18. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-63-23, to clarify which requirements should be applied to approve the safety-belt of the driver’s. GRSP endorsed the proposal and agreed to finalize its discussion by combining GRSP-63-23 with GRSP-63-01-Rev.1 under agenda item 24 (see para. 42 below).

42. The expert from EC introduced GRSP-63-01-Rev.1, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/27 on the information of the airbag warning label about correctly installing CRS on a passenger seat with an activated frontal airbag. GRSP noted that the proposal also incorporated GRSP-63-01-Rev.1 (see para. 18 above). GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/27, as amended by Annex X to the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal for consideration and vote at the November 2018 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as:

1. Draft 08 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16
2. Draft Supplement 15 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44
3. Draft Supplement 1 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94
4. Part of (see paras. 31 and 34 above) draft Supplement 5 to the 01 series of amendments, as part of (see paras. 31 and 34 above) draft Supplement 4 to the 02 series of amendments and as part of (see paras. 31 and 34 above) draft Supplement 1 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129 and
5. Draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 137.

46. The expert from the Republic of Korea introduced GRSP-63-21 on the current harmonization activity of Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (KMVSS) with UN Regulations and UN GTRs on occupant protection and fuel integrity system. He introduced the strategy of the roadmap of the Korean New Car Assessment Programme (KNCAP) for the period 2019-2023.

43. Finally, the expert from OICA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2018/9.

39. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-62-14, as an alternative proposal to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/27 tabled by the expert from EC, concerning the information in the airbag warning label on the correct installation of CRS on a passenger seat with an activated frontal airbag. He suggested that the proposal should be adopted as a new series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (Safety-belts) instead of a Supplement and to regroup these kind of requirements in UN Regulation No. 16 only. He also underlined the problem of translation in all languages of the detailed information, which makes reference to the warning, that should be contained in the owner’s manual.

40. The expert from Australia explained that his country requires vehicles to be fitted with an airbag warning label through a national rule that requires vehicles to meet UN Regulation No. 94. He added that although his country also had a national rule that incorporates UN Regulation No. 16, this rule does not require vehicles to meet the airbag warning label requirements of UN Regulation No. 16. Therefore, he stated that removing the requirement for an airbag warning label from UN Regulation No. 94 would create a loophole, which would allow vehicles to be supplied to the Australian market without any airbag warning label.

41. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2018 session. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-62-14 with an official symbol at the next session awaiting a possible revised proposal submitted by the expert from OICA.

39. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-62-14, as an alternative proposal to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/27 tabled by the expert from EC, concerning the information in the airbag warning label on the correct installation of CRS on a passenger seat with an activated frontal airbag. He suggested that the proposal should be adopted as a new series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16 (Safety-belts) instead of a Supplement and to regroup these kind of requirements in UN Regulation No. 16 only. He also underlined the problem of translation in all languages of the detailed information, which makes reference to the warning, that should be contained in the owner’s manual.

40. The expert from Australia explained that his country requires vehicles to be fitted with an airbag warning label through a national rule that requires vehicles to meet UN Regulation No. 94. He added that although his country also had a national rule that incorporates UN Regulation No. 16, this rule does not require vehicles to meet the airbag warning label requirements of UN Regulation No. 16. Therefore, he stated that removing the requirement for an airbag warning label from UN Regulation No. 94 would create a loophole, which would allow vehicles to be supplied to the Australian market without any airbag warning label.

41. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2018 session. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-62-14 with an official symbol at the next session awaiting a possible revised proposal submitted by the expert from OICA.

42. The expert from EC introduced GRSP-63-01-Rev.1, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/27 on the information of the airbag warning label about correctly installing CRS on a passenger seat with an activated frontal airbag. GRSP noted that the proposal also incorporated GRSP-63-01-Rev.1 (see para. 18 above). GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/27, as amended by Annex X to the session report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal for consideration and vote at the November 2018 sessions of WP.29 and AC.1 as:

1. Draft 08 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 16
2. Draft Supplement 15 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 44
3. Draft Supplement 1 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94
4. Part of (see paras. 31 and 34 above) draft Supplement 5 to the 01 series of amendments, as part of (see paras. 31 and 34 above) draft Supplement 4 to the 02 series of amendments and as part of (see paras. 31 and 34 above) draft Supplement 1 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 129 and
5. Draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 137.

43. The expert from EC introduced GRSP-61-29, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30, to harmonize the information of the airbag warning label on the correct installation of CRS. The expert from France argued that the proposed size of the area for part number marking (5 mm x 20 mm) was too small. The expert from OICA raised the same concern and a study reservation. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2017 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-61-29 with an official symbol.

31. The expert from the Republic of Korea introduced GRSP-61-24 to inform GRSP about research and safety testing activities on L7 categories of vehicles. She also stated that Korea is planning to develop a frontal collision requirement for L7 category vehicles. The expert from EC informed GRSP that a study by the European Union on an initial assessment of additional functional safety of L7 vehicles was available. However, he added that the study did not show enough crash-worthiness data to justify an action plan. Moreover, he offered his availability, if needed, to cooperate with the expert from the Republic of Korea to adapt existing UN Regulations or in the development of a new UN Regulations to address this issue. The expert from France added that the fleet of L7 categories was increasing in his country and he volunteered to provide domestic accident data at the December 2017 session of GRSP. The Chair of GRSP, recalling a previous presentation made by the expert of his country at the May 2016 session (see GRSP-59-18) stressed the need to address the roadworthiness issue related to this category of vehicles, especially frontal collision as performed by Euro NCAP (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1126, para. 86). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this issue at its December 2017 session on the basis of further research data and follow-up by WP.29 at its November 2017 session.

48. Refer to agenda item 14 (see para. 31).

86. The representative of Euro NCAP presented the development and outcome of their crash tests campaign with L7 category vehicles. He stated that four vehicles had been displayed on the grounds of the Palais de Nations in an exposition organized with the support of the secretariat. He presented (WP.29-170-38) the results of crash tests on eight different models of L7 category vehicles and highlighted the reasons why these vehicles received low ratings (between zero and two stars on the five-star scale). He stressed that the crash-worthiness of L7 vehicles was substandard and that more stringent regulations on the safety and the construction of these types of vehicles would be justified.

48. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP (GRSP-59-01) about his support to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30, to harmonize the information of the airbag warning label on the correct installation of Child Restraint Systems (CRS). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2016 session to allow experts to provide fully their detailed comments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30.

42. In absence of new information, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this subject to its May 2017 session.

64. The World Forum considered the draft corrigendum under agenda item 4.11.1 and recommended its submission to AC.1 for voting.

24. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-58-14 proposing to introduce a provision on airbag de-activation switches; this would be in line with EuroNCAP requirements and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session and experts were recommended to provide comments on GRSP-58-14 to the expert from Australia before the end of January 2016 to allow the submission of a revised official proposal.

38. The expert from the Russian Federation introduced GRSP-58-02 aiming at correcting the speed of test impact in the Russian text. GRSP adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex III to this report and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their March 2016 sessions as draft Corrigendum 3 to the 01 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 94.

46. The expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30, aimed at clarifying guidance to parents installing a CRS on a seating position protected by an air-bag. He suggested that experts study the proposal until the May 2016 session of GRSP and to provide fully detailed comments. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its next session.

48. The expert from Hungary informed GRSP (GRSP-59-01) about his support to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30, to harmonize the information of the airbag warning label on the correct installation of Child Restraint Systems (CRS). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2016 session to allow experts to provide fully their detailed comments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30.

42. In absence of new information, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this subject to its May 2017 session.

43. The expert from EC introduced GRSP-61-29, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/30, to harmonize the information of the airbag warning label on the correct installation of CRS. The expert from France argued that the proposed size of the area for part number marking (5 mm x 20 mm) was too small. The expert from OICA raised the same concern and a study reservation. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2017 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-61-29 with an official symbol.

