The document addresses how to define and measure effective seat belt webbing length for buses of category M₂/M₃. It proposes defining effective length by pulling the lap belt at the geometrical midpoint under a 60-degree angle to form an equilateral triangle, where the leg on the buckle side defines 50 percent of pursued effective length for 2-point belts and 25 percent for 3-point belts. Additional webbing for attachment, handling, connection to spool, and spool length must be added based on seat design and geometry. The proposal suggests the definition may work using diagonal belt alone in the ghost position and questions where to include it in UN R173.

UN R145 and UN R173 establish optional ISOFIX installation for vehicles of category M₂ and M₃. ISOFIX seating positions require compatibility with specific Child Restraint Fixture volumes and lower isofix forward strength of 8kN. I-Size seating positions require minimum 440mm distance between adjacent positions, compatibility with ISO/F2X and ISO/R2, and additional support leg strength testing. The document proposes allowing labels on bus windows and removing marking requirements for M₂ and M₃ from UN R145.

CLEPA draft as revised during the subgroup session. Marked up version with revisions also available.

Proposal first presented to the ACSF informal group for a type-approval mechanism to control for updates to software dependent systems.

OICA and CLEPA joint comments on the proposal in document TFCS-12-08.

Proposal for wording regarding vehicle manufacturer responsibility for supplier cybersecurity: “The vehicle manufacturer shall demonstrate that he has processes in place with his suppliers to ensure cybersecurity.”

Proposal to introduce provisions into the cybersecurity recommendations paper and draft UN Regulation addressing access to in-vehicle data, functions and resources by independent aftermarket service providers.

Proposal to add para. 3.2.3.1. requiring manufacturers to provide additional information on the Cyber Security Management System at request of the Approval Authority when the Certificate of Compliance for CSMS is issued by a different Approval Authority, add para. 5.1.5. allowing the Approval Authority to refuse type approval if insufficient information on the CSMS and its implementation was provided, and add para. 7.4.1.1. requiring all granting Approval Authorities to be included in reporting when different Approval Authorities are used for the Certificate of Compliance for CSMS and type approval of the vehicle type.