Proposal for amendment to draft Phase 2 to global technical regulation No. 9 (Pedestrian safety)
Download in .pdf format Download in .doc format

Proposal to clarify provisions of the headform tests of UN GTR No. 9.

Reference Number: GRSP/2014/5
Origin: EC
Date: 27 February 2014
Proposal Status: Superseded
Related Documents:
GRSP-54-07/Rev.1 | Proposal for Amendment [2] to Global Technical Regulation No. 9 (revised)
GRSP-55-24 | Proposal of amendment to documents GRSP/2014/2 and GRSP/2014/5
GRSP-67-13 | GTR 9: Proposal for Amendment 3
GRSP-67-30 | GTR 9: Proposal for Amendment 3 - Revised Final Progress Report
Discussion(s):
Working Party on Passive Safety | Session 56 | 9-12 Dec 2014

6. The expert from the United States of America announced that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had agreed to accept Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) to move Phase 2 forward and to incorporate the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI). He added that IARVs could change as a result of cost benefits analysis conducted during the adoption process of the GTR when transposed into the national legislation of Contracting Parties. Accordingly, he proposed GRSP-60-17 to amend Part A of the statement of technical rationale and to justify of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15. Moreover, he reported that his administration had not yet completed its cost-benefit analysis, but the United States of America New Car Assessment Programme was already using the FlexPLI and the new improved bumper test proposed by the Task Force on Bumper Test Area (TF-BTA) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2). He concluded that for the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) some more analysis would be needed.

7. Referring to the statement of the expert from the United States of America, GRSP noted that at its May 2017 session it would likely be in the position to recommend the Phase 2 of the GTR as a full package: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2 and GRSP-60-17. The expert from the United States of America announced that a meeting of the IWG in Washington, D.C. would be scheduled at the beginning of 2017. Thus, GRSP recommended for its May 2017 session:

  1. IWG to provide a final report of the development of Phase 2 (update of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/16, fifth status report of the IWG),
  2. IWG to finalise the analysis because the new headform test were incorporated as well (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) and
  3. the secretariat to distribute GRSP-60-17 with an official symbol.

6. The Chair of GRSP, on behalf the United States of America reiterated the experts that NHTSA’s request for a delay of the proposal at this time as NHTSA is going thru its adoption process of phase 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He concluded that he would inform GRSP at its December 2017 session about the plan of an NPRM on this subject.

6. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that NHTSA had initiated a Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking for establishing the current requirements for head form tests, as proposed by GRSP. [but that this notice] had been on hold due to other priorities at NHTSA. The expert from EC recommended a fast-tracking process to ensure harmonization.

9. GRSP agreed to dissolve the activities to update Phase 1 of the GTR and to focus efforts on Phase 2 and on future amendments (e.g. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, see para. 6). Thus, it was agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 from the agenda and to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2 (progress report) which would be updated, once that the activity on the head form tests would be finalized (see agenda item 4(a), para. 6).

10. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that the NPRM activity above-mentioned in para. 7 was in progress and would incorporate a discussion of the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He recommended that interested parties comment on the proposed amendments to the head form tests in the NPRM so that a globally harmonized procedure could be developed. GRSP confirmed that the proposal of amendments would concern Phases 1 and 2 of the UN GTR.

11. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its next sessions awaiting the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis and the transposition process of the UN GTR Phase 1 into the legislation of the United States of America.

Working Party on Passive Safety | Session 59 | 9-13 May 2016

6. The expert from the United States of America announced that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had agreed to accept Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) to move Phase 2 forward and to incorporate the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI). He added that IARVs could change as a result of cost benefits analysis conducted during the adoption process of the GTR when transposed into the national legislation of Contracting Parties. Accordingly, he proposed GRSP-60-17 to amend Part A of the statement of technical rationale and to justify of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15. Moreover, he reported that his administration had not yet completed its cost-benefit analysis, but the United States of America New Car Assessment Programme was already using the FlexPLI and the new improved bumper test proposed by the Task Force on Bumper Test Area (TF-BTA) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2). He concluded that for the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) some more analysis would be needed.

7. Referring to the statement of the expert from the United States of America, GRSP noted that at its May 2017 session it would likely be in the position to recommend the Phase 2 of the GTR as a full package: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2 and GRSP-60-17. The expert from the United States of America announced that a meeting of the IWG in Washington, D.C. would be scheduled at the beginning of 2017. Thus, GRSP recommended for its May 2017 session:

  1. IWG to provide a final report of the development of Phase 2 (update of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/16, fifth status report of the IWG),
  2. IWG to finalise the analysis because the new headform test were incorporated as well (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) and
  3. the secretariat to distribute GRSP-60-17 with an official symbol.

