109. AC.3 noted the first progress report of the informal group on phase 2 of the gtr (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/136). The representatives of Japan and the United States of America introduced WP.29-152-13 and WP.29-152-16 respectively, both containing proposals for amending the terms of reference of the informal group. AC.3 agreed to transmit them to the informal group for consideration at its next session during the December 2010 session of GRSP and anticipate a revised proposal for consideration by WP.29 at its March 2011 session.

128. The Chair of the informal group on Phase II of UN GTR No. 7, introduced the third status report of the informal group (WP.29-155-40). He reported that the group had met seven times and that the last meeting was held in Washington, D.C. on 10 June 2011. He informed that the group had been addressing the head restraint height issue in two parts: (i) the procedure for measuring and determining effective height of the head restraint rather than physical height, and (ii) recommendations for the height requirement. He said good progress has been made on evaluating the rear impact dummy (BIORID II) device, although he explained that an issue relating reproducibility has been highlighted and that this was currently being investigated further. Notwithstanding unforeseeable delays, he underlined that the group had still been working to provide recommendations to GRSP at its 2012 sessions. He concluded that the next meetings of the informal group were scheduled in Geneva on 5-6 December 2011, prior to the GRSP session and in London during the week beginning 19 March 2012, in conjunction with the informal groups on harmonization of side impact dummies and Pole Side Impact. AC.3 requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-155-40 with an official symbol.

116. The Chair of the informal working group on Phase 2 of UN GTR No. 7 introduced the third status report of his group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/34). He reported that the group was focusing its efforts on the two most relevant issues: (i) a new height requirement for head restraints and (ii) a utilization procedure for the rear impact dummy (BIORID II). Concerning the height requirement, he informed AC.3 that the group would likely introduce a proposal at the May 2012 session of GRSP to discuss, amongst others, the limits associated to the test procedure. Concerning the BIORID II dummy, he expressed two major concerns related to: (i) the reproducibility of the dummy performance results and (ii) availability of the injury criteria. He announced that this would likely lead requesting an extension of the group’s mandate at the June 2012 session of AC.3.

117. He announced that the next meeting of the informal working group was scheduled on 22 and 23 of March 2012 (London) in conjunction with the informal working groups on harmonization of side impact dummies and pole side impact. AC.3 adopted the third progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/34).

85. The representative of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group, reported on the work progress of the group. He explained that the group had held its tenth meeting in Munich on 18-19 June 2012 in conjunction with the Pole Side impact informal working group. He informed that the group had been addressing: (i) the measurement of head restraint height and on an appropriate height value, (ii) agreement on the use of the BioRID II dummy, ideally as the single tool (replacing Hybrid III) or the introduction of BioRID II as an option to Hybrid III but selected by Contracting Parties. He added that it had been difficult to finalize the work for the replacement of Hybrid III with BioRID II in the timeframe and, on the current projection for the delivery of injury criteria the informal working group would require a 12 month extension of its mandate. AC.3 gave its consent to extend the mandate of the informal working group until December 2013.

While ongoing fundamental research into the injury criteria for the BioRID dummy has delayed its finalization, the GTR 7 phase 2 informal group has agreed on a new concept of “effective height” for head restraints in response to the Netherlands concerns over protection for taller occupants. The group will now send this to GRSP for consideration in December 2012. It is also worth noting that OICA firmly opposes the use of options in the GTR where governments could require either the BioRID II or Hybrid III for testing.

99. The representative of the United Kingdom, chairing the informal working group, reported on the work progress. He informed AC.3 that the group agreed that substantive progress on this matter would depend on the definition of injury criteria and that such criteria should match the appropriate test tool. He added that since the last meeting held on June 2012 in Munich, the group convened six times through the Webex system for developing the test tool. He indicated that the next meeting of the group would be held on 10-11 December 2012 prior to the GRSP session to work on the injury criteria. He announced a progress report for the March 2013 session of AC.3. Finally, he expressed the intention of the group to submit a draft UN GTR to GRSP at its December 2013 session, and to transmit it to AC.3 for consideration and possible adoption at its June 2014 session.

94. The representative of the United Kingdom, chairing the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, gave an oral report on the work progress. He informed AC.3 that the group had made good progress on developing a proposal to redefine the height of the head restraints in terms of its “effective” rather than “absolute” height and was ready to deliver a new procedure for its measurement at the May 2013 session of GRSP. Regarding the dynamic test to assess the risk of whiplash injury, he confirmed that the group was working on an agreement to select only the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID II) within the UN GTR rather than to propose it as an alternative to the current reference to the Hybrid III dummy. He added that the development of injury criteria was of critical importance for the use of BioRID, but unfortunately, research in this area had not progressed as expected. Accordingly, he doubted that the informal working group would be in a position to recommend the draft UN GTR to AC.3 for consideration and possible adoption at its June 2014 session as announced at the previous session. He announced that a full report would be provided at the session in June 2013.