99. The representatives of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America, on behalf of the Chair of the informal group, reported on the work progress of the group. They explained that the group was working, on the basis of the revised authorization to develop the amendments (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/25/Rev.1), on pending issues concerning: (i) technical specifications and calibration of the biofidelic rear impact dummy II and (ii) injury criteria. AC.3 adopted the second progress report of the informal group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/86).
128. The Chair of the informal group on Phase II of UN GTR No. 7, introduced the third status report of the informal group (WP.29-155-40). He reported that the group had met seven times and that the last meeting was held in Washington, D.C. on 10 June 2011. He informed that the group had been addressing the head restraint height issue in two parts: (i) the procedure for measuring and determining effective height of the head restraint rather than physical height, and (ii) recommendations for the height requirement. He said good progress has been made on evaluating the rear impact dummy (BIORID II) device, although he explained that an issue relating reproducibility has been highlighted and that this was currently being investigated further. Notwithstanding unforeseeable delays, he underlined that the group had still been working to provide recommendations to GRSP at its 2012 sessions. He concluded that the next meetings of the informal group were scheduled in Geneva on 5-6 December 2011, prior to the GRSP session and in London during the week beginning 19 March 2012, in conjunction with the informal groups on harmonization of side impact dummies and Pole Side Impact. AC.3 requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-155-40 with an official symbol.
5. GRSP noted that the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its March 2011 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, para. 99) had adopted a revised proposal to develop the amendment to the gtr (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/25/Rev.1) and had agreed to transmit it to GRSP. Accordingly, the Chair of the informal group, reported on the work progress made by the group:
6. GRSP also noted that three informal groups would convene again in Washington D.C. and discuss: (i) 8 June, harmonization of side impact dummies, (ii) 9 June, pole side impact and (iii) 10 June, gtr No. 7 Phase 2.
5. The expert from the United Kingdom, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP on the work progress of the group:
6. The expert from Japan complemented this information by introducing the third status report of the informal working group (GRSP-50-31). The expert from the United Kingdom invited GRSP experts to provide comments to be incorporated in an updated version of the status report to be submitted to the March sessions of WP.29 and AC.3. He also informed GRSP that the next meeting of the informal working group was planned for in London at the beginning of March 2012.
7. GRSP noted that WP.29, at its November 2011 session while discussing the 1958 Agreement, agreed with the approach of indexing the information for test devices as an annex to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3.). Accordingly, the expert from the United Kingdom introduced, for information, a first proposal (GRSP-50-26 and GRSP-50-27) on the basis of some BioRID II technical data.
The expert from Germany expressed concerns on the possible transposition of a future UN GTR on the same subject into the 1958 Agreement. GRSP recommended experts to send further comments in due time to the expert from the United Kingdom to allow him to prepare an updated proposal to the March 2012 session of WP.29 for consideration.
116. The Chair of the informal working group on Phase 2 of UN GTR No. 7 introduced the third status report of his group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/34). He reported that the group was focusing its efforts on the two most relevant issues: (i) a new height requirement for head restraints and (ii) a utilization procedure for the rear impact dummy (BIORID II). Concerning the height requirement, he informed AC.3 that the group would likely introduce a proposal at the May 2012 session of GRSP to discuss, amongst others, the limits associated to the test procedure. Concerning the BIORID II dummy, he expressed two major concerns related to: (i) the reproducibility of the dummy performance results and (ii) availability of the injury criteria. He announced that this would likely lead requesting an extension of the group’s mandate at the June 2012 session of AC.3.
117. He announced that the next meeting of the informal working group was scheduled on 22 and 23 of March 2012 (London) in conjunction with the informal working groups on harmonization of side impact dummies and pole side impact. AC.3 adopted the third progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/34).
85. The representative of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group, reported on the work progress of the group. He explained that the group had held its tenth meeting in Munich on 18-19 June 2012 in conjunction with the Pole Side impact informal working group. He informed that the group had been addressing: (i) the measurement of head restraint height and on an appropriate height value, (ii) agreement on the use of the BioRID II dummy, ideally as the single tool (replacing Hybrid III) or the introduction of BioRID II as an option to Hybrid III but selected by Contracting Parties. He added that it had been difficult to finalize the work for the replacement of Hybrid III with BioRID II in the timeframe and, on the current projection for the delivery of injury criteria the informal working group would require a 12 month extension of its mandate. AC.3 gave its consent to extend the mandate of the informal working group until December 2013.
