|
Corrigendum 1 to Revision 3 of the Regulation
(2005)
|
|
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 05 series of amendments | Supplement 4 | Corrigendum 1
(2004)
|
5
|
4
|
1
|
|
|
UN R14 | 05 series of amendments | Supplement 4
(2003)
|
5
|
4
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 05 series of amendments | Supplement 5
(2004)
|
5
|
5
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Corrigendum 3
(2005)
|
6
|
|
3
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Corrigendum 2
(2005)
|
6
|
|
2
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Corrigendum 1
(2004)
|
6
|
|
1
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments
(2004)
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Corrigendum 4
(2006)
|
6
|
|
4
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Corrigendum 5
(2012)
|
6
|
|
5
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Supplement 1
(2005)
|
6
|
1
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Supplement 2
(2006)
|
6
|
2
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Supplement 3
(2007)
|
6
|
3
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Supplement 4
(2009)
|
6
|
4
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 06 series of amendments | Supplement 5
(2009)
|
6
|
5
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments
(2009)
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments | Supplement 1
(2010)
|
7
|
1
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments | Supplement 2
(2012)
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion from 152nd WP.29 session (9-12
Nov 2010)
|
|
18. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29 at its November 2010 session to refer ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 back to GRSP for further consideration (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1087, para. 3c) of the mandatory installation of a universal ISOFIX anchorage system in the front seat instead of the rear seat, under certain conditions. Accordingly, GRSP considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/120 amended by GRSP-48-39 (superseding GRSP-48-32 and GRSP-48-17) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.
19. Following the presentation made by the expert from Germany on the marking of top tether (GRSP-48-16), GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/30 amended by GRSP-48-15, as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as part of (see. para. 18) draft Supplement 2 to the 07 Series of amendments to Regulation No. 14.
20. GRSP also considered and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32 (amended by GRSP-48-25) as reproduced in Annex II to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2011 sessions as draft Corrigendum 1 to Revision 4 to Regulation No. 14.
21. Referring to the possibility of installing side-facing seats, under certain conditions, the expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/33, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35. The expert from EC stated that research studies clearly demonstrated that side-facing seats could not provide best protection to occupants. Accordingly, he recommended against installing child restraint systems on such type of seats.
22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session together with corresponding amendments to Regulations Nos. 16, 17 and 80, based on a revised proposal (encompassing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/32, GRSP-48-02 and GRSP-48-35) to be prepared by the experts from Belgium and Germany.
[Note: Annex II can be found by clicking the above link to view the full session report.]
|
|
WP.29/2011/54: Amendments integrated into the regulation with Revision 5. With 34 of the 42 Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2011/54, as amended by para. 49 per the session report, by a vote of 34 in favor, 0 opposed, with 0 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
Discussion from 154th WP.29 session (21-24
Jun 2011)
|
|
49. Agenda item 4.6.1, Regulation No. 14, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/54, page 2, paragraph 5.3.8.4.(c), correct the reference to footnote 1 and footnote 1 to read 3, and page 3, add new paragraphs 14.17 to 14.19, to read:
“14.17. As from the official date of entry into force of Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments, no Contracting Party applying this Regulation shall refuse to grant UNECE type approval under this Regulation as amended by Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments.
14.18. As from 12 months after the official date of entry into force of Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall grant UN type approvals only to those types of vehicle which comply with the requirements of this Regulation as amended by Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments.
14.19. Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall not refuse to grant extensions of approvals, even if Supplement 2 to the 07 series of amendments is not fulfilled."
|
|
7
|
2
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments | Supplement 3
(2012)
|
WP.29/2011/116: Amendments integrated into the regulation via Revision 5. With 34 of the 43 Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2011/116 by a vote of 34 in favor, 0 opposed, with 0 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
Discussion from 155th WP.29 session (15-18
Nov 2011)
|
|
|
|
7
|
3
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments | Supplement 4
(2013)
|
WP.29/2012/42: Text adopted by the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) at its fiftieth session to align UN Regulation No. 14 with the provisions of draft Regulation on Child Restraint Systems (CRS).
|
|
|
|
Discussion from 157th WP.29 session (26-29
Jun 2012)
|
|
As noted in paragraph 47 above under agenda item 4.7, the World Forum agreed to postpone consideration of this item pending the adoption of the draft UN Regulation on Child Restraint Systems.
