12. Referring to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/28, the expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the informal group on pole side impact test, introduced GRSP-48-20 including the first progress report of the group and its proposed terms of reference. He informed GRSP that the group scheduled several meetings for the year 2011: (i) week 28 February–4 March in Brussels, (ii) week 6–10 June in Washington DC and in (iii) September/October and December (dated unspecified).

13. GRSP agreed to provide comments on GRSP-48-20 in due time to the expert from Australia, in order to submit the proposal for preliminary consideration to WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions.

99. The representative of Australia introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/81 proposing the development of a gtr on pole side impact and the establishment of an informal group to develop the gtr. AC.3 agreed to develop the gtr and to establish the informal group. The representative of Australia informed AC.3 about his intention to have a first meeting of the informal group in September–October 2010 which would include the preparation of its terms of reference and time schedule for consideration by GRSP at its December 2010 session.

AC.3 also agreed that the initial tasks of the informal group should be to (i) confirm the safety need for a gtr in light of the increasing prevalence of the electronic stability control in the vehicle fleet and (ii) simultaneously assess potential candidate crash test standards to be addressed by the proposed gtr. AC.3 agreed that the development of the gtr and the study on the benefits of such a gtr would be made in parallel.

Moreover, the representative of Australia invited the interested Contracting Parties to nominate experts for the informal group and to send him comments to the task list in informal document No. GRSP-47-28 by 9 July 2010 at the latest. The secretariat was requested to prepare a corresponding AC.3 document and to transmit it to GRSP for consideration.

Mr Hogan introduced the proposed Draft Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure for the Informal Group circulated by Australia prior to the meeting (PSI-01-05).

Mr Hogan suggested rule 4 of the proposed Draft Rules of Procedure be amended to read:
“All documents and/or proposals must be submitted to the Secretary of the group in a suitable electronic format in advance of the meeting. Items or proposals requiring decision by the informal group should be circulated two weeks in advance of a meeting.”

There were no objections to this proposed amendment and the Draft Rules of Procedure circulated by Australia were amended accordingly.

Mr Van Der Straaten and Mr Slaba both suggested that the GTR should consider the issue of an appropriate lead time and implementation date, noting that decisions on implementation timing will ultimately rest with contracting parties.

Mr Wondimneh suggested a recommendation for an appropriate lead time and implementation date could be included in the preamble of the GTR.

Draft Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure of the group were then agreed by the Informal Group for the endorsement of GRSP and WP29. While commencement timing for the proposed GTR was not included in the Draft Terms of Reference it was agreed that this would be a standing item on the agenda at future meetings of the Informal Group.

Mr Hogan presented a consolidated summary of safety data provided thus far by participating countries (PSI-01-07). It was agreed that a more comprehensive presentation should be provided at the next meeting.

Mr Hogan requested contracting parties participating in the Informal Group that had not already responded to Australia’s request for safety need data (originally made by email on 17 September 2010) to do so by the end of December 2010.

Mr Hogan undertook that Australia would liaise bilaterally with Governments where issues with data provided so far (e.g. coding issues) had been identified. Australia may also approach contracting parties for more detailed data (e.g. gender and body region analysis).

Dr Gail presented the results of a BASt study of the ‘Influence of Vehicle Stability Control (VSC) on Accidents on Rural Roads’ in Germany (PSI-01-08).

Ms Meyerson noted that the US had assumed 35% ESC effectiveness for passenger cars, and 67% ESC effectiveness for SUVs when determining the benefits of adding a pole side impact test to FMVSS 214.

Mr Terrell presented an evaluation of electronic stability control (ESC) completed by Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) using Australian used car safety ratings data (PSI-01-09).

The general conclusion from both VSC / ESC studies presented (PSI-01-08 and PSI-01-09) was that ESC would have a significant impact in reducing single vehicle crashes, particularly for SUVs, but would not resolve the problem being addressed by the GTR.

Dr Müller commented that some single vehicle accidents cannot be prevented by ESC due to factors such as slippery road conditions and high speed, but that the effectiveness of other technologies needs to be determined for the subset of accidents that would not otherwise be prevented by ESC.