While ongoing fundamental research into the injury criteria for the BioRID dummy has delayed its finalization, the GTR 7 phase 2 informal group has agreed on a new concept of “effective height” for head restraints in response to the Netherlands concerns over protection for taller occupants. The group will now send this to GRSP for consideration in December 2012. It is also worth noting that OICA firmly opposes the use of options in the GTR where governments could require either the BioRID II or Hybrid III for testing.
5. The expert from the United Kingdom, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP about the ongoing activities of the group:
(a) The informal working group had made good progress on development of a proposal to redefine the height of the head restraints in terms of its “effective” rather than absolute height and to deliver a new procedure for its measurement. It was noted that the actual value to be ascribed as a height requirement was sensitive and that it may be more efficient to discuss this during GRSP proper sessions rather than during the meetings of the informal working group.
(b) The informal group had noted that there are differences in some dimensions of the various three-dimensional H point machines (3-D “H”) in the market and that some manufacturers use tighter tolerances for their machines than those defined in the Society of American Engineers (SAE) standard. The informal working group is considering whether new tolerances for the 3-D H machine should be specified and, if so, whether this should be specific to UN GTR No. 7 (and UN Regulation No. 17) or for all UN Regulations and UN GTRs where the machine is used. The expert from SAE was invited as members of the informal working group and it was hoped that proposals for a transparent and open definition of the machine could be agreed.
(c) Regarding the dynamic test to assess the risk of whiplash injury, it was confirmed that the group is working for an agreement to define only the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID II) within the UN GTR (replacing the current reference to the Hybrid III dummy). The development of injury criteria was of critical importance to the delivery of this outcome but unfortunately research in this area has not proceeded as scheduled.
6. The Chair of the informal working group reminded GRSP that the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee (EEVC) recommended BioRID II as a unique choice for a kinematic assessment and that GRSP had received a proposal from the experts of Japan and the EC to adopt this approach into UN Regulation No. 17. He added that an initial assessment of the data from the recent EC study suggested that the reproducibility question for BioRID was not an issue when used for kinematics. He indicated that the drafting of UN GTR currently provides for BioRID to be introduced as an option to Hybrid III and this possibility, using the kinematic approach, remained. Finally, he announced that the next meeting of the informal working group was scheduled on 18-19 of June 2012 in Munich, Germany.
7. The expert from Germany, Chair of the BioRID Technical Evaluation Group (TEG), introduced the status report (GRSP-51-22) of the group. He underlined that the dummy response was sensitive to the change of parts and that certification tests and better control of material properties might be needed.
8. The expert from the Netherlands introduced GRSP-51-23 detailing the main conclusion of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2 concerning the height of head restraint issue. Moreover, through GRSP-51-24 he underlined the actual need for increasing head restraint height. The expert from OICA stated that the discussion should focus first on the definition of the measurement method and then on the height thresholds. Referring to the first phase of the UN GTR, the expert from OICA reminded GRSP that EEVC conclusion at that time was for introducing a limited increase of the height and of a backset of 40 mm to maximize cost benefits. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2012 session on possible proposals on draft UN GTR No. 7 phase 2 submitted by the informal working group. It was also recommended that similar proposals would also be simultaneously made in the same time to UN Regulation No. 17 to keep the texts of the two Regulations aligned.
9. GRSP noted the decision of WP.29, at its March 2012 session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1095 para. 93) to develop a Special Resolution No. 2 (S.R.2) for a protocol to manage drawings, calibration and maintenance associated with test tools. As a follow up of this discussion the Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2 introduced GRSP-51-37 as a concrete proposal based on the inclusion of BioRID II dummy as a start. The proposal received in principle the endorsement of GRSP and experts were invited to send further comments in due time to the Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7, to allow him to prepare an updated proposal for the June 2012 session of WP.29 for consideration.
99. The representative of the United Kingdom, chairing the informal working group, reported on the work progress. He informed AC.3 that the group agreed that substantive progress on this matter would depend on the definition of injury criteria and that such criteria should match the appropriate test tool. He added that since the last meeting held on June 2012 in Munich, the group convened six times through the Webex system for developing the test tool. He indicated that the next meeting of the group would be held on 10-11 December 2012 prior to the GRSP session to work on the injury criteria. He announced a progress report for the March 2013 session of AC.3. Finally, he expressed the intention of the group to submit a draft UN GTR to GRSP at its December 2013 session, and to transmit it to AC.3 for consideration and possible adoption at its June 2014 session.