7. The expert from Germany, co-Chair of the IWG on pedestrian safety introduced the draft UN GTR No. 9 Phase 2 (GRSP-54-33) to incorporate the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI), as a result of the last meeting of the IWG held on 16 and 17 December 2013, prior to the GRSP proper session. He explained that the proposal superseded ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/13, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/25 and GRSP-54-08, leaving pending the issues of the Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) for the flexible lower legform to bumper test (para. 5.1.1) and for the tolerance of the FlexPLI mass (paras. 6.3.1.1. and 6.3.1.1.3.). The proposal received comments from the expert of the United States of America (GRSP-54-32) who questioned the lack of information concerning the above-mentioned IARVs. He stated that the draft UN GTR could not be recommended unless Contracting Parties would be allowed to choose appropriate IARVs when transposing the UN GTR into their national legislations. In response, the expert from Germany introduced GRSP-54-33-Rev.2 addressing this concern. The expert from OICA regretted the lack of agreement on this last issue which would result in a number of options, thus hampering harmonization.

91. The representative of the United States of America, on behalf of the Chair of GRSP, introduced WP.29-162-03 (seeking guidance on issues not solved at the December 2013 session of GRSP), concerning the Injury Assessment References Values (IARVs) for the flexible lower legform (FlexPLI) to bumper test of the proposal for amendments to the UN GTR. He clarified that the text of the amendment to UN GTR No. 9 had been recommended by GRSP to the June 2014 session of AC.3. He reported that during the December 2013 session of GRSP, the expert from the United States of America had submitted informal document GRSP-54-32 stating that it was not in a position to agree with the proposed IARVs. He added that the proposed compromise solution of a footnote had been made by Germany at GRSP to allow other injury thresholds for Contracting Parties that do not have existing pedestrian protection regulations. He concluded that, at that session of GRSP, the expert from OICA had observed that this would compromise harmonization.

92.The representative of the United States of America proposed referring the document back to GRSP for consideration at its May 2014 session, which would delay the establishment of the UN GTR to a later session of AC.3. The representative of Germany noted that if the establishment of the amendments to the UN GTR would be delayed, the corresponding amendments to UN Regulation No. 127 should be transmitted to AC.1 for consideration at its June 2014 session. Furthermore, he sought the consent of AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until November 2014. The representative of OICA added that amending UN Regulation No.127 would be perfectly possible since the needed transitional provisions would maintain the desired alignment with the current GTR No.9, thereby granting time for the research conducted in the United States of America. He also suggested consideration of yet another approach, by proceeding with the amendment of GTR No. 9 without the proposed footnote, but with a review clause for the IARV. AC.3 gave its consent to extending the mandate of the IWG and requested GRSP to further revise the compromise proposal at its May 2014 session based on the cost-benefit analysis.