Mr Hogan sought the view of Informal Group members on the target vehicle categories that should be covered by the GTR. Mr Hogan stated that Australia considered the GTR should cover both M1 and N1 type vehicles.

Mr Wondimneh noted that the vehicle category definitions used by the US in FMVSS 214 are different to the M1 and N1 vehicle categories, and suggested the scope of the GTR should be based on the definitions of Special Resolution No. 1. In the US, commercial vehicles are frequently used as passenger vehicles and many commercial vehicles have ‘sister’ vehicles that are passenger vehicles. For this reason the US does not distinguish between passenger and commercial vehicles in FMVSS 214, but instead uses vehicle mass.

Mr Damm stated that Germany would be happy if the scope of the GTR included UNECE M1 and N1 vehicle categories, but noted the Informal Group should use the vehicle category definitions used in GTRs.

The view of the meeting was that the Scope of the GTR should be based on the definitions of Special Resolution No. 1 and include vehicles with a gross vehicle mass not exceeding 10,000 lbs (approx 4536 kg).

Ms Meyerson provided an update on the progress and activities of the Informal Group on the Harmonization of Side Impact Dummies (WorldSID group). It was noted that the WorldSID 50th male is likely to be completed in 2011, with injury risk curves potentially taking a little longer; the WorldSID 5th female is envisaged to be completed around 2013.

Ms Tylko provided an ISO WorldSID Positioning Sub-Committee Update (PSI-01-18). It was advised that the seating procedure would specify that the seat base be set to the lowest position, but that the procedure for the seat back angle was yet to be finalized. It was planned to hold an ISO workshop in January 2011 to finalize the seating procedure for the WorldSID 50th.

Mr Terrell presented a summary of pole side impact test procedures in use in regulatory or consumer crash test programs or proposed for use (PSI-01-13).

Ms Tylko presented a summary of recent Canadian oblique pole side impact research using the WorldSID 50th RibEye, WorldSID 50th IRTRACC, and ES-2re dummies (PSI-01-14).

Mr Belcher presented a summary of recent Australian oblique, perpendicular, and offset perpendicular pole side impact research using WorldSID 50th dummies (PSI-01-15).

There was discussion of the respective roles of the WorldSID and Pole Side Impact groups with regard to injury criteria and limits. Ms Meyerson suggested that the WorldSID group should be responsible for establishing injury risk curves for the WorldSID dummies and making recommendations on these curves, but that the pole side impact group should take responsibility for the injury criteria and limits to be applied in a pole side impact GTR. It was then agreed that the pole side impact group would be tasked with setting the injury criteria and limits for a pole side impact GTR.

Mr Hogan canvassed the Informal Group to obtain member’s views on the best pole side impact test method (oblique vs. perpendicular vs offset perpendicular), the most suitable impact speed, and the most suitable test dummy.

There was a clear consensus that the test procedure in a pole side impact GTR should utilise WorldSID dummies.

There was general agreement that it was premature to identify an agreed test procedure and that consideration of test procedures based on FMVSS 214, EuroNCAP and the offset perpendicular test recommended by APROSYS should be carried forward.

It was agreed that benefit cost analysis would be a major element in comparing the three candidate procedures. However, some members also expressed reservations about the capacity of available data sources to answer the necessary questions, as gaps and coding issues are known to exist for many field data sources. For example it was noted that distinguishing impact angle was difficult and that the choice of angle in a test procedure could be determined by the outcome being sought rather than the most common impact point.

Mr Terrell indicated a preference not to use the NCAP procedure as this did not load the thorax sufficiently.

Mr Limmer noted that introduction of WorldSID would constitute major change and that other changes should be minimised – a test procedure should be based on the current perpendicular or oblique test, although he favoured the oblique test as more robust.

Dr. Müller noted that Ford, and many other global automotive manufacturers supplied vehicles to both Europe and North America. For these companies, parts of the company would need to adjust if an oblique test was used, and other parts would need to adjust if a perpendicular test was used. However, there would be benefit from one harmonized procedure.

Mr Damm pointed out that there would be cost savings achieved by removing multiple side impact dummies from test procedures and replacing them with a globally agreed side impact dummy.