33. The expert from France, Chair of the Frontal Impact IWG, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/11 as the final draft UN Regulation on frontal impact with focus on the restraint system, with a thorax compression criterion (ThCC) of 42 mm. He also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/12, amended by GRSP-57-01 to require ThCC limit at 34 mm in the 01 series of amendments to the UN Regulation. The expert from Japan suggested also aligning the provisions of the draft UN Regulation with the new Camera-Monitor Systems provisions of UN Regulation No. 46 (see para. 27 above). GRSP noted also the lack of availability of drawings and specification of the 5th percentile female dummy and agreed to insert a footnote as a reminder to interested parties to provide the above mentioned specifications in time for adoption of the draft UN Regulation by WP.29 and AC.1. GRSP considered GRSP-57-29-Rev.1, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/11 and incorporating all the comments received during the discussion (including GRSP-57-02). Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/11 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/12, both as amended by Annex V to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit for consideration and vote to WP.29 and AC.1 at their November 2015 sessions:
(i) ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/11 as new draft UN Regulation on frontal impact with focus on the restraint system and
(ii) ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/12 as 01 series of amendments to the new UN Regulation.

The expert from France introduced GRSP-57-31, for information only, to provide further justification of the biomechanical chest deflection thresholds introduced in the draft UN Regulation.

43. The expert from EC introduced GRSP-57-11-Rev.1, showing that some vehicle manufacturers are providing disharmonized information in the airbag warning label to protect children. He explained that his proposal aimed at providing clearer guidance to parents installing CRS on seating position protected by an air-bag. The expert from OICA stated that the proposal needed a study reservation and the expert from Germany required further rationales and justification to substantiate the proposal. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2015 session on the basis of a new proposal prepared by the expert from EC in coordination with the experts from CLEPA and OICA.

26. The expert from France, Chair of the frontal impact (FI) IWG, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/7 to align the UN Regulation No. 94 with the provisions of new draft UN Regulation (full-width frontal collision) on the protection of older occupants. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/7, as amended by Annex III (including GRSP-57-02) to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/7 as amended to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2015 sessions as draft 03 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 94.

27. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/13 aligning the provisions of UN Regulation No. 94 with the new provisions on Camera-Monitor Systems provisions in UN Regulation No. 46 (Devices for indirect vision). GRSP adopted the proposal, as reproduced by Annex III (including GRSP-57-02), and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their November 2015 sessions, as draft Supplement 6 to the 02 series of amendments and as part of (see para. 26) the draft 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94.

41. GRSP noted the request of WP.29 (WP.29-165-16) to change the definition of Rechargeable Energy Storage System (REESS) in Rechargeable Electric Energy Storage System and maintaining the same acronym REESS in all UN Regulations under GRSP responsibilities (where REESS is present). It was noted that this was needed to avoid confusion with Rechargeable Storage Systems of different kinds (such as mechanical storage systems). Accordingly, GRSP adopted GRSP-57-02 as reproduced in Annex VI of the report. The secretariat was requested to submit it to the November 2015 session of WP.29 and AC.1 as draft: (i) Supplement 4 to the 04 series of amendments to Regulation No. 12 (Steering mechanism), (ii) as part of (see para. 27) Supplement 6 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 94 (Frontal collision protection), (iii) 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 94 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/7) (see para. 26), (iv) Supplement 5 to the 03 series of amendments to Regulation No. 95 (Lateral collision protection), (v) Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to Regulation No. 100 (Battery electric vehicle safety), (vii) amendment to draft Regulation on electric vehicles of category L (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2015/69) and (viii) amendment to draft Regulation on uniform provisions for the approval of passenger cars in the event of a frontal collision with focus on the restraint system (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/11) (see para. 33).

28. [The GRPE Chair] announced that the IWG on Vehicle Propulsion System Definitions (VPSD) would submit a formal proposal for a new Mutual Resolution on Vehicle Powertrain Definitions for the June 2015 session of GRPE.

29. He introduced the informal documents, which list the acronyms and abbreviations used in UN Regulations (WP.29-165-17) and highlighted the problem of using the acronym ‘RESS’ to describe both the ‘Non-original Replacement Exhaust Silencer System’ and the ‘Non-original Replacement Exhaust System and Rechargeable Energy Storage System’ (WP.29-165-16). The World Forum endorsed the content of document WP.29-165-16 and referred the choice to its subsidiary bodies. The secretariat added that the document WP.29-165-17 would be made available on the UNECE website and it would continue to be updated on a regular basis.

48. GRE took note of the WP.29 request to complement a list of acronyms/abbreviations (WP.29-165-17) with those used in lighting and light-signalling Regulations. The expert from the Netherlands volunteered to assist the secretariat in this regard. GRE also noted that acronym “REESS” and its definition in Regulation No. 10 might need correction.

36. GRSP noted WP.29-165-17, (permanently appended in its website) gathering acronyms of UN Regulations and UN GTR. GRSP invited all its members to revise the document and provide comments to the secretariat.

23. GRB noted that WP.29, at its March 2015 session, had considered a list of acronyms and abbreviations used in Regulations (WP.29-165-17) and noted that the acronym RESS “Replacement Exhaust Silencing System” is used in Regulation No. 92. However, RESS is widely used as “Rechargeable Energy Storage System”, for example, in Regulations Nos. 10, 12, 94, 95 and 100. For this reason, WP.29 had requested GRB to introduce, in the medium term, an alternative acronym for “Replacement Exhaust Silencing System” in Regulation No. 92 (WP.29-165-16). GRB invited experts and, in particular, IMMA to study this issue and decided to revert to it at the next session.

26. The expert from France, Chair of the frontal impact (FI) IWG, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/7 to align the UN Regulation No. 94 with the provisions of new draft UN Regulation (full-width frontal collision) on the protection of older occupants. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/7, as amended by Annex III (including GRSP-57-02) to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/7 as amended to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2015 sessions as draft 03 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 94.

29. The expert from the Netherlands tabled ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/13 also aligning the provisions of UN Regulation No. 94 (Frontal collision protection) with the new CMS provisions in UN Regulation No. 46. GRSG agreed on the proposal and requested the secretariat to transmit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/13 to the Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) for consideration at the May 2015 session as a draft Supplement to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94.

Note by the secretariat: At its May 2015 session, GRSP adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their November 2015 sessions, as draft Supplement 6 to the 02 series of amendments and as part of the draft 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94 (see GRSP report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/57, para. 27).

29. The expert from France, Chair of the frontal impact (FI) IWG, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/22 to align the UN Regulation No. 94 with the provisions of new draft UN Regulation (full-width frontal collision) on the protection of older occupants. The proposal received comments from the expert from Germany who proposed to keep the current neck injury criteria. Finally, the expert from France proposed GRSP-56-15-Rev.2, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-56-15-Rev.2 with an official symbol.

41. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this subject to its May 2015 session, due the lack of time and to keep GRSP-56-22, GRSP-56-29 and GRSP-56-34 as a reference in the agenda of the next session.

35. GRSP resumed discussion on GRSP-56-22, GRSP-56-29 and GRSP-56-34. The expert from Japan informed GRSP on the legislation plan in his country allowing the introduction of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Motorcycles (GRSP-56-22). The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that her government was still developing an NPRM on Phase 1 of UN GTR No. 13 (Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles). She agreed with the expert from EC to plan future activities on Phase 2 of the UN GTR at the December 2015 session of GRSP. The expert from CI introduced the outcome of rating tests (GRSP-56-29) conducted by Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) on heavy quadri-cycles. He added that their low quality of safety performance, compared to conventional passenger cars (M1 vehicles) and their growing popularity indicated a road safety issue. However, the expert from France stated that these kind of vehicles needed driver license in his country and that their presence in the European market was still low; moreover, new requirements for such vehicles were recently adopted in the European Union. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that in her country such vehicles had also a growing popularity and tests rating were in progress. She announced sharing data at the December 2015 session of GRSP. Finally, the expert from Korea introduced the result of KoreaNCAP (GRSP-56-34) conducted in 2014.

41. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this subject to its May 2015 session, due the lack of time and to keep GRSP-56-22, GRSP-56-29 and GRSP-56-34 as a reference in the agenda of the next session.

