Review of the work behind the proposal to clarify GTR 9, in particular concerning the definition of the headform testing/contact area for measurement purposes.

11. As follow-up of the concerns raised during the December 2011 session of GRSP, the expert from EC introduced GRSP-51-10-Rev.1, jointly prepared by the experts from the Netherlands and OICA, amending the initial proposal. The proposal received further comments from the experts from South Korea, Japan and the United States of America. Accordingly, GRSP considered GRSP-51-33-Rev.2 (superseding GRSP-51-10 GRSP-51-10-Rev.1 and GRSP-51-33-Rev.1). However, some experts requested a study reservation of the proposal. GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-51-33-Rev.2 with an official symbol at its December 2012 session. Finally, GRSP recommended experts to prepare an update of the final report of the amendment of the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2), if needed and draft a similar proposal of amendments to the UN Regulation on pedestrian safety for the next session of GRSP.

8. The expert from the United States introduced GRSP-52-27 aimed at explaining his study reservation to the proposed amendment to the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/31 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/14). He explained that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was currently conducting tests to evaluate differences between target/aim point and first point of contact with respect to testable area and Head Injury Criteria (HIC) outcome. He concluded that, until this testing was completed, he was not in the position to give a final decision on the proposal. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2013 session.

9. As the United States was not represented by an expert, the Chair announced that she was not in a position to present a proposal to solve the study reservation raised by her country at the prior session to the proposed amendment to the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/31 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/14). GRSP agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its December 2013 session. It was also agreed to seek guidance to the June 2013 session of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (WP.29/AC.2) about the possible simultaneous adoption of the two proposed amendments to the UN GTR (Phase 2 and Amendment 2); OICA noted that Amendment 2 needs to apply to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the UN GTR.

9. The expert from the EC introduced GRSP-54-07-Rev.1 to clarify provisions of the headform tests and superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/14 (including the final report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2). The expert from the United States of America stated that, as a general issue, the proposal was not evidence-based (GRSP-54-31) and lacked data from the current method. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2014 session on the basis of more data and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-54-07-Rev.1 with an official symbol and to keep GRSP-54-31 as a reference.

11. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its next sessions awaiting the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis and the transposition process of the UN GTR Phase 1 into the legislation of the United States of America.

9. GRSP agreed to dissolve the activities to update Phase 1 of the GTR and to focus efforts on Phase 2 and on future amendments (e.g. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, see para. 6). Thus, it was agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 from the agenda and to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2 (progress report) which would be updated, once that the activity on the head form tests would be finalized (see agenda item 4(a), para. 6).

6. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that NHTSA had initiated a Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking for establishing the current requirements for head form tests, as proposed by GRSP. [but that this notice] had been on hold due to other priorities at NHTSA. The expert from EC recommended a fast-tracking process to ensure harmonization.

5. Referring to the AC.3 decision at its March 2020 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1151, para. 158), GRSP reiterated its intention to finalise the work on harmonizing UN GTR No. 9 with UN Regulation No. 127, which already incorporates the proposed Amendment 3 to the UN GTR for the headform test (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5 as amended by GRSP-67-13). However, the expert from the United States of America suggested that, due to the postponement of this current GRSP session from May to July, AC.3 had not received the results of the discussions and should first be informed of the process at its next session in November 2020 before vote on the proposed Amendment 3 at its March 2021 session.

Therefore, GRSP recommended: (a) Amendment 3 to UN GTR No. 9 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5), as amended by Annex II to the session report, (b) the final progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2) as amended by Annex II to the session report and (c) the authorization to develop the work (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/31), for consideration and vote at the March 2021 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3.

Proposal to clarify provisions on the headform tests of UN GTR No. 9.

11. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its next sessions awaiting the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis and the transposition process of the UN GTR Phase 1 into the legislation of the United States of America.

10. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that the NPRM activity above-mentioned in para. 7 was in progress and would incorporate a discussion of the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He recommended that interested parties comment on the proposed amendments to the head form tests in the NPRM so that a globally harmonized procedure could be developed. GRSP confirmed that the proposal of amendments would concern Phases 1 and 2 of the UN GTR.

9. GRSP agreed to dissolve the activities to update Phase 1 of the GTR and to focus efforts on Phase 2 and on future amendments (e.g. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, see para. 6). Thus, it was agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 from the agenda and to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2 (progress report) which would be updated, once that the activity on the head form tests would be finalized (see agenda item 4(a), para. 6).

Proposal to clarify provisions of the headform tests of UN GTR No. 9.

11. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its next sessions awaiting the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis and the transposition process of the UN GTR Phase 1 into the legislation of the United States of America.

10. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that the NPRM activity above-mentioned in para. 7 was in progress and would incorporate a discussion of the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He recommended that interested parties comment on the proposed amendments to the head form tests in the NPRM so that a globally harmonized procedure could be developed. GRSP confirmed that the proposal of amendments would concern Phases 1 and 2 of the UN GTR.

6. The expert from the United States of America announced that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had agreed to accept Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) to move Phase 2 forward and to incorporate the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI). He added that IARVs could change as a result of cost benefits analysis conducted during the adoption process of the GTR when transposed into the national legislation of Contracting Parties. Accordingly, he proposed GRSP-60-17 to amend Part A of the statement of technical rationale and to justify of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15. Moreover, he reported that his administration had not yet completed its cost-benefit analysis, but the United States of America New Car Assessment Programme was already using the FlexPLI and the new improved bumper test proposed by the Task Force on Bumper Test Area (TF-BTA) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2). He concluded that for the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) some more analysis would be needed.

7. Referring to the statement of the expert from the United States of America, GRSP noted that at its May 2017 session it would likely be in the position to recommend the Phase 2 of the GTR as a full package: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2 and GRSP-60-17. The expert from the United States of America announced that a meeting of the IWG in Washington, D.C. would be scheduled at the beginning of 2017. Thus, GRSP recommended for its May 2017 session:

1. IWG to provide a final report of the development of Phase 2 (update of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/16, fifth status report of the IWG),
2. IWG to finalise the analysis because the new headform test were incorporated as well (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) and
3. the secretariat to distribute GRSP-60-17 with an official symbol.

9. GRSP agreed to dissolve the activities to update Phase 1 of the GTR and to focus efforts on Phase 2 and on future amendments (e.g. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, see para. 6). Thus, it was agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 from the agenda and to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2 (progress report) which would be updated, once that the activity on the head form tests would be finalized (see agenda item 4(a), para. 6).

6. The Chair of GRSP, on behalf the United States of America reiterated the experts that NHTSA’s request for a delay of the proposal at this time as NHTSA is going thru its adoption process of phase 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He concluded that he would inform GRSP at its December 2017 session about the plan of an NPRM on this subject.

6. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that NHTSA had initiated a Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking for establishing the current requirements for head form tests, as proposed by GRSP. [but that this notice] had been on hold due to other priorities at NHTSA. The expert from EC recommended a fast-tracking process to ensure harmonization.

5. Referring to the AC.3 decision at its March 2020 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1151, para. 158), GRSP reiterated its intention to finalise the work on harmonizing UN GTR No. 9 with UN Regulation No. 127, which already incorporates the proposed Amendment 3 to the UN GTR for the headform test (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5 as amended by GRSP-67-13). However, the expert from the United States of America suggested that, due to the postponement of this current GRSP session from May to July, AC.3 had not received the results of the discussions and should first be informed of the process at its next session in November 2020 before vote on the proposed Amendment 3 at its March 2021 session.

Therefore, GRSP recommended: (a) Amendment 3 to UN GTR No. 9 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5), as amended by Annex II to the session report, (b) the final progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2) as amended by Annex II to the session report and (c) the authorization to develop the work (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/31), for consideration and vote at the March 2021 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3.