Proposal unanimously adopted.
|
|
WP.29/2012/97: Text adopted by the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) to update provisions of UN Regulation No. 14 in order to delete erroneous cross-references in text, making reference only the "adjusting system" which is defined in section 2 of the Regulation.
|
|
|
|
Discussion from 158th WP.29 session (13-16
Nov 2012)
|
|
|
|
7
|
4
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments | Supplement 5
(2014)
|
WP.29/2013/103: Proposal as approved by the GRSP to introduce exemptions for vehicles not intended for transporting children during normal use.
|
|
|
|
Discussion from 161st WP.29 session (12-15
Nov 2013)
|
|
[Proposal adopted.]
|
|
7
|
5
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments | Supplement 6
(2016)
|
WP.29/2015/46: Proposal to introduce provisions for ISOFIX in convertible cars, to exempt vehicles with one seating position per row from the ISOFIX provisions of UN R14 and to correct an editorial error in Supplement 4 to the 07 series of the regulation, as adopted by the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) at its 54th session. This proposal supersedes the earlier proposal submitted to WP.29 (document WP.29/2014/34) which was returned by WP.29 to GRSP for further consideration.
|
|
|
|
Discussion from 166th WP.29 session (23-26
Jun 2015)
|
|
12. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/3, aimed at improving the provisions concerning vehicles of category M1 having only one seat row and introducing a new definition of “bucket seat”. The expert from the Netherlands noted that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2015/46, submitted for consideration and voting at the June 2015 session of WP.29 was amending the same provisions and that further proposal of amendments would create confusion. The expert from OICA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/3. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2015 session and requested the secretariat to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/3 as a reference in the agenda of that session.
|
|
7
|
6
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments | Supplement 6 | Corrigendum 1
(2019)
|
7
|
6
|
1
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments | Supplement 7
(2017)
|
7
|
7
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 07 series of amendments | Supplement 8
(2018)
|
WP.29/2017/58: Proposal to align UN R14 with recent changes to UN R16 on occupant restraint systems. Two “Booster Seat” fixtures (ISO/B2 and ISO/B3) were added to UN R16 to coincide with the implementation of Phase 2 of UN R129 (enhanced child restraint systems). These fixtures were developed within ISO/TC 22/SC 36/WG 2 (Child Restraint Systems) and follow the principle already established in Regulations 16 and 129 to ensure child restraint to car compatibility. An additional “Reduced-Size Rearward Facing toddler CRS” fixture (ISO/R2x) was added to facilitate compatibility in small cars/seating positions. The ISO/B2 booster seat fixture was added in the i-Size concept. Lateral facing fixtures (ISO/L1 and ISO/L2) have been upgraded. With 37 of the Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2017/58 by a vote of 37 in favor, 0 opposed, with 0 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
|
|
|
07 series of amendments
| Supplement 9
(Adopted)
|
WP.29/2021/108: Proposal from GRSP to correct an inconsistency in Annex 6 – Appendix 1 with regard to the minimum number of lower anchorages for folding seats. With 37 of the 50 Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2021/108 by a vote of 36 in favor, 0 opposed, with 1 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
7
|
9
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 08 series of amendments
(2018)
|
WP.29/2017/128: Proposal to transfer all ISOFIX requirements from UN R14 into a new UN Regulation. Within the context of the international whole vehicle type approval program, the removal of these CRS anchorage provisions would align UN R14 with its Australian Design Rule counterpart and enable Australia to apply the revised UN R14 narrowed down to adult seat-belt anchorages only. With 35 of the 47 Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2017/128 by a vote of 35 in favor, 0 opposed, with 0 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
08 series of amendments
| Supplement 1
(Adopted)
|
WP.29/2021/109: Proposal from GRSP to correct an inconsistency in Annex 6 – Appendix 1 with regard to the minimum number of lower anchorages for folding seats. With 37 of the 50 Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2021/109 by a vote of 36 in favor, 0 opposed, with 1 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
8
|
1
|
|
|
|
UN R14 | 09 series of amendments
(2018)
|
WP.29/2018/44: Proposal to clarify the text of UN R14. The current text has produced differing interpretations among Technical Services with regard to which requirements apply to central seating positions in rear rows of category M1 and N1 vehicles and the minimum distance between two effective lower belt anchorages (L1 and L2). The proposed amendments clarify that a reduced minimum distance of 240 mm is only allowed in the case where there is only one central seating position (i.e. in a row of 3 seating positions). Rear seat rows with an even number of seats always shall have a distance of at least 350 mm. Given that it entails new requirements, the proposal is presented as a new series of amendments with transitional provisions (starting from September 2019 through into 2025). With 35 of the 48 Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2018/44 by a vote of 35 in favor, 0 opposed, with 0 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
Discussion from 175th WP.29 session (18-22
Jun 2018)
|
|
79. The World Forum considered the draft amendments under agenda items 4.6.1 to 4.6.8, and recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting.
80. The Chair of GRSP presented proposals on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/44 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2018/45 under agenda items 4.6.9 and 4.6.10, to amend UN Regulations No. 14 and No. 129, in the spirit of providing the highest level of safety for children.