35. GRSP resumed discussion on GRSP-56-22, GRSP-56-29 and GRSP-56-34. The expert from Japan informed GRSP on the legislation plan in his country allowing the introduction of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Motorcycles (GRSP-56-22). The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that her government was still developing an NPRM on Phase 1 of UN GTR No. 13 (Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles). She agreed with the expert from EC to plan future activities on Phase 2 of the UN GTR at the December 2015 session of GRSP. The expert from CI introduced the outcome of rating tests (GRSP-56-29) conducted by Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) on heavy quadri-cycles. He added that their low quality of safety performance, compared to conventional passenger cars (M1 vehicles) and their growing popularity indicated a road safety issue. However, the expert from France stated that these kind of vehicles needed driver license in his country and that their presence in the European market was still low; moreover, new requirements for such vehicles were recently adopted in the European Union. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that in her country such vehicles had also a growing popularity and tests rating were in progress. She announced sharing data at the December 2015 session of GRSP. Finally, the expert from Korea introduced the result of KoreaNCAP (GRSP-56-34) conducted in 2014.

29. The expert from France, Chair of the frontal impact (FI) IWG, introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/22 to align the UN Regulation No. 94 with the provisions of new draft UN Regulation (full-width frontal collision) on the protection of older occupants. The proposal received comments from the expert from Germany who proposed to keep the current neck injury criteria. Finally, the expert from France proposed GRSP-56-15-Rev.2, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/22. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2015 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-56-15-Rev.2 with an official symbol.

26. The expert from France, Chair of the frontal impact (FI) IWG, introduced a proposal of amendment to update the UN Regulation (GRSP-55-21-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/6) in view of the new draft UN Regulation (full-width frontal collision) on improving the protection of older occupants. GRSP agreed to resume consideration of this agenda item at its December 2014 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-55-21-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

37. The expert from France, Chair of the FI IWG, introduced the status report of the group (GRSP-55-43) as well as the latest amendments (GRSP-55-20-Rev.1) to the official proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/10) of a new UN Regulation on frontal impact with focus on the restraint system. He added that the IWG focused on two possible scenarios for the threshold of front passenger’s thorax compression criteria:
(a) thorax compression criteria (Thcc) of ≤ 34 mm (considering the injury risk curve for the elderly 5th percentile female);
(b) Thcc ≤ 42 mm (considering the injury risk curve for the 5th percentile female).

38. He asked GRSP for guidance on choosing the scenario to be addressed by the draft UN Regulation. The expert from EC suggested that the first scenario complemented by an additional test (e.g. sled test) with a 95th percentile male dummy. However, the expert from France reminded GRSP that the proposal aimed to reduce the number of tests. The expert from OICA presented a recommendation (GRSP-55-42) for a Thcc ≤ 42 mm to address the 5th percentile female because a Thcc of ≤ 34 mm would only address a limited percentage of the population and because the test tool variations need to be taken into account. He remarked that the higher injury risk for elderly occupants would be considered by a reduced Thcc threshold of 42 mm for the 50th percentile male dummy Hybrid III as was also proposed for UN Regulation No. 94. GRSP finally agreed to resume consideration of this agenda item at its December 2014 session and requested its experts to provide clear guidance on the two above-mentioned scenarios. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-55-20-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next session of GRSP.

37. The expert from France, Chair of the FI IWG, introduced the status report of the group (GRSP-55-43) as well as the latest amendments (GRSP-55-20-Rev.1) to the official proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/10) of a new UN Regulation on frontal impact with focus on the restraint system. He added that the IWG focused on two possible scenarios for the threshold of front passenger’s thorax compression criteria:
(a) thorax compression criteria (Thcc) of ≤ 34 mm (considering the injury risk curve for the elderly 5th percentile female);
(b) Thcc ≤ 42 mm (considering the injury risk curve for the 5th percentile female).

38. He asked GRSP for guidance on choosing the scenario to be addressed by the draft UN Regulation. The expert from EC suggested that the first scenario complemented by an additional test (e.g. sled test) with a 95th percentile male dummy. However, the expert from France reminded GRSP that the proposal aimed to reduce the number of tests. The expert from OICA presented a recommendation (GRSP-55-42) for a Thcc ≤ 42 mm to address the 5th percentile female because a Thcc of ≤ 34 mm would only address a limited percentage of the population and because the test tool variations need to be taken into account. He remarked that the higher injury risk for elderly occupants would be considered by a reduced Thcc threshold of 42 mm for the 50th percentile male dummy Hybrid III as was also proposed for UN Regulation No. 94. GRSP finally agreed to resume consideration of this agenda item at its December 2014 session and requested its experts to provide clear guidance on the two above-mentioned scenarios. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-55-20-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next session of GRSP.

26. The expert from France, Chair of the frontal impact (FI) IWG, introduced a proposal of amendment to update the UN Regulation (GRSP-55-21-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/6) in view of the new draft UN Regulation (full-width frontal collision) on improving the protection of older occupants. GRSP agreed to resume consideration of this agenda item at its December 2014 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-55-21-Rev.1 with an official symbol.

37. The expert from France, Chair of the FI IWG, introduced the status report of the group (GRSP-55-43) as well as the latest amendments (GRSP-55-20-Rev.1) to the official proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/10) of a new UN Regulation on frontal impact with focus on the restraint system. He added that the IWG focused on two possible scenarios for the threshold of front passenger’s thorax compression criteria:
(a) thorax compression criteria (Thcc) of ≤ 34 mm (considering the injury risk curve for the elderly 5th percentile female);
(b) Thcc ≤ 42 mm (considering the injury risk curve for the 5th percentile female).

38. He asked GRSP for guidance on choosing the scenario to be addressed by the draft UN Regulation. The expert from EC suggested that the first scenario complemented by an additional test (e.g. sled test) with a 95th percentile male dummy. However, the expert from France reminded GRSP that the proposal aimed to reduce the number of tests. The expert from OICA presented a recommendation (GRSP-55-42) for a Thcc ≤ 42 mm to address the 5th percentile female because a Thcc of ≤ 34 mm would only address a limited percentage of the population and because the test tool variations need to be taken into account. He remarked that the higher injury risk for elderly occupants would be considered by a reduced Thcc threshold of 42 mm for the 50th percentile male dummy Hybrid III as was also proposed for UN Regulation No. 94. GRSP finally agreed to resume consideration of this agenda item at its December 2014 session and requested its experts to provide clear guidance on the two above-mentioned scenarios. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-55-20-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next session of GRSP.

37. The expert from France, Chair of the Frontal Impact IWG, introduced the latest draft amendments of his group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/23) to the draft UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/10) on frontal impact with focus on the restraint system, with a thorax compression criterion (ThCC) of 42 mm. He also introduced GRSP-56-36, showing three possible solutions to implement a ThCC of 34 mm for the Hybrid III fifth percentile female dummy as requested by the expert from Japan. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-56-13-Rev.1 endorsing 42 mm criterion because more balanced to protect both young and elderly people. He added that if a decision would be taken by GRSP to endorse 34 mm, this should be introduced at a later stage as a new series of amendments. The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-56-23-Rev.2 aimed at supporting a ThCC of 34 mm and stated that this value was evidence based for its feasibility. The expert from Sweden stated that she was not in the position to support one of the two values. The expert from Italy was in favour of 42 mm because the ThCC of 34 mm criterion needed further investigation. The expert from EU announced that a test programme (sponsored by the European Union) would start at the beginning of 2015 to investigate on this issue. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2015 session on the basis of revised proposals to be submitted by the expert from France (including GRSP-56-13-Rev.1 and GRSP-56-23-Rev.2).

68. The representative of the FIA Foundation introduced WP.29-162-21 presenting the results of a Global NCAP research project “Safer cars for India” on the passive safety performance of the most popular vehicle models in India. WP.29 noted that Global NCAP recommended: (i) to apply UN Regulation No. 94 for all passenger cars, (ii) to mandate the use of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) and (iii) to promote collaboration between governments, manufacturers, their suppliers, automobile clubs and consumer organizations in order to improve adult and child protection in road vehicles.

69. The representative of India informed WP.29, that following these recommendations, actions had already been taken in his country to increase the stringency of vehicle regulations on passive safety. However, a transitional time would be necessary to develop the technical services capacity to perform the related tests. The representative of OICA welcomed these indications but stressed that a holistic approach was needed in order to further improve road safety, taking into account that the individual road transport conditions in the countries were different. He said that, in his opinion, focusing all efforts on vehicle specifications only, thereby making them unaffordable for a large proportion of the population, might in the end be counterproductive in that consumers would find it more difficult to move to safer transportation modes.

