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.

Dr. O. Ries (Volkswagen) introduced the OICA comments regarding the activity list in document GTR9‐C‐07. He pointed out that in some cases a more detailed description seems necessary to assure that nothing will be overseen and to also make clear that the existing EEVC legform impactor is the “reference”.

B. Frost proposed to split some of the additions (test procedure and certification tests) into separate tasks.

R. Damm added that it is clear that several technical details need to be covered and that there even may be a need to have some task forces established that could cover only certain subjects.

Dr. O. Ries asked whether this means a “reactivation” of the Technical Evaluation Group and it was clarified that the intention is just to assure that the experts are closely working together at items that may not need to full attention of the whole IG. However, results of the work will be discussed in the IG and all information will be shared with all attendees.

Finally, it was agreed that dealing with very technical subjects via task forces should be a sufficient way. R. Damm proposed that a first subject to be solved in such a task force could be the issue of the certification corridors that was mentioned in advance of the meeting to be of great concern for several attendees. Dr. A. Konosu agreed to establish the TF and he will invite interested IG members.

Discussion came up on the possible benefits of the FlexPLI compared to the EEVC LFI [European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee Legform Impactor].

O. Zander (BASt) wondered whether it would be sufficient to just concentrate on the improved biofidelity due to the fact that both, the FlexPLI as well as the EEVC LFI, aim for addressing the identical lower leg injuries. Therefore, the demonstration of any additional benefit based on injury data and/or injury costs might not be possible at this stage. Dr. A. Otubushin (BMW) replied that the biofidelity is just one aspect. B. Frost (UK) added that costs are also a very important item since it often seems possible to achieve better test results with a superior test tool but that costs cannot be soundly justified.

An additional question was brought up by E. Wondimneh (US) regarding the transitional provisions: What would this mean for the work of the informal group? Y. van der Straaten (OICA) responded that the group should be able after finishing their work to assess how quick the test tool may replace the existing test tool.

Finally, the activity list had been reviewed line by line and modified according to the agreement of the attendees.

Informal document GTR9‐C‐07 was finally amended in parallel at the screen reflecting the discussion under agenda items 4.1, 4.2 and 7. The modified document was shared including all modifications and reviewed again. It was agreed that the modified document will be published as document GTR9‐C‐07r1.

The current schedule as proposed in informal document GTR9‐C‐07 was introduced by the Chairman. No ad‐hoc comments were received and it was kept in document GTR9‐C‐07r1 for publication.