11. As follow-up of the concerns raised during the December 2011 session of GRSP, the expert from EC introduced GRSP-51-10-Rev.1, jointly prepared by the experts from the Netherlands and OICA, amending the initial proposal. The proposal received further comments from the experts from South Korea, Japan and the United States of America. Accordingly, GRSP considered GRSP-51-33-Rev.2 (superseding GRSP-51-10 GRSP-51-10-Rev.1 and GRSP-51-33-Rev.1). However, some experts requested a study reservation of the proposal. GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-51-33-Rev.2 with an official symbol at its December 2012 session. Finally, GRSP recommended experts to prepare an update of the final report of the amendment of the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2), if needed and draft a similar proposal of amendments to the UN Regulation on pedestrian safety for the next session of GRSP.

8. The expert from the United States introduced GRSP-52-27 aimed at explaining his study reservation to the proposed amendment to the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/31 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/14). He explained that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was currently conducting tests to evaluate differences between target/aim point and first point of contact with respect to testable area and Head Injury Criteria (HIC) outcome. He concluded that, until this testing was completed, he was not in the position to give a final decision on the proposal. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2013 session.

4. GRSP considered the issue of UN GTR No. 9 Amendment 3 (Headform test) but concluded that since there was no new information made available to the experts, it was not possible to restart the discussions on Amendment 3. GRSP recalled the recommendation in the report of WP.29 (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1157, paragraphs 148 to 150) that in the interim, GRSP conclude its discussions on Amendment 4 on the Deployable Pedestrian Protection Systems (DPPS), which then be re-numbered as the new Amendment 3. The experts had agreed that when new information becomes available, experts from Germany, Netherlands, United States, other contracting parties and interested stakeholders would seek to reengage the discussion on the headform test as the new Amendment 4.

5. Referring to the AC.3 decision at its March 2020 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1151, para. 158), GRSP reiterated its intention to finalise the work on harmonizing UN GTR No. 9 with UN Regulation No. 127, which already incorporates the proposed Amendment 3 to the UN GTR for the headform test (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5 as amended by GRSP-67-13). However, the expert from the United States of America suggested that, due to the postponement of this current GRSP session from May to July, AC.3 had not received the results of the discussions and should first be informed of the process at its next session in November 2020 before vote on the proposed Amendment 3 at its March 2021 session.

Therefore, GRSP recommended: (a) Amendment 3 to UN GTR No. 9 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5), as amended by Annex II to the session report, (b) the final progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2) as amended by Annex II to the session report and (c) the authorization to develop the work (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/31), for consideration and vote at the March 2021 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3.

6. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that NHTSA had initiated a Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking for establishing the current requirements for head form tests, as proposed by GRSP. [but that this notice] had been on hold due to other priorities at NHTSA. The expert from EC recommended a fast-tracking process to ensure harmonization.

9. As the United States was not represented by an expert, the Chair announced that she was not in a position to present a proposal to solve the study reservation raised by her country at the prior session to the proposed amendment to the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/31 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/14). GRSP agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its December 2013 session. It was also agreed to seek guidance to the June 2013 session of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (WP.29/AC.2) about the possible simultaneous adoption of the two proposed amendments to the UN GTR (Phase 2 and Amendment 2); OICA noted that Amendment 2 needs to apply to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the UN GTR.

9. The expert from the EC introduced GRSP-54-07-Rev.1 to clarify provisions of the headform tests and superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/14 (including the final report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2). The expert from the United States of America stated that, as a general issue, the proposal was not evidence-based (GRSP-54-31) and lacked data from the current method. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2014 session on the basis of more data and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-54-07-Rev.1 with an official symbol and to keep GRSP-54-31 as a reference.

9. GRSP agreed to dissolve the activities to update Phase 1 of the GTR and to focus efforts on Phase 2 and on future amendments (e.g. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, see para. 6). Thus, it was agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 from the agenda and to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2 (progress report) which would be updated, once that the activity on the head form tests would be finalized (see agenda item 4(a), para. 6).

9. The expert from OICA reiterated his intention to continue the work on harmonizing UN GTR No. 9 with UN Regulation No. 127 which had already incorporated the proposed amendments for the headform test (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He suggested that at the March 2020 session of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3), the Chair of GRSP could recommend Amendment 3 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) to UN GTR at its May 2020 session. Therefore, GRSP agreed to finalize discussion of this subject and to review an updated final progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2) that had been submitted by the technical sponsor.

11. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its next sessions awaiting the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis and the transposition process of the UN GTR Phase 1 into the legislation of the United States of America.

135. AC.3 noted that the proposal under this agenda item had been withdrawn.

143. The representatives of the United States of America requested that AC.3 agree to a deferral of the vote on this item due to its final technical evaluation of the amendment earlier this year. They explained that technical experts in the United States had identified how the proposed amendment to UN GTR No.9 on Pedestrian Safety lowers the stringency of the underlying performance requirement for head impact protection. Due to important safety considerations, the United States of America requested additional time to discuss its scientific findings with GRSP. In addition to the need to further evaluate the underlying safety protections as proposed in the amendment, the representatives of the United States of America noted that there are no fewer than three additional amendments pending or being planned, from various contracting parties. Some of which will have a direct impact on the stringency of the UN GTR. In fact, one of these amendments has the potential to improve the stringency of the testing requirements. Therefore, they questioned why WP.29 would adopt the amendment at this session which reduces the stringency of the UN GTR, only to retighten or potentially improve it shortly thereafter. The representatives of the United States of America detailed some of their expert findings and urged the group to pay closer attention to how proposed amendments to UN GTRs relate to each other, take the time to make sure all parties are confident that they are based on the best available scientific evidence available before being presented for adoption to ensure the highest possible levels of safety are attained. The representatives of the United States of America also pointed out that the requested postponement would have no effect on Contracting Parties that operate under the 1958 Agreement because the pending amendment was already incorporated into UN Regulation No. 127. Furthermore, the representatives reminded AC.3 that according to the rules and procedures of the 1998 Agreement (Paragraph 6.2.5.1.), a proposal that is found to be inadequate may be returned to the originating Working Party for revision. Finally, the United States of America representatives also reminded AC.3 that the process of international harmonization of vehicle regulations is an inclusive process, initiated through regulatory activities within the scope of the 1998 Agreement and continued with corresponding activities under the 1958 Agreement, with the aim to encompass the largest representation at the global level.

144. The representative of the European Union argued that the request for postponement on such short notice was undermining the consensus reached by experts after more than six years of discussion in GRSP, based on which the amendment was submitted to the vote in March 2021 WP29 meeting. She stressed that this created a dangerous precedent, whereby any Contracting Party, in disregard of the outcome of work that had already been finalised and validated by the experts, can delay adoption of the legislation and disrupt the procedure at any time. GR level is the one to propose and discuss technical solutions until submission of the draft text for vote. United States of America despite request to this end formulated already in 2015, did not provide any elements for discussion supporting their position, only until March 2021 AC3 session. She stressed that this is not appropriate way of proceeding. She underlined that technical explanations provided by the expert from the United States of America were already examined by GRSP at length (the United States of America had a study reservation on the proposal since 2012), were not endorsed by GRSP and therefore could not be considered at this stage as a basis for postponement by AC.3. She also added that the allegations of lowered stringency of the proposed amendment, the provisions of which are based on UN Regulation No. 127 would create a precedent affecting the credibility of the 1958 Agreement. She underlined that no Contracting Party voiced concerns with regard to the safety levels of Regulation 127, which is a mirror legislation to GTR 9 with the suggested amendment.

145. The representative from Canada proposed to delay the vote until June 2021 in order to retain the work performed so far by GRSP.

146. The expert from Germany expressed his view on the necessary urgency for reaching a solution and called on GRSP to immediately commence with appropriate activities, having in mind the short timeframe between the upcoming GRSP session in May 2021 and the next AC.3 and WP.29 sessions scheduled for June 2021.

147. Upon repeated consultations with the Committee concerning positions of AC.3 members with respect to the possible establishment of the amendment, the Chair of AC.3 concluded that the support from the Committee to reach consensus was not adequate.

148. AC.3 agreed to defer vote under this agenda item to its June 2021 session pending further discussions concerning the proposal for Amendment 3 to UN GTR No. 9 at the next session of GRSP, scheduled to take place in May 2021. AC.3 requested GRSP to give highest priority to the task and to report back to AC.3 and WP.29 with the greatest urgency on the progress towards a resolution of outstanding matters in this context. AC.3 agreed to keep this item on its agenda for the next session with the expectation to vote on the amendment.