70. The representative of the Russian Federation introduced WP.29-162-19 proposing to insert new test provisions for in-vehicle emergency call systems into UN Regulations Nos. 94 and 95. The representative of EU acknowledged this proposal and offered to continue the discussion in the IWG and in GRSG as, in his view, it is not yet sufficiently clear how the test should be conducted. The representative of OICA supported the statements of the EU. The representative of the Russian Federation, Chair of the IWG on AECS, clarified that the purpose of the IWG was the development of a new UN Regulation which should cover the majority of the issues concerning accident emergency call system and its components. He added that, currently, this work was concluded but experts still need to reach consensus on some open issues. He clarified that the progress report of the IWG would be presented at the May 2014 session of GRSG. The Chair of GRSG noted that the IWG on AECS would provide results to GRSG two weeks before the May 2014 session of GRSP and that these results could also be then addressed in GRSP. Finally, the World Forum endorsed this approach.

23. The expert from France, Chair of the IWG on frontal impact, introduced the status report of the group (GRSP-54-40). He informed GRSP that the IWG was ready to submit a proposal for the May 2014 session of GRSP and introduced a first draft for information only (GRSP-54-27). He clarified that the amendment would introduce: (i) a full-width frontal crash test against a rigid barrier at 50 km/h, (ii) a new biomechanical criteria for elderly people (65 years and older) and (iii) the 5th percentile female dummy. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRSP-54-25) to show the influence of the diagonal safety-belt path to chest deflection and announced a proposal to address this issue in the framework of activities of the IWG. The expert from France confirmed the importance of the belt position for the thorax deflection and clarified that the current proposal of the IWG addressed both sexes, as well as covering the safety of younger occupants. Finally, GRSP unanimously agreed to resume consideration on this agenda item at its May 2014 session on the basis of a concrete proposal for a new UN Regulation instead of an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94, drafted by the IWG.

23. The expert from France, Chair of the IWG on frontal impact, introduced the status report of the group (GRSP-54-40). He informed GRSP that the IWG was ready to submit a proposal for the May 2014 session of GRSP and introduced a first draft for information only (GRSP-54-27). He clarified that the amendment would introduce: (i) a full-width frontal crash test against a rigid barrier at 50 km/h, (ii) a new biomechanical criteria for elderly people (65 years and older) and (iii) the 5th percentile female dummy. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRSP-54-25) to show the influence of the diagonal safety-belt path to chest deflection and announced a proposal to address this issue in the framework of activities of the IWG. The expert from France confirmed the importance of the belt position for the thorax deflection and clarified that the current proposal of the IWG addressed both sexes, as well as covering the safety of younger occupants. Finally, GRSP unanimously agreed to resume consideration on this agenda item at its May 2014 session on the basis of a concrete proposal for a new UN Regulation instead of an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94, drafted by the IWG.

23. The expert from France, Chair of the IWG on frontal impact, introduced the status report of the group (GRSP-54-40). He informed GRSP that the IWG was ready to submit a proposal for the May 2014 session of GRSP and introduced a first draft for information only (GRSP-54-27). He clarified that the amendment would introduce: (i) a full-width frontal crash test against a rigid barrier at 50 km/h, (ii) a new biomechanical criteria for elderly people (65 years and older) and (iii) the 5th percentile female dummy. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRSP-54-25) to show the influence of the diagonal safety-belt path to chest deflection and announced a proposal to address this issue in the framework of activities of the IWG. The expert from France confirmed the importance of the belt position for the thorax deflection and clarified that the current proposal of the IWG addressed both sexes, as well as covering the safety of younger occupants. Finally, GRSP unanimously agreed to resume consideration on this agenda item at its May 2014 session on the basis of a concrete proposal for a new UN Regulation instead of an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94, drafted by the IWG.

Information from Claus Pastor was given at the previous meeting, see document FI-22-08 now available on the UNECE website (in German only). Some of the participants ask for a document in English: BAST to check whether an English version is available.

Presentation by Tanaka-san (FI-21-05).

NL (Hans Ammerlaan) notices that the Japanese proposal is focusing on secondary structure, on a certain force and on a certain height, using absolute values, whereas the German proposal considers the whole vehicle.

Pierre Castaing comments that the German proposal does not test SEAS (too far away: due to its shape, the pendulum would hit the crossbeam before the SEAS). It does not give criteria for secondary systems, also able to provide a good interaction in compatibility cases.

Pierre Castaing also wonders whether the use of a “pendulum for SEAS” with a different shape in the German proposal could be added.

One possibility of combining the two tests could be:
German proposal. If you pass, ok (PEAS in right area, with good energy absorption).
If you fail: Japanese proposal. If you pass, ok. (SEAS interacts in the right area and absorbs part of the energy).

The German proposal could exclude multi load path solutions. Germany (R.Damm) explains that the goal is not to promote one load path when proposing to have the protecting zone in one area. The German proposal is not prohibiting a second load path. Every car would have to fulfil the common interaction zone in the German proposal, while the Japanese proposal would only check the lower structure of the SEAS: only a minority of cars would be tested.

=> OICA is asked by the Chairman to bring data for the next meeting: given a level of energy to be absorbed (German proposal), what would be the effects on vehicles?

THIRD BAST PRESENTATION (FI-21-04): Proposal for Changes to the ECE-R 94 to address acceleration induced injuries – Dummy position – Seat position – Injury risk values

CLEPA (C.Sunnevang, Autoliv) comments that the wording used in the presentation could be clarified: acceleration induced means the pulse (acceleration of the car), and not any acceleration on the dummy.

- Discussion on the dummy age and dummy size:

Pierre Castaing recalls that if only the elderly age for the whole scenario is chosen, then car manufacturers would be pushed towards a softer restraint system. The situation of a 35yo male at higher speed (more energy) should also be taken into account. Regulation 94 aims at covering the whole population. As an example in helmets regulation, the compromise chosen for a low pulse (low acceleration) is not necessarily optimized for a higher acceleration.

Regarding the legs of the 5th dummy, OICA (A.Pott) underlines that there is no calibration procedure because they are not used in the US FMVSS 208. If the proposal is to have a 5th in the intrusion test (ODB), the group has to keep in mind that there might be some question marks with the calibration, and repeatability of this leg.
Furthermore, the dummies placements were deeply discussed one year ago. The group had in mind to cover most of our customers. Therefore it was decided not to change the intrusion test (ODB) and therefore to keep both driver and passenger 50th dummies. OICA strongly proposes again not to change the dummies in the ODB test.
OICA (I.Dausse) adds that any change in the ODB protocol would go against harmonization (China, Brazil…).

Pierre Castaing states that going to an extremely low chest deflection with HIII rodpot would go to the limit of confidence of measurement of the rodpot system, and could lead to less coverage of the real world. He recalls that the group already decided to keep the chest deflection criteria for 5th HIII dummy at 45yo:
chest deflexion: 34mm corresponding to 50% risk, 5th, 65
chest deflexion: 45mm corresponding to 50% risk, 5th, 45
An alternative could be to keep the 45mm for the 5th dummy, and stating that it is for 65yo with higher than 50% risk.

SECOND BAST PRESENTATION (FI-21-03): Repeatability of the Deformable Element – Test series with the Reference Vehicle

BAST (T.Adolph) introduces the presentation by stating that the intention is not to promote the deformable barrier in this phase.

Discussion between OICA and BAST on the variability of the PDB barrier, of the cars and the limit of 40ms for examinating maximum forces. Sweden would like to see more industry tests.

FIRST BAST PRESENTATION (FI-21-02): Seating positions of the H-III 5% dummy – Test series with the Reference Vehicle

OICA comments that the wording used in the presentation seems to mean that the airbag is aggressive. Consequently, OICA suggests to update this wording so that a reader does not think that having an airbag is worse.

- Discussion on the goal of regulation:
Pierre Castaing confirms that the goal of type approval and regulation is to address the majority of the accidentology and cover the majority of cases (barrier, dummies, speed). When type approving, the technical service has to choose in the range of cars the worst case for a test.

- Discussion on chest acceleration:
BAST (T.Adolph) suggests to add a chest acceleration criteria in addition to the chest deflection, in order to give an idea about the kinematics of the dummy during crash.
Japan (Tanaka San) adds that chest acceleration is not related to the injuries, but with dummy behavior and it might show side effects.

=>Japan will bring some data for the next IG meeting.

