Position paper advocating for the regulation of airborne emissions originating with tyre wear.

Proposal to clarify the Russian text to improve its alignments with the English version.

Proposal to clarify the height requirements for the installation of the dipped-beam headlamp, reversing lamp and rear fog lamp for vehicles of category G (designed for off-road use).

Russia-coordinated effort to reconcile divergent views on the concept for type authority review of other type approval authority decisions on cybersecurity management system certification.

Proposal to add checks under the current tests:

• damage to seat attachments
• occupant compartment hazards (e.g., risk of impact by loose objects such as fire extinguisher) and
• post-crash functionality of escape hatches (including force required to open)

Proposal agreed by interested Contracting Parties to resolve concerns regarding “peer review” of cybersecurity type approvals.

The Russian Approval Authority had concluded that the product brand “Braxx”, type “Smart Kid Belt” approved according to UN Regulation No. 44, approval No. E20 44R-04 4013 granted by Poland on 11 July 2017, cannot be considered as a child restraint system.

Proposal for additional checks following complete vehicle tests:

1. destruction of seats mounts. The break-off and displacement of seats is not covered by the current Regulation, since they are initially located inside the residual space and their displacement is not assessed;
2. injury-causing objects entering the residual space and moving within it (e.g., if a person is hit by a fire extinguisher or other object when the vehicle overturns, it may cause serious or even fatal injuries).

Proposal to clarify the verification procedures after the strength test. The proposal addresses destruction of seat mounts, injury-causing objects entering the residual space and moving within it, and emergency hatches.

Proposal to improve the text with editorial clarifications and restructuring.

Proposal to clarify that the Approval Authority should postpone granting a cybersecurity management approval in the absence of agreement on the common interpretation of a provision where the interpretation of the Approval Authority has raised comments from other authorities under the review procedure provided for in paragraph 5.3.4.

The provision in paragraph 5.3.5. may need clarification on what the granting Approval Authority should do, if that Authority can’t take into account the comments received as per paragraph 5.3.4. Should it continue processing with granting the approval or postpone granting? The proposal is to clarify that the Approval Authority should postpone granting the approval until the agreement on the common interpretation of the questioned issue is reached.