Mr. Zander highlighted that the request of OICA to not lower the limits (document GTR9-6-20) should consequently mention that an uncertified impactor was used for this. At least in one test one of the measuring channels did not meet the criteria. The chair proposed to discuss the details during the next meeting, if needed.

The chair informed the participants that Germany will agree on the limits for the injury criteria as proposed by the former TEG for the first introduction phase of the FlexPLI.

On request of the chair Dr. Otubushin confirmed that OICA requests to maintain the impactor thresholds as suggested by the former TEG.

Mr. Martin added that NHTSA requests to put all thresholds into square brackets. Decisions on this need to be made on a higher decision level. Also, Mr. Martin added that NHTSA wishes to understand which injury risks are associated with the different criteria.

The chair explained that anyway all decisions in the group are subject to discussion in the UNECE working groups. Several other parties may need to also provide their opinion on this. However, it is unclear where NHTSA wishes to have a decision on this to be made. Mr. Martin responded that NHTSA is currently clarifying this.

Regarding the injury risks associated with the criteria, Mr. Zander explained that two different approaches were developed in the former Technical Evaluation Group. Mr. Martin wondered which approach would be preferred by the Informal Group. The chair explained that the idea is to bring both approaches into the preamble since no agreement exists on one of the methods.

Also, coming back to agenda item 7.1 Mr. Martin wondered whether the FE model used by JASIC will be available for the assessment of the thresholds as well as for the future work with the FlexPLI. Dr. Konosu replied that JASIC does not plan to make the FE model shown commercially available. Mr. Zander proposed NHTSA to use a FE model which has been developed by consortium including Humanetics.

The chair concluded that the agenda item will be maintained for the next meeting.

(Note of the secretary: Since action item A-4-03 could not be closed it will be maintained for the 8th meeting.)

On behalf of OICA members Mr. Kinsky presented the findings of industry (document GTR9-6-20). The presentation showed that the performance of the master legs cannot be generalized as assumed by BASt since another leg with the same build level shows a different performance. Mr. Kinsky concluded that industry proposes to stick to the agreements of the TEG regarding the impactor thresholds. Dr. Ries added that for the time being it seems to be more important to get impactors with a stable performance than re-discussing the thresholds that can be used with these impactors.

Mr. Zander required OICA to provide the certification reports of the legform with the different performance to allow an assessment of these data. Mr. Kinsky promised to double-check this and to come back to this (action item A-6-12).

(Note of the secretary: The requested information was provided after the meeting and has been added to the records of this meeting as document GTR9-6-28. Discussion can take place during the next meeting.)

Regarding the OICA presentation (see document GTR9-6-20), Mr. Zander stated that the presentation would be erroneous due to some wrong statements. He noted that e.g., as described in GTR9-5-20, the vehicle tests were not used for the proposal to modify the impactor thresholds. Furthermore, he stated that if using the TEG agreed methodology for determining the impactor thresholds, as suggested by GTR9-6-20, e.g. the maximum permissible tibia bending moment would be at 321 Nm.