Proposal for the Phase 2 development of GTR No. 13, including

1. Further consideration of items in the original authorization (document WP.29/AC.3/17);
2. Potential revision of the scope to address additional vehicle classes;
3. Requirements for material compatibility and hydrogen embrittlement;
4. Requirements for the fueling receptacle;
5. Evaluation of performance-based test for long-term stress rupture proposed in Phase 1 (including assessment of a procedure to evaluate the risk of long-term stress rupture of storage containers made from composite fiber reinforced polymers);
6. Consideration of research results reported after completion of Phase 1 – specifically research related to electrical safety, hydrogen storage systems, and post-crash safety;
7. Consideration of 200 per cent Nominal Working Pressure (NWP) or lower as the minimum burst requirement; and
8. Consider Safety guard system for the case of isolation resistance breakdown.

Review of the discussions and supporting data towards the further development of CRS requirements under UN R129.

CLEPA proposals including changes discussed during the meeting.

Proposal to clarify UN R129. 1. Requirements for car manufacturers (Regulation No. 16, Annex 17, Appendix 1, which allows a certain zone) are NOT compatible with requirements for Child Restraint System (CRS) manufacturers (Regulation No. 129, paragraph 6.1.3.4., asks for a different zone). The adult belt is supposed to run over the angle between adult thighs (that are more “fat” and the adult pelvis (that has a bigger depth). Therefore the required zone for the Child Restraint Systems has been adapted such that the routing of the adult belt over the child restraint has to closer to the intended use and design of the adult belt.

Proposal to enable approval testing under UN R137 as an alternative to UN R12 in order to avoid redundant testing requirements. The proposal adds references to the steering gear provisions of UN R137 (full width frontal impact) as a compliance alternative in parallel to the current references similarly allowing compliance via provisions in UN R94 (offset deformable barrier frontal impact). Please note that this proposal is based upon document GRSP-60-06/Rev.1. The reference to GRSP-60-07 is incorrect.

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

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

For the International Whole Vehicle Type Approval, a UN Regulation is split in two regulations, UN Regulation No. 14-08 series of amendments including only adult safety belt anchorages and a new regulation UN Regulation No. [XX] will include all requirements for child restraint anchorages. Accordingly, this proposal would update the references to UN Regulation No. 14 in UN Regulation No. 16 in order to recognize child restraint system anchorages installed on the vehicle and approved under the new regulation.

Proposal to transfer all ISOFIX requirements from UN R14 into a new UN Regulation. Within the context of the international whole vehicle type approval program, the removal of these CRS anchorage provisions would align UN R14 with its Australian Design Rule counterpart and enable Australia to apply the revised UN R14 narrowed down to adult seat-belt anchorages only.

Proposal to modify document GRSP/2014/15 presenting Amendment 2 to GTR No. 9. Amendment 2 would introduce the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) as a single harmonized test tool. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has expressed concern whether the injury assessment reference values (IARV) proposed in Amendment 2 will be able to meet the needs for injury mitigation in the United States of America. In order to allow the amendment to move forward, the United States proposes to accept the IARV while noting in the statement of technical rationale and justification its continuing research into the IARVs and the possibility of a future proposal to amend the values should this prove warranted.

Proposal to clarify the testing of seats with and without head restraints. This proposal would allow alternatives at the request of the manufacturer by clarifying that under testing of a bench seat with three seating positions and two head restraints, a moment of 3 × 373Nm shall be applied to the back of seats and of 2 × 373Nm to the head restraints:
(a) If the manufacturer wants to comply with the test requirements of paragraph 6.2. (strength of the seat-back), by the test of head restraint performance of paragraph 6.4., they choose to apply 53 daNm to each seat back without head restraint and 89 daN to each head restraint. In this case only one test shall be performed.
(b) If the manufacturer chooses not to apply 53 daNm, during the test of paragraph 6.4., the seat back strength test of paragraph 6.2. has to be performed in addition to the test of paragraph 6.4.

Proposal to

1. align the regulation with legislation of the European Union, United States of America, and Japan,
2. clarify the test procedure, including ambient temperature provisions,
3. reduce unnecessary time and cost demands of the COP test procedures,
4. apply the minimum burst pressure BP_min as the pressure limit in the hydrostatic pressure rupture test for COP batch testing, and
5. delete the phrase “and in no case less than the value necessary to meet the stress ratio requirements” erroneously introduced into paragraph 9.3.2.1.