRS). The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-59-05 and amending this proposal. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/3, as amended by Annex III to this report. 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 Supplement 12 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

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.

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).

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).

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.

30. Referring to discussion held under agenda item 7 (see para. 17. above) the expert from CLEPA introduced through a presentation (GRSP-57-09) to present a corresponding amendment (GRSP-57-08) to UN Regulation No. 129 to introduce ECRS “lie-flat”. GRSP agreed to refer GRSP-57-08 to the IWG.

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.

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.

31. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/3 and GRSP-59-04 proposing to update the references to the European standard on toxicity and flammability of materials used to manufacture Child Restraint Systems (CRS). The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-59-05 and amending this proposal. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/3, as amended by Annex III to this report. 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 Supplement 12 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

10. Finally, the expert from the Republic of Korea introduced GRSP-56-21 for information only. He explained that pedestrian safety was a relevant road safety issue in his country, causing more than 2000 casualties each year and stated the availability of his delegation to prepare proposals concerning tests of active devices to further improve vehicle performances.

9. The expert from the Republic of Korea introduced a proposal of authorization to amend UN GTR (GRSP-59-16), to incorporate provisions for active deployable systems in the bonnet area. GRSP noted that the proposal would be preliminarily sent to AC.3 as an informal document to the June 2016 session of AC.3 aiming to its official adoption at the November 2016 session by the Committee. It was also agreed that the expert from the Republic of Korea would submit an official proposal of amendments to the December 2016 session of GRSP, amending the current text of the UN GTR (Phase 1) and the draft text of the Phase 2 of the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15). GRSP noted that the proposed time schedule to finalization was tight (December 2017). The expert from the Republic of Korea proposed the establishment of a task force to develop the proposed amendments instead of an IWG. The expert from OICA recommended the participation of the experts of all the Contracting Parties to the 1958 and 1998 Agreements so that the group could develop a globally harmonized test procedure.

122. The expert from the Republic of Korea introduced a proposal for authorization to amend UN GTR (WP.29-169-10), to incorporate provisions for active deployable systems in the bonnet area. AC.3 requested the secretariat to distribute it with an official symbol at its November 2016 session.

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.

42. GRSP noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/5, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/6, GRSP-59-04 and GRSP-59-05 as parallel amendments (already adopted for UN Regulation No. 44) to update the references to the European standard on toxicity and flammability of materials used to manufacture CRS (see para. 31 above). GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/5 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/6, as amended by Annex V to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposals for consideration and vote at the November 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1, as part of (see para. 41) draft Supplement 5 to the original text of UN Regulation No. 129 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/5) and as part of (see para. 41 above) draft Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/6).

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.

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.

42. GRSP noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/5, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/6, GRSP-59-04 and GRSP-59-05 as parallel amendments (already adopted for UN Regulation No. 44) to update the references to the European standard on toxicity and flammability of materials used to manufacture CRS (see para. 31 above). GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/5 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/6, as amended by Annex V to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposals for consideration and vote at the November 2016 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1, as part of (see para. 41) draft Supplement 5 to the original text of UN Regulation No. 129 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/5) and as part of (see para. 41 above) draft Supplement 1 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/6).

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.