31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal collision introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 through a presentation (GRSP-50-01) on the new terms of reference of the informal working group. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 as reproduced in Annex V [of the session report] and sought the consent of WP.29 at its March 2012 session.

32. GRSP noted GRSP-50-03 tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, introducing test requirements for vehicles equipped with automatically activated door locking systems. The document received some comments and GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this matter on the basis of a revised proposal prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

33. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP on the results of the second Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held. He informed that as a conclusion of the second phase of the programme, LANCAP was promoting the mandatory type approval of vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 94 as well as the mandatory use of type approved CRS to governments of Latin American countries.

21. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSP-50-02 in order to provide an installation procedure for CRS that takes into account the position of the seat in front of that to be tested. The expert from OICA raised a study reservation on the proposal. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this matter at its May 2012 session on the basis of a revised proposal jointly prepared by the experts from the Netherlands and OICA.

22. The expert from Spain introduced GRSP-50-15, to allow the installation of universal ISOFIX rearward facing child restraint systems as defined in UN Regulation No. 44. GRSP did not support GRSP-50-15 because of conflicts with the text of the draft UN Regulation on CRS and agreed to remove this matter from the agenda of its May 2012 session.

23. The Chair of the informal working group on CRS, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/23 prepared by his group to match the provisions of UN Regulation No. 16 with those of draft UN Regulation on CRS. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/23, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 sessions for the time being as draft [Supplement 3 to the 06 series of amendments] making the same recommendation for its adoption by WP.29 and AC.1 as per UN Regulation No. 14 (see para. 20).

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal collision introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 through a presentation (GRSP-50-01) on the new terms of reference of the informal working group. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 as reproduced in Annex V [of the session report] and sought the consent of WP.29 at its March 2012 session.

32. GRSP noted GRSP-50-03 tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, introducing test requirements for vehicles equipped with automatically activated door locking systems. The document received some comments and GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this matter on the basis of a revised proposal prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

33. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP on the results of the second Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held. He informed that as a conclusion of the second phase of the programme, LANCAP was promoting the mandatory type approval of vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 94 as well as the mandatory use of type approved CRS to governments of Latin American countries.

44. Referring to the issue introduced under agenda item 14 (see para. 32 above), the expert from the Netherlands introduced a similar proposal (GRSP-50-04-Rev.1) addressing UN Regulation No. 95. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on the basis of a revised proposal voluntarily prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

44. Referring to the issue introduced under agenda item 14 (see para. 32 above), the expert from the Netherlands introduced a similar proposal (GRSP-50-04-Rev.1) addressing UN Regulation No. 95. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on the basis of a revised proposal voluntarily prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

18. GRSP noted GRSP-50-05-Rev.1, tabled by the experts from Belgium and Germany to solve errors in the current text of the Regulation concerning the anchorage angles (α1 and α2) and the seating reference point (R-point). GRSP noted that the proposal had design implication and agreed to continue discussion at its May 2012 session. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-05-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

19. The expert from Spain introduced a proposal (GRSP-50-17) to allow the installation of safety-belt anchorages whose effective upper anchorage point is changing to fit smaller occupants such as children transported on buses and coaches. The expert from Germany argued that such systems were already present on the market and some of these were introducing risks for occupants by assuming a dangerous configuration (GRSP-50-23). GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session, on the basis of a revised proposal jointly prepared by the experts from Germany, Netherlands and Spain. GRSP also agreed to keep GRSP-50-23 as a reference on the agenda of its next session.

20. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Child Restraints Systems (CRS), introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/22 prepared by his group to align UN Regulation No. 14 with the provisions of draft Regulation on child restraint systems (CRS). GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/22, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 sessions for the time being as draft [Supplement 4 to the 07 series of amendments]. GRSP also agreed to recommend its adoption to WP.29 and AC.1 as a full package with the draft UN Regulation on CRS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/21) and the corresponding amendment to UN Regulation No. 16 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/23).

34. The expert from Germany, Chair of the group of interested experts on Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems (REESS), introduced the last progress report (GRSP-50-24) of the group. He presented the draft proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 100 (GRSP-50-06), aimed at extending the scope of the current UN Regulation and incorporating additional requirements concerning the REESS. He announced that the next meeting of the group was scheduled for 10 to 12 January 2012 within the premises of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) in Brussels.

