PDB presented the status of their drawing review which had identified some minor requirements for change but no significant issues. It was not clear whether the check had included issues such as proprietary references and Mr Bortenschlager agreed to check this point.

UK advised that they had completed a review of the drawings set for completeness and also for proprietary references and it was agreed that they would merge their findings with those of PDB and then hold a tripartite discussion with PDB and Humanetics.

Humanetics indicated their readiness to help with the review but noted that until the scale of the drawing revisions were understood they could not offer guarantees that they could complete this task.

The chair also advised that he was working with the chairs of the Flex-PLI and Q-Dummy group to develop a guidance document, reflecting the combined experience of developing the Mutual Resolution, to help future groups with their work.

Task –

UK and PDB to conclude a list of drawing updates required before these can be finalised for the mutual resolution.

UK will share the PADI documents with the group shortly.

A question was raised regarding Para 2.6 of the mutual resolution with regards to any change that may be made in future. It was questioned who would be responsible for testing this and what evidence must be provided to demonstrate the changes do not alter behaviour?

2.6. With the exception of paragraph 2.5, where the manufacturer makes changes to a part that is shared with one or more tools, and it is not demonstrated that all these tools are unaffected; a new drawing is listed for the tool affected by the change. Where this change affects a master drawing, the original drawing is reallocated to a new and alternative parent Addendum and references revised. Revised drawings follow the numbering convention, i.e. “TRANS/WP.29/1101/Add.1/Dwg 001/Rev.1”.

Chair – Any change would need to go through the normal UN procedures. The offically path, in this case for an amendment to the Mutual Resolution would first be through the appropriate GR and then finally through WP.29. The difference from a change to a regulation or GTR being that as soon as WP.29 agrees to a change it would then be effective. The intention is to set “one” specific dummy level.

He expected that Experts may need to look at cases in detail, to determine effects of changes and, in some cases, back to back testing may be required.