User feedback and misuse analysis.

EPOCH demonstrated that the head vertical plane may need to be increased for Q10.
Tests comparisons between P10 & Q10 on the R44 & R129 bench performed by BRITAX & DOREL : Q10 with no CRS has 770 mm – 790 mm vertical head excursion (actual limit is at 840 mm).
R129 required head position for booster cushion to be in range 770 mm – 910mm in static test.
CRS that place head above 840 mm will fail dynamic requirements.
Propose making dynamic head vertical limit requirement consistent with head position requirement.
Proposal : Increase the AD limit to 910 mm from Cr and cancel the DE limit or take into account the head excursion only the loading phase, up to a time of x ms (max head forward displacement).

Question from OICA : All presented tests was performed with ISOFIX connection between the test bench and the booster, could you test without the use of ISOFIX connection ?
BRITAX/ DOREL will perform new test without ISOFIX anchors in use
Question form European Commission : are you sure that there is no influence on the dummy kinematics & results from the deceleration sled & acceleration sled ?
TAKATA (Reiner NETT) will do test in their acceleration sled to check if there is still a vertical displacement of the dummy in rebound phase with Q10 in booster seat.

Presentation of a question and answer information sheet on the introduction of UN Regulation No. 129.

30. Finally, GRSP considered GRSP-55-37 and GRSP-55-38 tabled by the expert from CLEPA, as a basis for a draft brochure, in the framework of a coordinated information campaign on UN Regulation No. 129. GRSP requested its experts to provide a final text for the December 2014 session of GRSP.

Britax/Römer CAD investigation of child seat stature limitations and investigation into seat installation with children.

Presentation detailing non-compliance issues identified in child seat belt guides and inflatable child seat systems.

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.

14. Referring to the request made by the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work of WP.29 (WP.29/AC.2) (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1155, para. 30), GRSP resumed discussion on the belt-guide device type approved as Child Restraint System (CRS) according to UN Regulation No. 44 by the Type Approval Authority of Poland. The expert from the Netherlands introduced a presentation (GRSP-68-24), showing additional test results performed on the belt-guide. He added that the tests confirmed the conclusion laid out in document GRSP-67-05, introduced at the July 2020 session of GRSP and in addition showed that the device does not conform to the dynamic test requirements when tested with the P10 dummy. Therefore, he stated:

1. The belt-guide was not in the scope of the UN Regulation and could not be type approved; as such, the type approval should be withdrawn.
2. The device did not meet several requirements, both technical and with regard to instructions for users and therefore approval should not have been granted.
3. The car design determines the level of protection for a great deal of cases and may result in submarining and/or in injuries in the abdominal area, since the device sold as a child restraint does not offer adequate protection or guidance in this respect.
4. The device could offer better protection than the adult belt itself but lacks the additional protection of a CRS.
5. Since approval of this device was issued erroneously, it shall be withdrawn, and Market Surveillance Authorities should be informed.

1. During last year there had been numerous different unsubstantiated allegations against the belt guide, e.g.: submarining (GRSP-50-09 and GRSP-50-25), vertical component (GRSP-65-20), risk of abdominal injury. However, he added these allegations were not demonstrated.
2. Type-approval tests according to the UN Regulation requirements were conducted by Polish technical service – PIMOT in 2017, which conducted more than 160 tests by using dummies required by the UN regulation (P3, P6 and P10 type), showing satisfactory results.

He concluded that in December 2019, after comparative tests with other CRS showed problems with other type-approved CRS, the discussion in GRSP should be broadened to focus on other CRS as well. The expert from Spain, stated that the focus should be on the interpretation that a belt-guide and similar devices cannot be separately approved as a CRS.