The proposal received some comments as reflected in GRSP-50-07, tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, proposing broader requirements covering electric vehicles of category L. The expert from the EC welcomed the proposal and confirmed that it was in line with the draft EU Regulation on vehicle functional safety requirements (RVFSR).

GRSP agreed to address GRSP-50-07 to the REESS group and recommended that this group transmit a final consolidated proposal to the secretariat before the deadline for submission of official documents to the May 2012 session of GRSP.

34. The expert from Germany, Chair of the group of interested experts on Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems (REESS), introduced the last progress report (GRSP-50-24) of the group. He presented the draft proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 100 (GRSP-50-06), aimed at extending the scope of the current UN Regulation and incorporating additional requirements concerning the REESS. He announced that the next meeting of the group was scheduled for 10 to 12 January 2012 within the premises of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) in Brussels.

The proposal received some comments as reflected in GRSP-50-07, tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, proposing broader requirements covering electric vehicles of category L. The expert from the EC welcomed the proposal and confirmed that it was in line with the draft EU Regulation on vehicle functional safety requirements (RVFSR).

GRSP agreed to address GRSP-50-07 to the REESS group and recommended that this group transmit a final consolidated proposal to the secretariat before the deadline for submission of official documents to the May 2012 session of GRSP.

27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.

27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.

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.

3. GRSP considered and adopted the agenda (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/16) proposed for the fiftieth session with the new agenda items 19(d) to 19(i), 20 and 21 as well as the running order (GRSP-50-10). The list of GRSP informal working groups is contained in Annex VII of the session report.

24. The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-50-11 amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/10 on new provisions for folding seat. However, GRSP noted that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/10 needed revision (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 24). GRSP agreed to resume discussion of this subject on the basis of a new proposal jointly prepared by the experts from Germany, Japan and OICA.

25. Finally, GRSP agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/15 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2009/24 on the agenda of its future sessions, awaiting the outcome of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2.

49. The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-50-12 and GRSP-50-13 proposing further amendments concerning the tests of electric vehicles. GRSP agreed to continue discussion at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-12 and GRSP-50-13 with an official symbol.

49. The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-50-12 and GRSP-50-13 proposing further amendments concerning the tests of electric vehicles. GRSP agreed to continue discussion at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-12 and GRSP-50-13 with an official symbol.

27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.

21. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSP-50-02 in order to provide an installation procedure for CRS that takes into account the position of the seat in front of that to be tested. The expert from OICA raised a study reservation on the proposal. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this matter at its May 2012 session on the basis of a revised proposal jointly prepared by the experts from the Netherlands and OICA.

22. The expert from Spain introduced GRSP-50-15, to allow the installation of universal ISOFIX rearward facing child restraint systems as defined in UN Regulation No. 44. GRSP did not support GRSP-50-15 because of conflicts with the text of the draft UN Regulation on CRS and agreed to remove this matter from the agenda of its May 2012 session.

23. The Chair of the informal working group on CRS, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/23 prepared by his group to match the provisions of UN Regulation No. 16 with those of draft UN Regulation on CRS. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/23, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 sessions for the time being as draft [Supplement 3 to the 06 series of amendments] making the same recommendation for its adoption by WP.29 and AC.1 as per UN Regulation No. 14 (see para. 20).

27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.

18. GRSP noted GRSP-50-05-Rev.1, tabled by the experts from Belgium and Germany to solve errors in the current text of the Regulation concerning the anchorage angles (α1 and α2) and the seating reference point (R-point). GRSP noted that the proposal had design implication and agreed to continue discussion at its May 2012 session. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-05-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

19. The expert from Spain introduced a proposal (GRSP-50-17) to allow the installation of safety-belt anchorages whose effective upper anchorage point is changing to fit smaller occupants such as children transported on buses and coaches. The expert from Germany argued that such systems were already present on the market and some of these were introducing risks for occupants by assuming a dangerous configuration (GRSP-50-23). GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session, on the basis of a revised proposal jointly prepared by the experts from Germany, Netherlands and Spain. GRSP also agreed to keep GRSP-50-23 as a reference on the agenda of its next session.

20. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Child Restraints Systems (CRS), introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/22 prepared by his group to align UN Regulation No. 14 with the provisions of draft Regulation on child restraint systems (CRS). GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/22, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 sessions for the time being as draft [Supplement 4 to the 07 series of amendments]. GRSP also agreed to recommend its adoption to WP.29 and AC.1 as a full package with the draft UN Regulation on CRS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/21) and the corresponding amendment to UN Regulation No. 16 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/23).

27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.

38. GRSP considered the latest revision of the draft UN Regulation proposed by the informal working group on CRS (GRSP-50-22-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/21 and GRSP-50-18).

39. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/21, as amended by Annex VI [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as a new draft UN Regulation for consideration and vote to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2012 sessions, as a package together with the corresponding amendments to UN Regulation Nos. 14 and 16 (see paragraphs 20 and 23).

40. Finally, GRSP noted that the secretariat would make publicly available prior to the June 2012 session of WP.29, the full set of data of Q dummies, pending a disclaimer to be agreed upon with the dummy manufacturer. Referring to the next meeting of the informal working group, scheduled on 1 February 2012, GRSP recommended that the informal working group focus efforts on examining these dummy data and solicited the participation of experts keen on this matter.

14. The expert from the United States of America introduced draft UN GTR on safety of hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/33) prepared by the special group safety (SGS). The proposal received some comments such as a better defining of the scope. GRSP noted that more time was needed by the SGS group to gather comments and finalize the proposal. Accordingly, GRSP agreed to seek consent for a six months extension of the mandate of the informal working group at the March 2012 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3, expecting the submission of a revised proposal for final review at the May 2012 session of GRSP. Experts were invited to provide comments on the proposal (GRSP-50-19-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/33) to the expert of the United States of America, before the deadline for submission of official documents to the May 2012 session of GRSP.

15. Finally, the Chair of GRSP recalled the recommendation made during the December 2010 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/48, para. 37) to all the Chairs of the informal working groups to ensure traceability of expert mandates for their participation in the meetings.

14. The expert from the United States of America introduced draft UN GTR on safety of hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/33) prepared by the special group safety (SGS). The proposal received some comments such as a better defining of the scope. GRSP noted that more time was needed by the SGS group to gather comments and finalize the proposal. Accordingly, GRSP agreed to seek consent for a six months extension of the mandate of the informal working group at the March 2012 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3, expecting the submission of a revised proposal for final review at the May 2012 session of GRSP. Experts were invited to provide comments on the proposal (GRSP-50-19-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/33) to the expert of the United States of America, before the deadline for submission of official documents to the May 2012 session of GRSP.

15. Finally, the Chair of GRSP recalled the recommendation made during the December 2010 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/48, para. 37) to all the Chairs of the informal working groups to ensure traceability of expert mandates for their participation in the meetings.

27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.

38. GRSP considered the latest revision of the draft UN Regulation proposed by the informal working group on CRS (GRSP-50-22-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/21 and GRSP-50-18).

39. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/21, as amended by Annex VI [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as a new draft UN Regulation for consideration and vote to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2012 sessions, as a package together with the corresponding amendments to UN Regulation Nos. 14 and 16 (see paragraphs 20 and 23).

40. Finally, GRSP noted that the secretariat would make publicly available prior to the June 2012 session of WP.29, the full set of data of Q dummies, pending a disclaimer to be agreed upon with the dummy manufacturer. Referring to the next meeting of the informal working group, scheduled on 1 February 2012, GRSP recommended that the informal working group focus efforts on examining these dummy data and solicited the participation of experts keen on this matter.

18. GRSP noted GRSP-50-05-Rev.1, tabled by the experts from Belgium and Germany to solve errors in the current text of the Regulation concerning the anchorage angles (α1 and α2) and the seating reference point (R-point). GRSP noted that the proposal had design implication and agreed to continue discussion at its May 2012 session. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-05-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

19. The expert from Spain introduced a proposal (GRSP-50-17) to allow the installation of safety-belt anchorages whose effective upper anchorage point is changing to fit smaller occupants such as children transported on buses and coaches. The expert from Germany argued that such systems were already present on the market and some of these were introducing risks for occupants by assuming a dangerous configuration (GRSP-50-23). GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session, on the basis of a revised proposal jointly prepared by the experts from Germany, Netherlands and Spain. GRSP also agreed to keep GRSP-50-23 as a reference on the agenda of its next session.

20. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Child Restraints Systems (CRS), introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/22 prepared by his group to align UN Regulation No. 14 with the provisions of draft Regulation on child restraint systems (CRS). GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/22, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 sessions for the time being as draft [Supplement 4 to the 07 series of amendments]. GRSP also agreed to recommend its adoption to WP.29 and AC.1 as a full package with the draft UN Regulation on CRS (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/21) and the corresponding amendment to UN Regulation No. 16 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/23).

21. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSP-50-02 in order to provide an installation procedure for CRS that takes into account the position of the seat in front of that to be tested. The expert from OICA raised a study reservation on the proposal. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this matter at its May 2012 session on the basis of a revised proposal jointly prepared by the experts from the Netherlands and OICA.

22. The expert from Spain introduced GRSP-50-15, to allow the installation of universal ISOFIX rearward facing child restraint systems as defined in UN Regulation No. 44. GRSP did not support GRSP-50-15 because of conflicts with the text of the draft UN Regulation on CRS and agreed to remove this matter from the agenda of its May 2012 session.

23. The Chair of the informal working group on CRS, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/23 prepared by his group to match the provisions of UN Regulation No. 16 with those of draft UN Regulation on CRS. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/23, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 sessions for the time being as draft [Supplement 3 to the 06 series of amendments] making the same recommendation for its adoption by WP.29 and AC.1 as per UN Regulation No. 14 (see para. 20).

34. The expert from Germany, Chair of the group of interested experts on Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems (REESS), introduced the last progress report (GRSP-50-24) of the group. He presented the draft proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 100 (GRSP-50-06), aimed at extending the scope of the current UN Regulation and incorporating additional requirements concerning the REESS. He announced that the next meeting of the group was scheduled for 10 to 12 January 2012 within the premises of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) in Brussels.

The proposal received some comments as reflected in GRSP-50-07, tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, proposing broader requirements covering electric vehicles of category L. The expert from the EC welcomed the proposal and confirmed that it was in line with the draft EU Regulation on vehicle functional safety requirements (RVFSR).

GRSP agreed to address GRSP-50-07 to the REESS group and recommended that this group transmit a final consolidated proposal to the secretariat before the deadline for submission of official documents to the May 2012 session of GRSP.

27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.

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.

5. The expert from the United Kingdom, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group:

• (a) The group is expecting to submit an informal document for discussion at the May 2012 session of GRSP, concerning the regulatory text of GTR No.7 Phase 2, including the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy II (BioRID II), namely calibration, seating position, etc.
• (b) The definition of injury criteria progressed well. Nevertheless, concerns remain regarding the reproducibility of the rotational movement of the dummy’s head compared to the cadaver.
• (c) A method to measure the physical height of the head restraint is expected to be submitted as an informal document to the May 2012 session of GRSP.

6. The expert from Japan complemented this information by introducing the third status report of the informal working group (GRSP-50-31). The expert from the United Kingdom invited GRSP experts to provide comments to be incorporated in an updated version of the status report to be submitted to the March sessions of WP.29 and AC.3. He also informed GRSP that the next meeting of the informal working group was planned for in London at the beginning of March 2012.

7. GRSP noted that WP.29, at its November 2011 session while discussing the 1958 Agreement, agreed with the approach of indexing the information for test devices as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3.). Accordingly, the expert from the United Kingdom introduced, for information, a first proposal (GRSP-50-26 and GRSP-50-27) on the basis of some BioRID II technical data.

The expert from Germany expressed concerns on the possible transposition of a future UN GTR on the same subject into the 1958 Agreement. GRSP recommended experts to send further comments in due time to the expert from the United Kingdom to allow him to prepare an updated proposal to the March 2012 session of WP.29 for consideration.

