| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | Amendments to the proposal for Amendment 1 to gtr No. 9 | ||||||||
| Reference Number | GRSP-48-28 | ||||||||
| Date |
8 Dec 2010
|
||||||||
| Source(s) | USA | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | GTR No. 9 Pedestrian Safety (GTR) | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .pdf format | ||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| GRSP | Session 48 | 7-10 Dec 2010 |
9. The expert from Japan made a presentation (GRSP-48-23-Rev.1) on the possible phases of introducing the flexible pedestrian legform (Flex-PLI) into the gtr and into the draft 01 series of amendment to the Regulation (1958 Agreement) on pedestrian safety. He also introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/37 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2010/4). The expert from OICA opposed the concept of options in a gtr. In order to avoid this problem, he proposed that introducing the Flex-PLI in the draft Regulation on pedestrian safety (1958 Agreement) be given priority and then align provisions of Phase 2 of the gtr, in order to fix dates for its mandatory use. Some GRSP experts argued that this could create a precedent that would hamper harmonization. GRSP agreed to seek guidance from WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions on this issue. 10. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2011 session on a revised proposal based on GRSP-48-41 (including all comments received and GRSP-48-28) to be prepared by the expert from Japan. 11. GRSP noted GRSP-48-27 aimed at clarifying the head form test procedure amended recently by Corrigendum 2 to the gtr. It was agreed to resume discussion at the May 2011 session of GRSP based on a proposal to be prepared by the expert from OICA. |
||||||||