9. Moreover, the expert from OICA gave a presentation (GRSP-55-40) on the work progress of the Task Force Bumper Test Area (TF-BTA), a subgroup of the IWG on UN GTR No. 9 – Phase 2 and proposing an amendment (GRSP-55-41) to the provisions of the bumper test.

10. GRSP agreed to resume consideration of this agenda item at its December 2014 session, awaiting the outcome of research on this issue from Contracting Parties concerned. GRSP requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-55-41 with an official symbol at its next session. Finally, it was agreed to consider GRSP-55-24 under agenda item 17.

Mr. Broertjes proposed to draft a document for the December 2014 GRSP session. The document should contain the proposal to use the corner gauge and, in square brackets, the additional text to use the bumper beam hard structure for defining the test area. He proposed BASt to prepare their detailed argumentation for the inclusion of the bumper beam definition for that meeting.

Also, Mr. Broertjes explained again that the EC prefers the introduction linked to the FlexPLI as a supplement to the respective series of amendments. Mr. Takagi noted that the proposal will contain a widening of the test area. According to the Geneva rules, this represents a major technical change, which actually requires a series of amendments. Mr. Broertjes responded that, however, an enforcement together with the FlexPLI is also sound from a technical point of view and that industry could already consider the requirements. However, this of course depends on the discussion in and the decision of GRSP.

Mr. Zander wondered whether a document could already be presented at the following week’s GRSP in Geneva to speed up processes. Mr. Kinsky noted that this could be helpful. Mr. Broertjes apologized that he would this time not be able to make a presentation of the status to inform GRSP, as he would not be able to attend due to other work related commitments.

After some discussion it was agreed and confirmed by the group that Mr. Kinsky could provide a short update on the activities of the group on behalf of the chair, clearly mentioning:

• The idea to use a corner gauge to define the bumper corner,
• The additional request to also use the bumper beam,
• The discussion that the corner gauge is an indicator at the outer surface that can be easily identified and that the bumper beam could be seen as injury causing but may create issue for manufacturers,
• The idea of the US to include the whole front end,
• The idea to decrease the offset area to 42 mm for FlexPLI,
• That the amendments should apply to the FlexPLI only and should enter into force together with the FlexPLI requirements,
• That the status of the group may need to be clarified.

Mr. Zander volunteered to prepare an informal document in advance of the session. However, he noted that he also needed to double-check with the German representative beforehand. Mr. Carroll offered to help with proofreading the document if this would be wished for. It was finally agreed that Mr. Kinsky and Mr. Carroll would work together with Mr. Zander to prepare a first draft for the official text, with in addition a short presentation explaining the details mentioned above. Mr. Kinsky would take the responsibility to present everything in a neutral way at the GRSP session, on behalf of the chair.

(Note of the secretary: The presentation was held and the draft wording was forwarded to the May 2014 GRSP session, the documents are available as informal documents GRSP-55-40 and GRSP-55-41. Mr. Kinsky expresses his sincere apologies that the late comments of Mr. Zander could not be taken into consideration for integration, as they arrived at the time when the item was already subject to the ongoing discussion in GRSP. It is noted that Mr. Zander therefore expressed his explicit reservations with respect to the presented documents).

32. Referring to the decision held under agenda item 3(a) (see paragraphs 8. and 9.), GRSP endorsed in principle GRSP-56-41 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/31, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/32 and GRSP-56-40), introducing the new bumper test method and the definition of bumper beam. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2015 session to define proper transitional provisions and decide whether to adopt the proposal either as a new series of amendments or as a supplement. Finally, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-56-41 with an official symbol at the next session of GRSP.

32. Referring to the decision held under agenda item 3(a) (see paragraphs 8. and 9.), GRSP endorsed in principle GRSP-56-41 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/31, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/32 and GRSP-56-40), introducing the new bumper test method and the definition of bumper beam. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2015 session to define proper transitional provisions and decide whether to adopt the proposal either as a new series of amendments or as a supplement. Finally, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-56-41 with an official symbol at the next session of GRSP.

32. Referring to the decision held under agenda item 3(a) (see paragraphs 8. and 9.), GRSP endorsed in principle GRSP-56-41 (superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/31, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/32 and GRSP-56-40), introducing the new bumper test method and the definition of bumper beam. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2015 session to define proper transitional provisions and decide whether to adopt the proposal either as a new series of amendments or as a supplement. Finally, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-56-41 with an official symbol at the next session of GRSP.