5. The expert from the United Kingdom, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group:

• (a) The group is expecting to submit an informal document for discussion at the May 2012 session of GRSP, concerning the regulatory text of GTR No.7 Phase 2, including the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy II (BioRID II), namely calibration, seating position, etc.
• (b) The definition of injury criteria progressed well. Nevertheless, concerns remain regarding the reproducibility of the rotational movement of the dummy’s head compared to the cadaver.
• (c) A method to measure the physical height of the head restraint is expected to be submitted as an informal document to the May 2012 session of GRSP.

6. The expert from Japan complemented this information by introducing the third status report of the informal working group (GRSP-50-31). The expert from the United Kingdom invited GRSP experts to provide comments to be incorporated in an updated version of the status report to be submitted to the March sessions of WP.29 and AC.3. He also informed GRSP that the next meeting of the informal working group was planned for in London at the beginning of March 2012.

7. GRSP noted that WP.29, at its November 2011 session while discussing the 1958 Agreement, agreed with the approach of indexing the information for test devices as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3.). Accordingly, the expert from the United Kingdom introduced, for information, a first proposal (GRSP-50-26 and GRSP-50-27) on the basis of some BioRID II technical data.

The expert from Germany expressed concerns on the possible transposition of a future UN GTR on the same subject into the 1958 Agreement. GRSP recommended experts to send further comments in due time to the expert from the United Kingdom to allow him to prepare an updated proposal to the March 2012 session of WP.29 for consideration.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal collision introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 through a presentation (GRSP-50-01) on the new terms of reference of the informal working group. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 as reproduced in Annex V [of the session report] and sought the consent of WP.29 at its March 2012 session.

32. GRSP noted GRSP-50-03 tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, introducing test requirements for vehicles equipped with automatically activated door locking systems. The document received some comments and GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this matter on the basis of a revised proposal prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

33. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP on the results of the second Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held. He informed that as a conclusion of the second phase of the programme, LANCAP was promoting the mandatory type approval of vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 94 as well as the mandatory use of type approved CRS to governments of Latin American countries.

8. The expert from Germany, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 9 Phase 2, introduced the terms of references and operating principles (GRSP-50-29) and the first progress report (GRSP-50-30) of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 9 Phase 2. GRSP noted that the main objective of the group should be the introduction of the flexible pedestrian legform (Flex-PLI) into the UN GTR and into the draft UN Regulation on pedestrian safety in the same time. He also asked GRSP experts to provide information on leg injuries to the informal working group. He finally informed GRSP about the intention of the informal working group to submit for consideration, to GRSP a draft proposal at its May 2013 session. GRSP adopted the terms of reference of the informal working group (contained in GRSP-50-29), as reproduced in Annex II to this report and agreed to seek the consent from WP.29 at its March 2012 session. GRSP also agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/13 on the agenda of its future sessions, awaiting the outcome of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 9 Phase 2.

37. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on the proposal to introduce the Flex-PLI into the draft UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/14) to its May 2012 session awaiting the outcome of the informal working group. Finally, it was agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/14, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/20 on the agenda of future sessions of GRSP.

8. The expert from Germany, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 9 Phase 2, introduced the terms of references and operating principles (GRSP-50-29) and the first progress report (GRSP-50-30) of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 9 Phase 2. GRSP noted that the main objective of the group should be the introduction of the flexible pedestrian legform (Flex-PLI) into the UN GTR and into the draft UN Regulation on pedestrian safety in the same time. He also asked GRSP experts to provide information on leg injuries to the informal working group. He finally informed GRSP about the intention of the informal working group to submit for consideration, to GRSP a draft proposal at its May 2013 session. GRSP adopted the terms of reference of the informal working group (contained in GRSP-50-29), as reproduced in Annex II to this report and agreed to seek the consent from WP.29 at its March 2012 session. GRSP also agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/13 on the agenda of its future sessions, awaiting the outcome of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 9 Phase 2.

37. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on the proposal to introduce the Flex-PLI into the draft UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/14) to its May 2012 session awaiting the outcome of the informal working group. Finally, it was agreed to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/14, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/20 on the agenda of future sessions of GRSP.