81. The proposal on amendments to UN Regulation No. 129 was commended by CI as the last phase for a full replacement of UN Regulation No. 44, which had not been designed to fully avoid the wrong use of child restraint systems. He recalled that the shortcomings of UN Regulation No. 44, had been raised by consumer groups ten years ago which had led to the decision to stop further developing UN Regulation No. 44 and to start a new UN Regulation. He declared that his organization and ANEC were satisfied by UN Regulations No. 129 that entails not only better protection of children, but makes Child Restraint Systems (CRS) easier to use. He expressed his thank to all the stakeholders involved, and in particular Mr. P. Castaing, Chair of the IWG, for their contributions to this result. He recommended the phasing out of UN Regulation No. 44 as early as possible to avoid confusion among consumers and allow only UN Regulation No. 129 that offers the highest level of protection. He clarified that since 1 September 2017, integral ISOFIX CRS were no longer approved under UN Regulation No. 44, and this would be the case also for non-integral Group 2 and Group 2/3 seats from 1 September 2019. Finally, he announced that for belted integral systems his organization would submit a proposal at the GRSP 2018 December session to stop type approvals according to UN Regulation No. 44.
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
09 series of amendments
| Supplement 1
(2021)
|
WP.29/2020/50: Proposal to transpose the provisions on minimum number of anchorage points and location of lower anchorages from Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). With 40 of the 50 Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2020/50 by a vote of 40 in favor, 0 opposed, with 0 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
9
|
1
|
|
|
|
09 series of amendments
| Supplement 2
(Adopted)
|
WP.29/2021/110: Proposal from GRSP to correct an inconsistency in Annex 6 – Appendix 1 with regard to the minimum number of lower anchorages for folding seats. With 37 of the 50 Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2021/110 by a vote of 36 in favor, 0 opposed, with 1 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
9
|
2
|
|
|
|
09 series of amendments
| Supplement 3
(Adopted)
|
WP.29/2023/113: Proposal for the introduction of three-point safety-belts for buses and coaches (all M2 and M3 vehicle categories) on adult seats facing a built-in Child Restraint System (CRS). With 37 of the 52 Contracting Parties applying UN R14 present and voting, AC.1 adopted document WP.29/2023/113 by a vote of 37 in favor, 0 opposed, with 0 abstaining.
|
|
|
|
9
|
3
|
|
|
|
09 series of amendments
| Supplement 4
(Informal GR review)
|
GRSP-76-33: Proposal to allow the FMVSS FAD test to be performed as an alternative to the current
UN R14 test using the body blocks.
|
|
|
|
9
|
4
|
|
|
|
10 series of amendments
(Formal GR review)
|
GRSP/2023/27: Proposal to enhance the safety of the belted passenger seated behind a seat by removing the two of the derogations for two-point belts in buses and coaches laid down in paragraphs 5.3.5. to 5.3.5.4.
|
|
|
|
Discussion from 74th GRSP session (4-8
Dec 2023)
|
|
11. The expert from Finland introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2023/27 to propose a new series of amendments to UN Regulations Nos. 14 that removes the derogations for the two-point safety belts. The expert from France and Italy requested more information and supporting evidence. While the experts from Norway and Sweden supported the proposal, the expert from the United Kingdom requested further statistical data to support the proposal. The expert from Australia stated that he would like to provide further data to clarify the way forward in view of was insufficiently support for the proposal. On the suggestion of the GRSP Chair, the Group agreed to resume discussion at its May 2024 session based on further statistical data and a cost-benefit analysis, and then to conclude on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2023/27.
9. GRSP agreed to discuss ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2023/27 under agenda item 7 (see paragraph 11 below).
11. GRSP resumed discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2023/29 which complements ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2023/27 on safety-belt anchorages and removes derogations for two-point safety-belts on buses and coaches. The expert from Finland, author of the proposals, informed GRSP that he could not provide global statistical data, due to a lack of resources, to justify his proposal as requested by GRSP at its December 2023 session to justify his proposal. The expert from Australia stated that he supported in principle the proposal. However, he added that the lack of worldwide statistical evidence hamper a world view of the situation. The expert from CI that the removal of two-point safety-belts would ease to secure children in buses. The expert from Sweden supported the proposal. The expert from the Russian Federation stated that three-points safety-belts would be better than the two-points safety-belts and proposed to further the benefits through studies. He also proposed to verify the benefits of adjusting the height of effective upper anchorage point to accommodate occupants of different sizes. The expert from Italy argued that the three-points safety-belts could be detrimental. The expert from Germany questioned the effectiveness of the three-points safety-belts in buses. He explained that the majority of injuries in buses were from flying objects or due to ejection outside of the occupant compartment during crashes. The expert from France informed GRSP that three-points safety-belts reduce injuries in the event of frontal impacts. However, he added that 50 per cent of accidents in buses were caused by roll over and in these cases three-points safety-belts would cause neck injuries. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this topic waiting statistical studies voluntarily provided by the expert from France and Sweden.
|
|
10
|
|
|
|