Draft amendment 1 to GTR No. 7 on Head Restraints
Document GRSP/2015/34
18 November 2015

The GTR7 Informal Working Group has been preparing amendments to the regulation with regard to head restraint height, use of the BioRID test dummy, and to improve the overall text. This document provides the current draft text with open items enclosed in brackets.

Status: Superseded
Download document
Previous Documents, Discussions, and Outcomes
3. | Global Technical Regulation No. 7

5. The expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on the UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 – Phase 2, made a presentation (GRSP-58-18) on the Group’s progress. He clarified that the IWG intends to proceed with a more empirical approach on the correlation between Post Mortem Human Subjects (PMHS) and Biomechanical Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID). The results would be submitted as a subsequent amendment proposal on injury criteria (perhaps for adoption) at the May 2016 session of GRSP. He also introduced draft UN GTR Phase 2 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/34 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/24).

6. GRSP, in principle, agreed to change the height requirements of head restraints in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/34 to take into account ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/17.

8. GRSP finally agreed to refer GRSP-58-26 back to the IWG, to incorporate all the comments from ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/34, and resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session.

2. | Global Technical Regulation No. 7 (Head restraints)

4. The expert from Japan, whose country was the technical sponsor of the UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP about the outcome of the last meeting (GRSP-54-30), held on 10-11 September 2013 in (Gothenburg), Sweden, of the informal working group (IWG) developing the draft UN GTR. The expert from Germany, made a presentation (GRSP-54-28) of the workshop held in Bergisch Gladbach (16 July 2013), Germany, aimed at defining a procedure for the test position of the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID II). He added that as a result of the workshop, experts agreed that the use of the Head Restraint Measuring Device (HRMD) was no longer needed for static assessment and BioRID positioning. He concluded that test procedures and injury criteria would likely be finalized in the next meeting of the IWG scheduled for 4-6 February 2014 in Brussels. The expert from the United Kingdom introduced, for information, the latest stage of the draft UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/24) and a draft Addendum 1 (GRSP-54-05) to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 (M.R.1). He explained that a revised official proposal of UN GTR would be submitted by the IWG at the May 2014 session of GRSP as well as a final draft addendum to M.R.1.

2. | Global Technical Regulation No. 7 (Head restraints)

4. The expert from the United Kingdom, Chair of the IWG on UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP about the work progress (GRSP-53-14) of his group. He added that the last meeting of the group had been held on 23-24 April 2013 in Paris and that two further WebEX meetings would be held before the summer to advance the drafting. He explained that as a result of its activities the group agreed on:

(a) An effective head restraint height measurement procedure whose thresholds for an absolute height would be returned to GRSP for final decision.

(b) An appropriate dynamic test, including the test procedure, injury criteria and the associated corridors for the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID II).

6. The expert from the Netherlands introduced rationales (GRSP-53-17) to justify the proposal (GRSP-53-15), for information only, to increase the height of head restraints up to 830 mm in at least one position of head restraint adjustment and not less than 720 mm in any position of head restraint adjustment. He also provided an overview on the measuring method for effective head restraint height (GRSP-53-16). The expert from OICA reminded GRSP that the new measurement procedure would reduce the measured height by 20 mm (therefore making the current limit, as it stands, more severe), and this should be taken into consideration for establishing new height thresholds. The expert from the United Kingdom encouraged cost benefit analysis to justify the proposed thresholds.

Related and Previous Documents
GRSP/2013/24
GRSP-54-18
GRSP-53-15
GRSP-58-18
GRSP-58-26
Relates to GTR No. 7 |