9. GRSG noted the proposal (GRSG-127-23) from the expert of OICA, that was revised from the October 2023 session of GRSG. In the case when safety-belts and an airbag limit head movement, exemption for the mandatory headform test to limit head injuries. The expert of OICA stressed that UN Regulation No. 21 provides a set of dummies and tests which aim for head contact to not occur. The expert from Japan argued that the proposal over-relaxed the purpose of the UN Regulation and recommended careful consideration of the issue. The expert from the United Kingdom offered to discuss online, possible improvements with the expert from OICA. Finally, GRSG agreed to resume discussion on a revised proposal and requested concerned parties to liaise with the expert from OICA.

8. GRSG noted a proposal (GRSG-126-16) from the expert of OICA on an exemption in a specific situation – when safety-belts and an airbag limit head movement – for the mandatory headform test to limit head injuries. The experts from Finland argued that the restraint system could fail, and that safety glazing were also designed for Vulnerable Road Users (VRU). The expert from the Netherlands proposed to limit the exemptions to those vehicles where the changes proposed would be allowed. The expert from Italy shared the concerns of the expert from Finland. The expert from Germany clarified that UN Regulation No. 127 (Pedestrian safety) did provide safety for VRU. He clarified that contact would not occur with the windscreen if the occupants were restrained. He supported the proposed exemptions because UN Regulation No. 21 (Interior fitting) was designed to prevent sharp-edge injuries in case of unrestrained occupants. The expert from France suggested that gaps for these tests should be considered. He added that UN Regulation No. 21 provides set of dummies to check that contact did not occur. He stressed the need to provide evidence that contact did not occur and therefore that occupants were not at risk for any category of vehicle. GRSG agreed to resume discussion based on a revised document. GRSG also noted that if a new replacement proposal was not received by the secretariat, GRSG-126-16 should be confirmed for submission as an official document before the deadline.