6. The Chair of GRSP, on behalf the United States of America reiterated the experts that NHTSA’s request for a delay of the proposal at this time as NHTSA is going thru its adoption process of phase 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He concluded that he would inform GRSP at its December 2017 session about the plan of an NPRM on this subject.

6. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that NHTSA had initiated a Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking for establishing the current requirements for head form tests, as proposed by GRSP. [but that this notice] had been on hold due to other priorities at NHTSA. The expert from EC recommended a fast-tracking process to ensure harmonization.

9. GRSP agreed to dissolve the activities to update Phase 1 of the GTR and to focus efforts on Phase 2 and on future amendments (e.g. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, see para. 6). Thus, it was agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 from the agenda and to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2 (progress report) which would be updated, once that the activity on the head form tests would be finalized (see agenda item 4(a), para. 6).

10. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that the NPRM activity above-mentioned in para. 7 was in progress and would incorporate a discussion of the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He recommended that interested parties comment on the proposed amendments to the head form tests in the NPRM so that a globally harmonized procedure could be developed. GRSP confirmed that the proposal of amendments would concern Phases 1 and 2 of the UN GTR.

11. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its next sessions awaiting the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis and the transposition process of the UN GTR Phase 1 into the legislation of the United States of America.

Working Party on Passive Safety | Session 60 | 13-16 Dec 2016

6. The expert from the United States of America announced that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had agreed to accept Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) to move Phase 2 forward and to incorporate the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI). He added that IARVs could change as a result of cost benefits analysis conducted during the adoption process of the GTR when transposed into the national legislation of Contracting Parties. Accordingly, he proposed GRSP-60-17 to amend Part A of the statement of technical rationale and to justify of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15. Moreover, he reported that his administration had not yet completed its cost-benefit analysis, but the United States of America New Car Assessment Programme was already using the FlexPLI and the new improved bumper test proposed by the Task Force on Bumper Test Area (TF-BTA) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2). He concluded that for the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) some more analysis would be needed.

7. Referring to the statement of the expert from the United States of America, GRSP noted that at its May 2017 session it would likely be in the position to recommend the Phase 2 of the GTR as a full package: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2 and GRSP-60-17. The expert from the United States of America announced that a meeting of the IWG in Washington, D.C. would be scheduled at the beginning of 2017. Thus, GRSP recommended for its May 2017 session:

  1. IWG to provide a final report of the development of Phase 2 (update of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/16, fifth status report of the IWG),
  2. IWG to finalise the analysis because the new headform test were incorporated as well (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) and
  3. the secretariat to distribute GRSP-60-17 with an official symbol.

6. The Chair of GRSP, on behalf the United States of America reiterated the experts that NHTSA’s request for a delay of the proposal at this time as NHTSA is going thru its adoption process of phase 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He concluded that he would inform GRSP at its December 2017 session about the plan of an NPRM on this subject.

6. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that NHTSA had initiated a Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking for establishing the current requirements for head form tests, as proposed by GRSP. [but that this notice] had been on hold due to other priorities at NHTSA. The expert from EC recommended a fast-tracking process to ensure harmonization.

9. GRSP agreed to dissolve the activities to update Phase 1 of the GTR and to focus efforts on Phase 2 and on future amendments (e.g. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, see para. 6). Thus, it was agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 from the agenda and to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2 (progress report) which would be updated, once that the activity on the head form tests would be finalized (see agenda item 4(a), para. 6).

10. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that the NPRM activity above-mentioned in para. 7 was in progress and would incorporate a discussion of the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He recommended that interested parties comment on the proposed amendments to the head form tests in the NPRM so that a globally harmonized procedure could be developed. GRSP confirmed that the proposal of amendments would concern Phases 1 and 2 of the UN GTR.

11. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its next sessions awaiting the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis and the transposition process of the UN GTR Phase 1 into the legislation of the United States of America.

Working Party on Passive Safety | Session 61 | 8-12 May 2017

6. The expert from the United States of America announced that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had agreed to accept Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) to move Phase 2 forward and to incorporate the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI). He added that IARVs could change as a result of cost benefits analysis conducted during the adoption process of the GTR when transposed into the national legislation of Contracting Parties. Accordingly, he proposed GRSP-60-17 to amend Part A of the statement of technical rationale and to justify of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15. Moreover, he reported that his administration had not yet completed its cost-benefit analysis, but the United States of America New Car Assessment Programme was already using the FlexPLI and the new improved bumper test proposed by the Task Force on Bumper Test Area (TF-BTA) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2). He concluded that for the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) some more analysis would be needed.

