4. The expert from the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Chair of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on the UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP about the work progress of the IWG. He clarified that notwithstanding the progress of the last meeting held in February 2014, outstanding points remained, i.e. on injury criteria. He added that the next meeting had been scheduled on early September 2014, in Berlin. He stated that the IWG had suggested that the issue of the head restraint height would be resolved by GRSP rather than the IWG. He finally announced that a revised official proposal for a UN GTR would be submitted by the IWG at the December 2014 session of GRSP as well as a final draft addendum to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 (M.R.1), to incorporate the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID II).

5. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume consideration of the draft UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/24) on the basis of final proposals submitted by the IWG and to resume discussion on the height of the head restraints (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/17) at its December 2014 session.

4. The expert from Germany introduced GRSP-65-32, to present the proposed Amendment 2 (GRSP-65-24 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/5) to UN GTR No. 7 (Phase 2 of the UN GTR on head restraints), jointly prepared with the experts from Japan and the Netherlands. He explained that the proposal has removed several square brackets and therefore solving the main issues. He added that the draft amendment would introduce: (a) injury criteria focusing on Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) namely upper and lower neck flexion and extension, (b) BioRID as an option for contracting parties to Hybrid III still and © procedure for establishing the height of the head restraint based on the head contact rather than at its absolute height. He clarified that the proposal that would need still some changes, will be complemented by a proposal of Addendum 1 to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 to insert drawings and specifications of the BioRID, to be presented at the December 2019 session of GRSP. Moreover, the experts from France and Russian Federation announced that they would not need the translation of the BioRID manual or other dummy specification and can be dealt with in English only. GRSP noted that all these specifications, when they would be submitted, shall need a disclaimer letter from the dummy manufacturer concerning copyright claims and that they might be upload on the M.R.1 website without any copyright infringements.

5. [At] the same time, the expert from Japan introduced the ninth status report of the Informal Working Group (IWG) on Head Restraints (GRSP-65-31). The expert from CLEPA withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/8 and introduced GRSP-65-30 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2019/10 amending the static options of the proposal.

6. Finally, GRSP experts were invited to provide comments to GRSP-65-24 to the expert from Japan by 13 September 2019. Moreover, GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-65-30 and GRSP-65-31 with an official symbol and agreed to seek consent of WP.29 and AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until June 2020.

5. Concerning the height of head restraints, the expert from the Netherlands reminded GRSP that a proposal with new thresholds had been submitted last year (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/17) and that the new measurement method agreed by the IWG was guaranteeing good repeatability. The expert from OICA argued that the new test method by itself was reducing the measured height of the head restraints by about 30 mm and that the additional severity due to the new thresholds referenced in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/17 needed further justification. The expert from India was of the opinion that an anthropometry study should be carried out to investigate the consequences of increased height of head restraints.

6. The expert from the Netherlands introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/17, aimed at increasing the height of the head restraint at the front driver seating position, to cover taller occupants, and decreasing the lowest height of head restraints at the front passenger seating positions for reason of visibility. The expert from the United States of America argued (GRSP-54-23) a lack of rational for both proposed height values. The expert from OICA renewed his concern (GRSP-54-18-Rev.1) that the new measurement procedure would reduce the measured height by 30 mm; and that associated with the new limit of 830 mm would result in increasing the height of the head restraints by 60 mm compared to the current requirements. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume consideration of this agenda item on the basis of final proposals submitted by the IWG and of further justification concerning ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/17 and to keep GRSP-54-18- Rev.1 and GRSP-54-23 as references.