PDB (N.Praxl) explains that chest acceleration is not a good predictor as the serious injuries are coming from deformation and not from acceleration. Chest acceleration is not linked with the injuries (for instance, sports cars may induce very high chest acceleration on the driver without any injury). Need some facts to understand why the presentation concludes that thorax acceleration is an interesting criteria. The fact that the values on chest acceleration are high does not mean that this has an influence.
OICA (BMW, Wolfgang Ogorek Broll) recalls that Canada has removed this criteria completely in the last amendment of CMVSS 208.
Also US NCAP deleted this criteria.

=> OICA will come up with a presentation on this topic for the next IG meeting.

- Discussion seat adjustment:
BAST (T.Adolph) showed results where one test per seating position was performed. The proposal is to install a 5th passenger at 25% forward of the seat adjustment range, as it seems a more realistic and good average between mid position and full frontal.
OICA notices that the seating position does not have a major influence on the results shown. In other regulations, the seat adjustment is according to the manufacturer’s indication. Maybe we should use the same approach. If not, there might be a position where you cannot install a 5th (due to a combination of adjustment in X and height, as well as steering wheel adjustment).
NL (H.Ammerlaan) and Germany (R.Damm) recommend to check more vehicles before making a decision.

=> OICA will come back at the next IG meeting with more details.

Agenda was adopted.
Minutes of the last meeting to be discussed at the next meeting (not available yet).

35. Finally, GRSP adopted GRSP-53-27, as reproduced in Annex VI to this report, aligning the same text adopted for the warning air bag labelling under UN Regulation No. 16 (see para. 23). The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 5 to the 01 series of amendments and as draft Supplement 5 to the 02 series of amendments to the UN Regulation.

34. [The expert from France] concluded by introducing for information only, a draft proposal (GRSP-53-26), that would be submitted as an official document for the December 2013 session of GRSP. The experts from Japan introduced GRSP-53-20, supporting the configuration of the test proposed by the IWG. However, he argued that there are no evidence showing difference in the age and gender ratio of occupants due to the difference of crash configuration between the FWRB and offset deformable barrier (ODB) tests. The expert from Germany raised similar concerns. GRSP agreed, to resume discussion on this agenda item at its December 2013 session, based on an official proposal submitted by the IWG incorporating the comments received and further outcomes of the IWG.

See document GRSP-53-25 and GRSP-53-26 (status report and first draft for amended ECE 94).
Timeline: the draft has to be sent to GRSP on September 20th 2013 (in order to be a working document).
Target: Amended text to be adopted in May 2014 GRSP.
Impact assessment group: results to be available by end of 2013.

33. The expert from France introduced the status report of the IWG (GRSP-53-25). He confirmed the intention of the group to submit a draft proposal of amendments to the UN Regulation for the May 2014 session of GRSP. He added that due to the lack of supplementary tests to validate reproducibility and repeatability of the test with the full-width deformable barrier (FWDB), the group had decided to finalize the proposal with the use of the full-width rigid barrier (FWRB) for the first phase of amendments. He explained that the proposal would introduce an additional crash test with one hundred per cent of overlap of the tested vehicle with a FWRB, by using as assessment tools a fifty percentile male dummy (hybrid III) on the driver seat and a fifth percentile dummy on the front passenger seat. He added that this configuration of testing focused on elderly occupants’ injury risk curves. He concluded that pending issues would still be addressed by the IWG:
  (a) The definition of dummies and parts;
  (b) The choice of the worst case of test vehicle configuration;
  (c) Repetition of structural assessments (i.e. fuel leakage) in both configuration of testing (FWDB and offset deformable barrier (ODB));
  (d) Preparation of a complementary proposal of amendments to UN Regulation No. 42 (Front and rear protection devices) to address geometric assessment;
  (e) Transitional provisions.

See document GRSP-53-25 and GRSP-53-26 (status report and first draft for amended ECE 94).
Timeline: the draft has to be sent to GRSP on September 20th 2013 (in order to be a working document).
Target: Amended text to be adopted in May 2014 GRSP.
Impact assessment group: results to be available by end of 2013.

34. [The expert from France] concluded by introducing for information only, a draft proposal (GRSP-53-26), that would be submitted as an official document for the December 2013 session of GRSP. The experts from Japan introduced GRSP-53-20, supporting the configuration of the test proposed by the IWG. However, he argued that there are no evidence showing difference in the age and gender ratio of occupants due to the difference of crash configuration between the FWRB and offset deformable barrier (ODB) tests. The expert from Germany raised similar concerns. GRSP agreed, to resume discussion on this agenda item at its December 2013 session, based on an official proposal submitted by the IWG incorporating the comments received and further outcomes of the IWG.

The group worked on the Test Matrix document FI-20-0×.

Mr. Pott (OICA) said that OICA is in favor of putting the 5th percentile dummy to the driver position for the offset test.

Mr. Thompson highlighted that it is important to see the impact of the modification in real world. What developments can the change in testing drive?

Mr. Broertjes commented that it could also be an option to leave the decision about the 5th percentile positioning to the type approval authorities.

As regards the injury criteria a 42mm thorax deflection for the ODB test was generally accepted.

Suggestions for other injury criteria limits have been included in the Test Matrix document FI-20-0xe.

With regard to the full width test Peter Broertjes mentioned that the EC still has concerns as regards the selection between Full Width Rigid Barrier and Full Width Deformable Barrier testing.

Proposal adopted.

Two topics were added to the agenda:
• OICA to present on biomechanical limits
• Autoliv to present on DEQ

The numeration of the minutes needs to be adopted. Minutes accepted.

47. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/6, as amended by Annex VIII to this report and proposing provisions for the coupling systems for charging the REESS. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 3 to the 04 series of amendments to the UN Regulation No. 12, as part of (see para. 35) draft Supplement 5 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94 and as draft Supplement 4 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 95.

47. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/6, as amended by Annex VIII to this report and proposing provisions for the coupling systems for charging the REESS. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 3 to the 04 series of amendments to the UN Regulation No. 12, as part of (see para. 35) draft Supplement 5 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94 and as draft Supplement 4 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 95.

Agenda was adopted without changes
Additional presentation from Japan about injury criteria 3.6.1
Proposal of R94 geometric requirements will be skipped

The members of the group have been asked about their preference as regards using a FWRB test or a FWDB test. There was consens about using a FWRB test. Some members pointed out, that this shall be seen as a phase 1 approach and that the FWRB test shall not be the final test tool.

The members of the group have been asked about their preference as regards dummy selection and dummy seating position in the car to be tested. Germany, UK and the Netherlands pointed out that they want to have a 5th percentile dummy being used in the Full Width Test. France keeps its position of using two 50th percentile dummies. OICA repeated their concerns about using the 5th percentile H3 for regulation.

It was decided that the Impact Assessment group shall consider the variants

a) FWRB – 5th perc. Driver – 50th perc. Frontal Occupant,
b) FWRB – 50th perc. Driver – 5th perc. Frontal Occupant,
c) FWRB – 50th perc. Driver – 50th perc. Frontal Occupant

and shall give evidence on the most cost effective variant.

Mr. Damm pointed out that Germany is in favor of including geometric alignment requirements in the impact assessment. Germany will make a proposition on that behalf in the next meeting of the IWG R94.

X.Trosseille informs the group that a first webex meeting was held in W48/12. An evaluation matrix has been developed to assess the pros and cons of different thorax injury criteria/measures.

Feedback was requested by experts, but only NHTSA (Steven Ridella) has given feedback by now. Further feedback is expected from OICA, Germany and Japan. Another webex will be scheduled for mid/end of February 2013.

Mr. Ammerlaan remarked that a reasonable balancing between local belt loading and distributed airbag loading is necessary. Focusing too much on the frontal impact situation the group has to consider, that the belt has the duty to keep the occupants in place (e.g. in over role accidents) and therefore a certain minimum belt load should be considered.

Mr. Faure remarked that a similar argument was already raised from Thomas Herpich (TRW) during the NCAP frontal impact group meetings and that it will be considered.

FI-18-3e
Mrs. Sunnevang gave a presentation on simulations made by Autoliv to evaluate the DEQ criteria for a variation of load limiter and airbag systems and crash pulses.

See the participants list.

Agenda was adopted without changes.

34. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7, proposing requirements for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. GRSP agreed to remove the square brackets from paragraph 5.2.4.1. and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2013 sessions for consideration and vote as draft Supplement 4 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94.

35. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-52-24 to show the outcome of the frontal impact and compatibility assessment research (FIMCAR) as part of the seventh programme of research of the European Union. He indicated that amongst the candidate barriers to assess compatibility, the full-width deformable barrier (FWDB) showed better results for the time being.

36. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Impact, introduced the last progress report of the group (GRSP-52-25). He reiterated that the informal working group was considering existing results from ongoing research programmes on this matter at the international level (i.e. FIMCAR) and that as a follow‐up to these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP. Accordingly, he indicated three possible scenarios amending the UN Regulation:

(a) no change to the current requirements (benefits of 2.0 percent or less of all vehicle occupants Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI));
(b) full width barrier (FW) test added to the offset deformable barrier test (ODB) (benefits of 5 to 12 per cent of all occupants KSI); and
(c) FW test and replace ODB test with Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test (benefits of 7 to 14 per cent of all occupants KSI).

37. Furthermore, for scenario (b) and © he added that the inclusion of a FWDB would lead only to slightly increased benefits (0.3 to 0.8 percent as stated in the FIMCAR final report) and the airbag triggering time more linked to real world. However, he concluded that the option of a Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB), even if it would introduce slightly lower benefits, this option would give higher harmonization potentials (Australia, Japan, and United States). Finally, he asked GRSP experts to clearly indicate their barrier preference to better focus the efforts of the informal working group. The expert from Germany stated that due to the time constraints for the first phase of improving UN Regulation No. 94, a FWRB could be the solution for Phase 1 and the FWDB would remain as a candidate for the Phase 2.

38. The majority of GRSP experts were not in a position to provide such an indication and agreed to resume discussion on this matter at its May 2013 session, awaiting the results of a cost benefit analysis for both FWDB and FWRB prepared by the informal working group.

39. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP about the results of third Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held (GRSP-52-13). He gave a presentation (GRSP-52-29) informing that as a conclusion of the third phase of the programme, LANCAP was recommending all Latin American governments to make the requirements of UN Regulation No. 94 mandatory for all cars sold in their markets.

34. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7, proposing requirements for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. GRSP agreed to remove the square brackets from paragraph 5.2.4.1. and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2013 sessions for consideration and vote as draft Supplement 4 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94.

35. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-52-24 to show the outcome of the frontal impact and compatibility assessment research (FIMCAR) as part of the seventh programme of research of the European Union. He indicated that amongst the candidate barriers to assess compatibility, the full-width deformable barrier (FWDB) showed better results for the time being.

36. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Impact, introduced the last progress report of the group (GRSP-52-25). He reiterated that the informal working group was considering existing results from ongoing research programmes on this matter at the international level (i.e. FIMCAR) and that as a follow‐up to these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP. Accordingly, he indicated three possible scenarios amending the UN Regulation:

(a) no change to the current requirements (benefits of 2.0 percent or less of all vehicle occupants Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI));
(b) full width barrier (FW) test added to the offset deformable barrier test (ODB) (benefits of 5 to 12 per cent of all occupants KSI); and
(c) FW test and replace ODB test with Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test (benefits of 7 to 14 per cent of all occupants KSI).

37. Furthermore, for scenario (b) and © he added that the inclusion of a FWDB would lead only to slightly increased benefits (0.3 to 0.8 percent as stated in the FIMCAR final report) and the airbag triggering time more linked to real world. However, he concluded that the option of a Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB), even if it would introduce slightly lower benefits, this option would give higher harmonization potentials (Australia, Japan, and United States). Finally, he asked GRSP experts to clearly indicate their barrier preference to better focus the efforts of the informal working group. The expert from Germany stated that due to the time constraints for the first phase of improving UN Regulation No. 94, a FWRB could be the solution for Phase 1 and the FWDB would remain as a candidate for the Phase 2.

38. The majority of GRSP experts were not in a position to provide such an indication and agreed to resume discussion on this matter at its May 2013 session, awaiting the results of a cost benefit analysis for both FWDB and FWRB prepared by the informal working group.

39. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP about the results of third Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held (GRSP-52-13). He gave a presentation (GRSP-52-29) informing that as a conclusion of the third phase of the programme, LANCAP was recommending all Latin American governments to make the requirements of UN Regulation No. 94 mandatory for all cars sold in their markets.

34. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7, proposing requirements for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. GRSP agreed to remove the square brackets from paragraph 5.2.4.1. and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2013 sessions for consideration and vote as draft Supplement 4 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94.

35. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-52-24 to show the outcome of the frontal impact and compatibility assessment research (FIMCAR) as part of the seventh programme of research of the European Union. He indicated that amongst the candidate barriers to assess compatibility, the full-width deformable barrier (FWDB) showed better results for the time being.

36. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Impact, introduced the last progress report of the group (GRSP-52-25). He reiterated that the informal working group was considering existing results from ongoing research programmes on this matter at the international level (i.e. FIMCAR) and that as a follow‐up to these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP. Accordingly, he indicated three possible scenarios amending the UN Regulation:

(a) no change to the current requirements (benefits of 2.0 percent or less of all vehicle occupants Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI));
(b) full width barrier (FW) test added to the offset deformable barrier test (ODB) (benefits of 5 to 12 per cent of all occupants KSI); and
(c) FW test and replace ODB test with Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test (benefits of 7 to 14 per cent of all occupants KSI).

37. Furthermore, for scenario (b) and © he added that the inclusion of a FWDB would lead only to slightly increased benefits (0.3 to 0.8 percent as stated in the FIMCAR final report) and the airbag triggering time more linked to real world. However, he concluded that the option of a Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB), even if it would introduce slightly lower benefits, this option would give higher harmonization potentials (Australia, Japan, and United States). Finally, he asked GRSP experts to clearly indicate their barrier preference to better focus the efforts of the informal working group. The expert from Germany stated that due to the time constraints for the first phase of improving UN Regulation No. 94, a FWRB could be the solution for Phase 1 and the FWDB would remain as a candidate for the Phase 2.

38. The majority of GRSP experts were not in a position to provide such an indication and agreed to resume discussion on this matter at its May 2013 session, awaiting the results of a cost benefit analysis for both FWDB and FWRB prepared by the informal working group.

39. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP about the results of third Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held (GRSP-52-13). He gave a presentation (GRSP-52-29) informing that as a conclusion of the third phase of the programme, LANCAP was recommending all Latin American governments to make the requirements of UN Regulation No. 94 mandatory for all cars sold in their markets.

34. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7, proposing requirements for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. GRSP agreed to remove the square brackets from paragraph 5.2.4.1. and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2013 sessions for consideration and vote as draft Supplement 4 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94.

35. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-52-24 to show the outcome of the frontal impact and compatibility assessment research (FIMCAR) as part of the seventh programme of research of the European Union. He indicated that amongst the candidate barriers to assess compatibility, the full-width deformable barrier (FWDB) showed better results for the time being.

36. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Impact, introduced the last progress report of the group (GRSP-52-25). He reiterated that the informal working group was considering existing results from ongoing research programmes on this matter at the international level (i.e. FIMCAR) and that as a follow‐up to these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP. Accordingly, he indicated three possible scenarios amending the UN Regulation:

(a) no change to the current requirements (benefits of 2.0 percent or less of all vehicle occupants Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI));
(b) full width barrier (FW) test added to the offset deformable barrier test (ODB) (benefits of 5 to 12 per cent of all occupants KSI); and
(c) FW test and replace ODB test with Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test (benefits of 7 to 14 per cent of all occupants KSI).

37. Furthermore, for scenario (b) and © he added that the inclusion of a FWDB would lead only to slightly increased benefits (0.3 to 0.8 percent as stated in the FIMCAR final report) and the airbag triggering time more linked to real world. However, he concluded that the option of a Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB), even if it would introduce slightly lower benefits, this option would give higher harmonization potentials (Australia, Japan, and United States). Finally, he asked GRSP experts to clearly indicate their barrier preference to better focus the efforts of the informal working group. The expert from Germany stated that due to the time constraints for the first phase of improving UN Regulation No. 94, a FWRB could be the solution for Phase 1 and the FWDB would remain as a candidate for the Phase 2.