7. Referring to the statement of the expert from the United States of America, GRSP noted that at its May 2017 session it would likely be in the position to recommend the Phase 2 of the GTR as a full package: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2 and GRSP-60-17. The expert from the United States of America announced that a meeting of the IWG in Washington, D.C. would be scheduled at the beginning of 2017. Thus, GRSP recommended for its May 2017 session:

  1. IWG to provide a final report of the development of Phase 2 (update of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/16, fifth status report of the IWG),
  2. IWG to finalise the analysis because the new headform test were incorporated as well (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) and
  3. the secretariat to distribute GRSP-60-17 with an official symbol.

6. The Chair of GRSP, on behalf the United States of America reiterated the experts that NHTSA’s request for a delay of the proposal at this time as NHTSA is going thru its adoption process of phase 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He concluded that he would inform GRSP at its December 2017 session about the plan of an NPRM on this subject.

6. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that NHTSA had initiated a Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking for establishing the current requirements for head form tests, as proposed by GRSP. [but that this notice] had been on hold due to other priorities at NHTSA. The expert from EC recommended a fast-tracking process to ensure harmonization.

9. GRSP agreed to dissolve the activities to update Phase 1 of the GTR and to focus efforts on Phase 2 and on future amendments (e.g. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, see para. 6). Thus, it was agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 from the agenda and to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2 (progress report) which would be updated, once that the activity on the head form tests would be finalized (see agenda item 4(a), para. 6).

10. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that the NPRM activity above-mentioned in para. 7 was in progress and would incorporate a discussion of the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He recommended that interested parties comment on the proposed amendments to the head form tests in the NPRM so that a globally harmonized procedure could be developed. GRSP confirmed that the proposal of amendments would concern Phases 1 and 2 of the UN GTR.

11. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its next sessions awaiting the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis and the transposition process of the UN GTR Phase 1 into the legislation of the United States of America.

Working Party on Passive Safety | Session 63 | 14-18 May 2018

6. The expert from the United States of America announced that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had agreed to accept Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) to move Phase 2 forward and to incorporate the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI). He added that IARVs could change as a result of cost benefits analysis conducted during the adoption process of the GTR when transposed into the national legislation of Contracting Parties. Accordingly, he proposed GRSP-60-17 to amend Part A of the statement of technical rationale and to justify of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15. Moreover, he reported that his administration had not yet completed its cost-benefit analysis, but the United States of America New Car Assessment Programme was already using the FlexPLI and the new improved bumper test proposed by the Task Force on Bumper Test Area (TF-BTA) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2). He concluded that for the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) some more analysis would be needed.

7. Referring to the statement of the expert from the United States of America, GRSP noted that at its May 2017 session it would likely be in the position to recommend the Phase 2 of the GTR as a full package: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/15, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/2 and GRSP-60-17. The expert from the United States of America announced that a meeting of the IWG in Washington, D.C. would be scheduled at the beginning of 2017. Thus, GRSP recommended for its May 2017 session:

  1. IWG to provide a final report of the development of Phase 2 (update of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/16, fifth status report of the IWG),
  2. IWG to finalise the analysis because the new headform test were incorporated as well (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5) and
  3. the secretariat to distribute GRSP-60-17 with an official symbol.

6. The Chair of GRSP, on behalf the United States of America reiterated the experts that NHTSA’s request for a delay of the proposal at this time as NHTSA is going thru its adoption process of phase 1 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He concluded that he would inform GRSP at its December 2017 session about the plan of an NPRM on this subject.

6. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that NHTSA had initiated a Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking for establishing the current requirements for head form tests, as proposed by GRSP. [but that this notice] had been on hold due to other priorities at NHTSA. The expert from EC recommended a fast-tracking process to ensure harmonization.

9. GRSP agreed to dissolve the activities to update Phase 1 of the GTR and to focus efforts on Phase 2 and on future amendments (e.g. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5, see para. 6). Thus, it was agreed to remove ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 from the agenda and to keep ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2 (progress report) which would be updated, once that the activity on the head form tests would be finalized (see agenda item 4(a), para. 6).

10. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP that the NPRM activity above-mentioned in para. 7 was in progress and would incorporate a discussion of the new proposed requirements for the head form tests (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5). He recommended that interested parties comment on the proposed amendments to the head form tests in the NPRM so that a globally harmonized procedure could be developed. GRSP confirmed that the proposal of amendments would concern Phases 1 and 2 of the UN GTR.

11. GRSP agreed to defer discussion on this agenda item to its next sessions awaiting the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis and the transposition process of the UN GTR Phase 1 into the legislation of the United States of America.