7. GRSP considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/13 and GRSP-49-15 concerning the introduction of the flexible pedestrian legform (Flex-PLI) into the gtr. The expert from the United States of America made a presentation (GRSP-49-23) showing the outcome of a comparison research study conducted in his country between the Flex-PLI and the current lower legform. He concluded that additional research, testing and additional world fleet data is needed to address the injury criteria concerns and to justify the introduction of the Flex-PLI. The expert from Japan gave a presentation (GRSP-49-24), showing that the Flex-PLI and the current legform have a totally different structure and injury criteria. Therefore, he concluded that direct comparison between the two legforms would take misleading results. GRSP agreed that pending issues should be addressed by an informal group, co-chaired by Germany and Japan and aimed at finalizing proposals for the introduction of the Flex-PLI into the gtr and in the draft Regulation on pedestrian safety in the same time.

8. GRSP agreed to seek consent from WP.29 and the administrative Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its June 2011 session to mandate an informal group on the Flex- PLI. GRSP also noted the draft terms of reference of the informal group (GRSP-49-38) and agreed to refer to this group for finalization. Finally, it was agreed to resume consideration on this agenda item on the basis of a revised proposal (including ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/13, GRSP-49-15 and possible amendments proposed by the informal group), if any.

37. With reference to the discussion held under agenda item 4 (see paras. 7–8), concerning the proposal to introduce the Flex-PLI into the draft Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/14), GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2011 session on the basis of the outcome of the informal group. GRSP also agreed that the Regulation would not provide any monitoring period for the introduction of the Flex-PLI, to prevent that legal texts would be used as research instruments.

38. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on the proposals of amendments and corrigenda to the draft Regulation on pedestrian safety (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/127) at its December 2011 session. The secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-49-12, GRSP-49-14, GRSP-49-16 merged with GRSP-49-19 and GRSP-49-26 with official symbols.

R. Damm presented the informal document GTR9‐C‐07 (based on GTR9‐C‐03 and the reports of GRSP and WP.29) that summarizes the rational for establishing this group:

During the May 2011 session of GRSP in Geneva the expert of the US had presented some concerns with the documents proposing the FlexPLI for amending gtr9. As a result of this and some following discussion where the US were supported by other contracting parties it was agreed to request the establishing of an informal group that should work on amending gtr 9 by implementing the FlexPLI.

In June 2011, WP.29 and AC.3 gave consent to mandate the Informal Group, subject to the submission of appropriate Terms of Reference (ToR). At WP.29 it had been noted that Germany and Japan will co‐chair the informal group and OICA will provide the Secretary. Japan and Germany will inform WP.29 and AC.3 that this will be changed and aligned to the proposal of Terms of Reference presented to GRSP (informal document GRSP‐49‐38).

According to this proposal, Germany will chair the group and Japan will act as Vice‐chair. R. Damm informed the attendees that it is proposed that he would act as the Chairman; Dr. A. Konosu (JARI) would act as Vice‐chairman and Th. Kinsky (General Motors Europe) would act as Secretary of this informal group. There were no objections.

The Chairman presented the proposed Operating Principles as well as the draft ToR (see also informal document GTR9‐C‐07). It was mentioned that, on request of the GRSP secretariat, the name of the group had already been changed before the group started working to be consistent with the naming of other informal groups under GRSP supervision. The official name is “Informal Group on Global Technical Regulation No. 9 ‐ Phase 2” (IG GTR9‐PH2).

Y. van der Straaten (OICA) asked whether this change indeed is necessary since the originally planned name would perfectly reflect the intentions of this group. However, it was agreed that the new name also fits the needs of the group and that the ToR should clearly reflect the work to be done.

On request of B. Frost (UK) it was clarified that Japan and Germany will not just sponsor the IG but also the gtr9 and the (draft) UN Regulation (formerly referred to as ECE Regulation) amendments. E. Wondimneh (US) pointed out that the group in fact only has the mandate for the gtr9 amendments according to the AC.3 decision but accepted that the UN Regulation amendments are done in parallel. Y. van der Straaten made reference to the WP.29 and AC.3 decisions and pointed out that the UN Regulation is as important as the gtr and that OICA clearly would like to have the UN Regulation amended at the same time. The Chairman explained that of course the gtr9 amendments need to be agreed first but that the group should also prepare the UN Regulation amendments. However, Dr. A. Otubushin (BMW) pointed also out that both documents should be amended in parallel.

After some discussion it was agreed that a wording should be found underlining that the gtr9 amendment is the main focus of the group but that the UN Regulation will also be amended.

Finally, it was agreed that the respective sentence in the introduction of the ToR will be deleted and under the section objectives it will state that (new wording in bold) “The main objective of the Informal Group… is… in order to enhance the safety level of lower leg pedestrian protection. The work of the informal group shall not be limited to the proposals to amend GTR No 9, but shall cover the development of a complementary proposal to amend the draft UN Regulation on pedestrian safety. The IG GTR9‐PH2 shall work…”

O. Zander (BASt) and Y. van der Straaten asked whether the work of the IG GTR9‐PH2 should be limited to the FlexPLI only or whether other items may be covered. R. Damm pointed out to not see any issue with covering other details of the test procedures related to the legform testing but this is of course also depending of the capacities and time available.

Dr. B. Gottselig (Ford) and Y. van der Straaten proposed to add the following wording to the objectives: The IG may also review further draft proposals to improve and/or clarify aspects of the legform test procedure.

Comments made are reflected in document GTR9‐C‐07r1.