38. The majority of GRSP experts were not in a position to provide such an indication and agreed to resume discussion on this matter at its May 2013 session, awaiting the results of a cost benefit analysis for both FWDB and FWRB prepared by the informal working group.

39. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP about the results of third Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held (GRSP-52-13). He gave a presentation (GRSP-52-29) informing that as a conclusion of the third phase of the programme, LANCAP was recommending all Latin American governments to make the requirements of UN Regulation No. 94 mandatory for all cars sold in their markets.

57. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-52-01, proposing provisions for the coupling systems for charging the REESS. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-52-01 with an official symbol at the May 2013 session of GRSP.

34. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7, proposing requirements for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. GRSP agreed to remove the square brackets from paragraph 5.2.4.1. and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2013 sessions for consideration and vote as draft Supplement 4 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94.

35. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-52-24 to show the outcome of the frontal impact and compatibility assessment research (FIMCAR) as part of the seventh programme of research of the European Union. He indicated that amongst the candidate barriers to assess compatibility, the full-width deformable barrier (FWDB) showed better results for the time being.

36. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Impact, introduced the last progress report of the group (GRSP-52-25). He reiterated that the informal working group was considering existing results from ongoing research programmes on this matter at the international level (i.e. FIMCAR) and that as a follow‐up to these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP. Accordingly, he indicated three possible scenarios amending the UN Regulation:

(a) no change to the current requirements (benefits of 2.0 percent or less of all vehicle occupants Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI));
(b) full width barrier (FW) test added to the offset deformable barrier test (ODB) (benefits of 5 to 12 per cent of all occupants KSI); and
(c) FW test and replace ODB test with Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test (benefits of 7 to 14 per cent of all occupants KSI).

37. Furthermore, for scenario (b) and © he added that the inclusion of a FWDB would lead only to slightly increased benefits (0.3 to 0.8 percent as stated in the FIMCAR final report) and the airbag triggering time more linked to real world. However, he concluded that the option of a Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB), even if it would introduce slightly lower benefits, this option would give higher harmonization potentials (Australia, Japan, and United States). Finally, he asked GRSP experts to clearly indicate their barrier preference to better focus the efforts of the informal working group. The expert from Germany stated that due to the time constraints for the first phase of improving UN Regulation No. 94, a FWRB could be the solution for Phase 1 and the FWDB would remain as a candidate for the Phase 2.

38. The majority of GRSP experts were not in a position to provide such an indication and agreed to resume discussion on this matter at its May 2013 session, awaiting the results of a cost benefit analysis for both FWDB and FWRB prepared by the informal working group.

39. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP about the results of third Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held (GRSP-52-13). He gave a presentation (GRSP-52-29) informing that as a conclusion of the third phase of the programme, LANCAP was recommending all Latin American governments to make the requirements of UN Regulation No. 94 mandatory for all cars sold in their markets.

41. GRSP considered GRSP-51-01-Rev.1, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/11 introducing editorial corrections in the UN Regulations. Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/11 as amended by Annex VII to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2012 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 12, draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94, draft Supplement 2 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 95 and as draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 100.

30. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7 introducing provisions for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. The expert from OICA made a presentation (GRSP-51-06) introducing a proposal (GRSP-51-07-Rev.1) aimed at introducing a further possibility of testing the vehicle in a mixed configuration of locked and unlocked doors. The expert from Japan raised a study reservation to GRSP-51-07-Rev.1 and GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute it with an official symbol at its December 2012 session of GRSP.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Collision introduced the last progress report of his group (GRSP-51-26). He informed GRSP that the informal working group would consider existing tools and make use of results from ongoing research programs on this matter at the international level. He informed that, as a first step and as a follow-up of these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP.

30. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7 introducing provisions for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. The expert from OICA made a presentation (GRSP-51-06) introducing a proposal (GRSP-51-07-Rev.1) aimed at introducing a further possibility of testing the vehicle in a mixed configuration of locked and unlocked doors. The expert from Japan raised a study reservation to GRSP-51-07-Rev.1 and GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute it with an official symbol at its December 2012 session of GRSP.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Collision introduced the last progress report of his group (GRSP-51-26). He informed GRSP that the informal working group would consider existing tools and make use of results from ongoing research programs on this matter at the international level. He informed that, as a first step and as a follow-up of these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP.

30. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7 introducing provisions for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. The expert from OICA made a presentation (GRSP-51-06) introducing a proposal (GRSP-51-07-Rev.1) aimed at introducing a further possibility of testing the vehicle in a mixed configuration of locked and unlocked doors. The expert from Japan raised a study reservation to GRSP-51-07-Rev.1 and GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute it with an official symbol at its December 2012 session of GRSP.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Collision introduced the last progress report of his group (GRSP-51-26). He informed GRSP that the informal working group would consider existing tools and make use of results from ongoing research programs on this matter at the international level. He informed that, as a first step and as a follow-up of these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP.

30. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7 introducing provisions for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. The expert from OICA made a presentation (GRSP-51-06) introducing a proposal (GRSP-51-07-Rev.1) aimed at introducing a further possibility of testing the vehicle in a mixed configuration of locked and unlocked doors. The expert from Japan raised a study reservation to GRSP-51-07-Rev.1 and GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute it with an official symbol at its December 2012 session of GRSP.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Collision introduced the last progress report of his group (GRSP-51-26). He informed GRSP that the informal working group would consider existing tools and make use of results from ongoing research programs on this matter at the international level. He informed that, as a first step and as a follow-up of these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP.

41. GRSP considered GRSP-51-01-Rev.1, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/11 introducing editorial corrections in the UN Regulations. Finally, GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/11 as amended by Annex VII to this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their November 2012 sessions as draft Supplement 2 to the 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 12, draft Supplement 3 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94, draft Supplement 2 to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 95 and as draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 100.

The group finalized the Terms of Reference which will be delivered to GRSP for further discussion during their next meeting in December 2011. The TOR have been adopted as follows:

The informal group shall consider the updating of the current R94 regulation with particular attention to the protection of older occupants, female occupants and also focus on optimization of vehicles’ structural interaction to improve self protection and partner protection.

The group asks GRSP to seek consent of a mandate until the end of 2014.

The group finalized the Terms of Reference which will be delivered to GRSP for further discussion during their next meeting in December 2011. The TOR have been adopted as follows:

The informal group shall consider the updating of the current R94 regulation with particular attention to the protection of older occupants, female occupants and also focus on optimization of vehicles’ structural interaction to improve self protection and partner protection.

The group asks GRSP to seek consent of a mandate until the end of 2014.

Presentation by Germany.

Germany (Mr. Damm) proposed to modify the frontal impact regulation R94 in two steps:

Step 1 (short term till 2014):

• ► Introduction of full width test based on the outcome of FIMCAR
• ► Introduction of criteria or procedure for geometric alignment of front structures
• ► Introduction of new thorax injury prediction tools if appropriate
• ► Introduction of 5th female dummy in the full width test if appropriate

Step 2 (long term starting in 2014)

• ► Development of a GTR on Frontal Impact
• ► Introduction of new dummy family (Thor 50th and 5th)
• ► Introduction of new dummy performance criteria
• ► Review of offset test procedure

A short discussion started on the proposal. Mr. Pott asked if Germany discussed the proposal with other contracting parties (especially with those from the 98-agreement). Mr. Damm answered that there were some discussions with the US and reported about a principle interest in the GTR.

The agenda was adopted.

30. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7 introducing provisions for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. The expert from OICA made a presentation (GRSP-51-06) introducing a proposal (GRSP-51-07-Rev.1) aimed at introducing a further possibility of testing the vehicle in a mixed configuration of locked and unlocked doors. The expert from Japan raised a study reservation to GRSP-51-07-Rev.1 and GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute it with an official symbol at its December 2012 session of GRSP.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Collision introduced the last progress report of his group (GRSP-51-26). He informed GRSP that the informal working group would consider existing tools and make use of results from ongoing research programs on this matter at the international level. He informed that, as a first step and as a follow-up of these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP.

34. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/7, proposing requirements for vehicles with automatically activated door locking systems. GRSP agreed to remove the square brackets from paragraph 5.2.4.1. and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/16, not amended. The secretariat was requested to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 at their June 2013 sessions for consideration and vote as draft Supplement 4 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 94.

35. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-52-24 to show the outcome of the frontal impact and compatibility assessment research (FIMCAR) as part of the seventh programme of research of the European Union. He indicated that amongst the candidate barriers to assess compatibility, the full-width deformable barrier (FWDB) showed better results for the time being.

36. The expert from France, Chair of the informal working group on Frontal Impact, introduced the last progress report of the group (GRSP-52-25). He reiterated that the informal working group was considering existing results from ongoing research programmes on this matter at the international level (i.e. FIMCAR) and that as a follow‐up to these results, the group would propose an amendment to UN Regulation No. 94 by the May 2014 session of GRSP. Accordingly, he indicated three possible scenarios amending the UN Regulation:

(a) no change to the current requirements (benefits of 2.0 percent or less of all vehicle occupants Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI));
(b) full width barrier (FW) test added to the offset deformable barrier test (ODB) (benefits of 5 to 12 per cent of all occupants KSI); and
(c) FW test and replace ODB test with Progressive Deformable Barrier (PDB) test (benefits of 7 to 14 per cent of all occupants KSI).

37. Furthermore, for scenario (b) and © he added that the inclusion of a FWDB would lead only to slightly increased benefits (0.3 to 0.8 percent as stated in the FIMCAR final report) and the airbag triggering time more linked to real world. However, he concluded that the option of a Full Width Rigid Barrier (FWRB), even if it would introduce slightly lower benefits, this option would give higher harmonization potentials (Australia, Japan, and United States). Finally, he asked GRSP experts to clearly indicate their barrier preference to better focus the efforts of the informal working group. The expert from Germany stated that due to the time constraints for the first phase of improving UN Regulation No. 94, a FWRB could be the solution for Phase 1 and the FWDB would remain as a candidate for the Phase 2.

38. The majority of GRSP experts were not in a position to provide such an indication and agreed to resume discussion on this matter at its May 2013 session, awaiting the results of a cost benefit analysis for both FWDB and FWRB prepared by the informal working group.

39. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP about the results of third Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held (GRSP-52-13). He gave a presentation (GRSP-52-29) informing that as a conclusion of the third phase of the programme, LANCAP was recommending all Latin American governments to make the requirements of UN Regulation No. 94 mandatory for all cars sold in their markets.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal collision introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 through a presentation (GRSP-50-01) on the new terms of reference of the informal working group. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 as reproduced in Annex V [of the session report] and sought the consent of WP.29 at its March 2012 session.

32. GRSP noted GRSP-50-03 tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, introducing test requirements for vehicles equipped with automatically activated door locking systems. The document received some comments and GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this matter on the basis of a revised proposal prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

33. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP on the results of the second Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held. He informed that as a conclusion of the second phase of the programme, LANCAP was promoting the mandatory type approval of vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 94 as well as the mandatory use of type approved CRS to governments of Latin American countries.

49. The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-50-12 and GRSP-50-13 proposing further amendments concerning the tests of electric vehicles. GRSP agreed to continue discussion at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-12 and GRSP-50-13 with an official symbol.

49. The expert from Japan introduced GRSP-50-12 and GRSP-50-13 proposing further amendments concerning the tests of electric vehicles. GRSP agreed to continue discussion at its May 2012 session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-50-12 and GRSP-50-13 with an official symbol.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal collision introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 through a presentation (GRSP-50-01) on the new terms of reference of the informal working group. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 as reproduced in Annex V [of the session report] and sought the consent of WP.29 at its March 2012 session.

32. GRSP noted GRSP-50-03 tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, introducing test requirements for vehicles equipped with automatically activated door locking systems. The document received some comments and GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this matter on the basis of a revised proposal prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

33. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP on the results of the second Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held. He informed that as a conclusion of the second phase of the programme, LANCAP was promoting the mandatory type approval of vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 94 as well as the mandatory use of type approved CRS to governments of Latin American countries.

61. Agenda item 4.8.6, Regulation No. 94, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/120, add the following paragraphs 11.1 and 11.2, to read:

“11.1. As from the official date of entry into force of Supplement 4 to the 01 series of amendments, no Contracting Party applying this Regulation shall refuse to grant UNECE approval under this Regulation as amended by Supplement 4 to the 01 series of amendments.

11.2. As from 23 June 2013, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall grant UNECE approvals only to those types of vehicles which comply with the requirements of this Regulation as amended by Supplement 4 to the 01 series of amendments."

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal collision introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 through a presentation (GRSP-50-01) on the new terms of reference of the informal working group. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 as reproduced in Annex V [of the session report] and sought the consent of WP.29 at its March 2012 session.

32. GRSP noted GRSP-50-03 tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, introducing test requirements for vehicles equipped with automatically activated door locking systems. The document received some comments and GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this matter on the basis of a revised proposal prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

33. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP on the results of the second Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held. He informed that as a conclusion of the second phase of the programme, LANCAP was promoting the mandatory type approval of vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 94 as well as the mandatory use of type approved CRS to governments of Latin American countries.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal collision introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 through a presentation (GRSP-50-01) on the new terms of reference of the informal working group. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 as reproduced in Annex V [of the session report] and sought the consent of WP.29 at its March 2012 session.

32. GRSP noted GRSP-50-03 tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, introducing test requirements for vehicles equipped with automatically activated door locking systems. The document received some comments and GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this matter on the basis of a revised proposal prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

33. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP on the results of the second Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held. He informed that as a conclusion of the second phase of the programme, LANCAP was promoting the mandatory type approval of vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 94 as well as the mandatory use of type approved CRS to governments of Latin American countries.

The minutes from the 13th meeting [were] adopted.

61. Agenda item 4.8.6, Regulation No. 94, document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/120, add the following paragraphs 11.1 and 11.2, to read:

“11.1. As from the official date of entry into force of Supplement 4 to the 01 series of amendments, no Contracting Party applying this Regulation shall refuse to grant UNECE approval under this Regulation as amended by Supplement 4 to the 01 series of amendments.

11.2. As from 23 June 2013, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall grant UNECE approvals only to those types of vehicles which comply with the requirements of this Regulation as amended by Supplement 4 to the 01 series of amendments."

The group discussed the next steps based on the scenarios shown in document FI-13-04 during the May GRSP session by the chairman of IWG R94. It was agreed that the final step should be the introduction of the THOR dummy into the regulation. However, taking into account that mid-term improvements in particular for vulnerable occupants shall be reached, a modified H3 – considering options like THMPR, RibEye – version with improved criteria like DEQ could be used. It was agreed that an expert group shall consider and suggest such possibilities. It was furthermore suggested that the THORAX project shall also evaluate the application of such modifications.

A document of new terms of reference has been produced – document FI-13-05 – and has been approved so far.

The minutes from the 12th meeting [were] adopted without amendments.

The Agenda was adopted after adding a bullet point for the request from the RESS [Rechargeable Energy Storage Systems] group.

30. The Chair of the informal group on Frontal collision introduced GRSP-49-36 to inform GRSP on the work progress of his group. As an outcome of the work carried out so far, he informed GRSP that four possible scenarios to amend Regulation No. 94 were possible. He concluded that the group scheduled two further meeting on 27 June and 7 September 2011 in Paris, at OICA’s office, to better define these options. Accordingly, GRSP agreed to seek consent of a six months extension of the mandate of the informal group at the June 2011 session of WP.29. Finally, GRSP invited all its experts to send their comments or proposals on the possible scenarios to amend the Regulation before the deadline for submission of official documents of its December 2011 session.

31. The Chair of the informal working group on Frontal collision introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 through a presentation (GRSP-50-01) on the new terms of reference of the informal working group. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/24 as reproduced in Annex V [of the session report] and sought the consent of WP.29 at its March 2012 session.

32. GRSP noted GRSP-50-03 tabled by the expert from the Netherlands, introducing test requirements for vehicles equipped with automatically activated door locking systems. The document received some comments and GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this matter on the basis of a revised proposal prepared by the expert from the Netherlands.

33. The expert from FIA Foundation informed GRSP on the results of the second Latin American New Car Assessment Programme (LANCAP) recently held. He informed that as a conclusion of the second phase of the programme, LANCAP was promoting the mandatory type approval of vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 94 as well as the mandatory use of type approved CRS to governments of Latin American countries.