5. The expert from the United Kingdom, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group:

• (a) The group is expecting to submit an informal document for discussion at the May 2012 session of GRSP, concerning the regulatory text of GTR No.7 Phase 2, including the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy II (BioRID II), namely calibration, seating position, etc.
• (b) The definition of injury criteria progressed well. Nevertheless, concerns remain regarding the reproducibility of the rotational movement of the dummy’s head compared to the cadaver.
• (c) A method to measure the physical height of the head restraint is expected to be submitted as an informal document to the May 2012 session of GRSP.

6. The expert from Japan complemented this information by introducing the third status report of the informal working group (GRSP-50-31). The expert from the United Kingdom invited GRSP experts to provide comments to be incorporated in an updated version of the status report to be submitted to the March sessions of WP.29 and AC.3. He also informed GRSP that the next meeting of the informal working group was planned for in London at the beginning of March 2012.

7. GRSP noted that WP.29, at its November 2011 session while discussing the 1958 Agreement, agreed with the approach of indexing the information for test devices as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3.). Accordingly, the expert from the United Kingdom introduced, for information, a first proposal (GRSP-50-26 and GRSP-50-27) on the basis of some BioRID II technical data.

The expert from Germany expressed concerns on the possible transposition of a future UN GTR on the same subject into the 1958 Agreement. GRSP recommended experts to send further comments in due time to the expert from the United Kingdom to allow him to prepare an updated proposal to the March 2012 session of WP.29 for consideration.

9. GRSP noted that the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3.) at its November 2011 session agreed to develop an amendment (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/148) to UN GTR No. 9 (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1093, para. 128). GRSP noted that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/148 also included the concrete proposal of amendment to the UN GTR. The expert from the Netherlands introduced the final status report (GRSP-50-32) complementing the proposal. However, concerning the justification for changes of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/148, the expert from the EC expressed disagreement on paragraphs 5 to 7, agreed on paragraph 8 and raised a study reservation on paragraphs 10 and 12.

10. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this agenda item at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-32 with an official symbol.

27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.

27. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/25 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/31, both not amended, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/32 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/28, both as amended by Annex IV [of the session report], and GRSP-50-14 as reproduced in Annex IV [of the session report]. The secretariat was requested to submit all the proposals to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2012 session as draft Supplement 5 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44.

28. GRSP did not support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/26, that matched the corresponding proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 22 above) and postponed discussions on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/27 awaiting a revised wording of paragraph 6.1.5. Finally, the expert from Spain withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/29 and introduced GRSP-50-16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/30. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-50-16 with an official symbol for consideration at its May 2012 session.

29. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRSP-50-08 on inflatable CRS, to provide information on this system sold in the European market and [his doubtful opinion on its compliance] with UN Regulation No. 44. He showed a video presentation (GRSP-50-25) on the risks (i.e. submarining of CRS occupants) introduced by the system. The expert from the Czech Republic argued (GRSP-50-21) that his administration had been granting successful type approvals to inflatable CRS since 2008. Accordingly, the expert from the Netherlands made a proposal (GRSP-50-33-Rev.1) to prevent different interpretations of the lap belt position during dynamic test of CRS secured by adult safety belts, such as inflatable CRS. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-33-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

30. The expert from CLEPA provided further information to GRSP (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25) on the so called belt guide device and test results of this system, as a followup of the May 2011 session of GRSP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/49, para. 28). GRSP noted that the Hungarian administration granted a type approval to this device according to Regulation No. 44. However, it was also noted that the device was banned in several countries. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP that his administration had started an action to withdraw the approval but that it was incomplete due to a legal challenge by the manufacturer. The guidance provided in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1059 (resolving interpretation issues and requirements for the Technical Services in the framework of the 1958 Agreement) was noted and GRSP agreed that it could offer clarity regarding the technical requirements associated with a particular UN Regulation to assist in disputes among technical services of Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

Concerning the belt guide device, GRSP agreed on the principle (GRSP-50-34) that a guide strap was meant as a part of CRS and therefore could not be individually approved as a CRS under UN Regulation No. 44. Moreover, GRSP expressed concerns on the safety of this device. Finally, GRSP agreed to continue discussion on this matter on the basis of information on possible actions taken by competent Type Approval Authority of Contracting Parties to the Agreement on this issue.