Submission from the Netherlands to more precisely explain the phrase “positively guide the lap strap” to prevent erroneous interpretations of the dynamic test procedure under UN R44.

Submission aimed at preventing different interpretations of the phrase “positively guide the lap strap” during the dynamic test.

Updated proposal from the Netherlands to prevent different interpretations of the phrase “positively guide the lap strap” during the dynamic test.

Proposal from the Netherlands to prevent different interpretations of the phrase “positively guide the lap strap” during the dynamic test prescribed in UN R44.

Correction of an error in the earlier Corrigendum 1 to Supplement 5 to the 03 series of UN Regulation No. 44.

The present requirement for booster with belt guides for the diagonal belt is more stringent than for boosters without belt guides. This proposal aligns the requirement for belt disengagement with the requirements for other child restraint systems ((e.g. the displacement criteria and the criteria as indicated in Annex 15, para. 6.2.4.) and at the same time proposes new language to clarify the affected text.

Proposal to clarify the requirements for CRS utilizing the seat belt lap strap in order to ensure correct installation and testing and to avoid possibly dangerous misinterpretation to the test configuration.

Proposal to resolve divergent interpretations with regard to child restraint systems in UN Regulation No. 44.

Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement allows for a Unique Identifier (UI) under the DETA system as an alternative to the current approval mark. In the case of child restraint systems, the approval mark contains important information for users. Therefore, this proposal would prohibit replacement of the approval mark by the UI.

Proposal to resolve divergent interpretations with regard to child restraint systems in UN Regulation No. 44, superseding document GRSP/2016/18.

Proposal to add the Q0 infant test dummy to the UN R44 procedures in response to problems encountered in acquiring the currently specified P0 dummy.

Explanation of the proposals in document GRSP/2016/18 intended to resolve divergent interpretations with regard to child restraint systems in UN Regulation No. 44.

Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement allows for a Unique Identifier (UI) under the DETA system as an alternative to the current approval mark. In the case of child restraint systems, the approval mark contains important information for users. Therefore, this proposal would prohibit replacement of the approval mark by the UI.

Proposal to clarify the requirements for CRS utilizing the seat belt lap strap in order to ensure correct installation and testing and to avoid possibly dangerous misinterpretation to the test configuration.

Proposal to add the Q0 infant test dummy to the UN R44 procedures in response to problems encountered in acquiring the currently specified P0 dummy.

Improved explanations for the proposal to clarify the requirements for CRS utilizing the seat belt lap strap in order to ensure correct installation and testing and to avoid possibly dangerous misinterpretation to the test configuration.

In line with amendments presented in document GRSP/2017/13 and adopted by GRSP to clarify the seat belt installation procedure for testing integral child restraint systems (in order to ensure proper evaluation of potential injury risks), this proposal recommends corresponding amendments to address non-integral child restraint systems (e.g., booster seats).

Updated and amended proposal based on formal document GRSP/2017/39. This proposal requires the checking of non-integral child restraints (e.g., booster seats) for risk of injuries caused by narrow contact with buckle and safety-belt.

Proposal to require checking of non-integral child restraints (e.g., booster seats) for risk of injuries caused by narrow contact with buckle and safety-belt such as may be caused by strong local pressure from twisted buckles, belts, or tongues.

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).