Proposal of corrections to document GRSP/2018/29 (previously submitted by CLEPA) regarding the introduction of booster-cushion provisions into UN R129.

Proposal to introduce objective criteria for evaluating whether a door remains latched following the pole impact test. Under UN R135, rear doors on the impacted side of the vehicle not directly struck by the pole may nonetheless be subjected to heavy loads and therefore need to be assessed. This proposal corresponds to a similar clarification already introduced into UN R95 on side impacts.

Proposal to update a reference regarding ISOFIX exemptions permitted under paragraph 5.3.8.8. (related to vehicles with one seat position per row). The reference should read 5.3.8.8. and 5.3.8.9.

Impact of WG17-legform and FlexPLI at lower velocities compared to Madymo and THUMS pedestrian impacts.

Proposal to address new active suspension technologies that can raise the height of the vehicle in motion up to a defined speed. Since the vehicle height has an influence on the headform test area (WAD) and on the test results for legform tests, all possible vehicle heights up to a driving speed of 11.1 m/s (40 km/h) should be considered to be relevant for the impact with a pedestrian. The proposal is a clarification on this issue.To ensure that such an active suspension system is considered for type approval, there should be a detailed description in the information document. Due to the fact that extensions for an existing vehicle type concerning UN Regulation No. 127 are still possible according to 00 and 01 series of amendments, the proposal is relevant for all series of amendments of the UN R127.

OICA questions in response to EVS action item 2: “All members identify specific questions in the white paper to contracting parties for agreement in order to continue with research.”

Japan response to EVS action item 2: “All members identify specific questions in the white paper to contracting parties for agreement in order to continue with research.”

China response to EVS action item 2: “All members identify specific questions in the white paper to contracting parties for agreement in order to continue with research.”

JRC responses to EVS action item 2: “All members identify specific questions in the white paper to contracting parties for agreement in order to continue with research.”

Korea responses to EVS action item 2: “All members identify specific questions in the white paper to contracting parties for agreement in order to continue with research.”

Revised proposal (superseding GRSP-63-24) to clarify the possibility to install side-facing seats in buses of category M₂ and M₃ of classes A and I.

Proposal to clarify the application of GTR 7 Phase 2 static alternative provisions and to modify the allowed range of tolerances under the backset retention and energy dissipations test.

Proposal to explicitly state that functional safety requirements apply to categories of vehicles beyond M₁.

Proposal to clarify that assessment of the DE plane only applies to rearward-facing Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in UN Regulation No. 44 and therefore does not apply to forward-facing child restraints that maintain structure of the child restraint behind the head of the dummy.

Proposal to clarify that assessment of the DE plane only applies to rearward-facing Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in UN Regulation No. 44 and therefore does not apply to forward-facing child restraints that maintain structure of the child restraint behind the head of the dummy.

Proposal to clarify that assessment of the DE plane only applies to rearward-facing Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in UN Regulation No. 44 and therefore does not apply to forward-facing child restraints that maintain structure of the child restraint behind the head of the dummy.

Proposal to clarify that assessment of the DE plane only applies to rearward-facing Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in UN Regulation No. 44 and therefore does not apply to forward-facing child restraints that maintain structure of the child restraint behind the head of the dummy.

Proposal to modify the approval markings for consistency between technical services and approval authorities and between the labels of products approved under the 02 and 03 series. Combinations of approval marks can be made as long as the categories are able to be combined (category-wise as given in paragraph 3.2.2 and as long as it is one approval number). By combining approval marks, space on the Enhanced Child Restraint can be saved and more space is available for clear installation and use instructions. The current layout of the module label in UN R129.02 is technically impossible because the example provides a rectangular shape, with the module and base placed next to each other and joined with a plus mark while the given symbols are on top of each other and joined with an arrow mark.