The comments of OICA (doc. GTR9‐C‐06) had been mentioned during the discussion before and were considered accordingly. Further comments related to agenda item 7 were discussed at this agenda item.

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.