Mr Belcher presented a consolidated summary of the crash data provided to Australia by the various contracting parties (PSI-02-06).

Mr Loew asked why fatal pole/tree side impact crashes are so common in Australia. Mr Hogan explained that road conditions are different for each country, and in the case of Australia, there is a very large road network, including in rural areas.

Ms Dausse presented a summary of initial French national and LAB pole side impact data (PSI-02-07). Further data will be provided.

Mrs Meyerson presented an updated analysis of injuries in US pole side impact crashes (PSI-02-11). Mrs Meyerson advised that the FMVSS 214 pole test benefits analysis presented at the Bonn meeting (PSI-01-16) had conservatively not included any benefits for the abdomen and pelvis in vehicle to pole/tree side impact crashes as the MAIS had always occurred at the head or thorax.

There were serious abdomen and pelvis injuries in the US pole/tree side impact statistics, but the abdomen and pelvis had not been recorded as the location of the Maximum AIS (MAIS) injury in these crashes. The US should therefore be seeing some benefits by way of reduced abdomen and pelvis injuries in pole/tree side impact crashes, although no benefits had been claimed in the FMVSS 214 pole test benefits analysis.

Mr Langner presented an update of GIDAS and CCIS in-depth pole side impact data, by angle of impact, injured body region and casualty age (PSI-02-12). Mr Langner undertook to provide further analysis based on vehicles manufactured in the last 5 years only and including serious injuries.

Mr Belcher presented an analysis of vehicle structural deformation in oblique, perpendicular and offset perpendicular pole side impact crash tests conducted by Australia (PSI-02-13). All tests had been conducted at 32 km/h. Mr Belcher noted that the perpendicular and offset perpendicular tests produced marginally more structural deformation than the oblique test at 32 km/h, but the 32 km/h oblique test was theoretically predicted to produce more structural deformation than a perpendicular or offset perpendicular test conducted at 29 km/h.

Mr Belcher also noted that the oblique impact looked very much like a perpendicular impact and, in that respect, it would be easy for an oblique impact to be mistaken for a perpendicular impact in the statistical coding of field crashes.

Mrs Meyerson presented a summary of NHTSA’s motivations for including an oblique pole test in FMVSS 214 (PSI-02-14). Mrs Meyerson advised that NHTSA had analysed NASS/CDS field crash cases where the side airbags should have deployed, but did not. NHTSA had decided on the oblique impact angle as a result of side airbag system failures / limitations observed in lab tests and from analysis of field crash data.

Mr Terrell asked if NHTSA knew what sensors were being used in the case study vehicles and commented that he did not notice pressure sensors in the vehicles on display at the EuroNCAP exhibition in Brussels he had attended the day before.

Mr Wiacek advised that he had noticed that many manufacturers of US market vehicles were now moving towards multiple pressure sensors instead of single b-pillar acceleration type sensors.

Mr Limmer advised that two sensors are generally required to fire a side airbag, including one at the airbag control module near the vehicle centre of gravity. In an oblique impact the signal at the airbag control module can sometimes be a bit noisier than in a perpendicular impact. Mr Limmer stated that some cars give really good b-pillar acceleration signals while other cars do not and noted that impacts that occur at the end of the door can be difficult to detect with pressure sensors. It is therefore a matter of designing the most appropriate sensing system for each vehicle model.

Mr Petit provided an update on the progress on the development of the ISO/WG6 WorldSID 50th injury risk curves (PSI-02-15). Mr Petit advised that the ISO/WG6 had agreed to use the survival analysis statistical method to construct the injury risk curves. To enable injury criteria limits to be finalised the ISO/WG6 will now need to establish the most suitable injury risk predictors for each body region (e.g. pelvis injury risk could be predicted by 3ms pelvis acceleration and/or pubic force) and the recommended thresholds. The same process would need to be followed for the WorldSID 5th. WG6 would meet again in May.

Mr Belcher presented data (2000-2009) on fatalities and serious injuries in Victorian (Australian state) side impact crashes by occupant age (PSI-02-16). It was noted that the 45 year age, which is currently used for the age scaling of current side impact dummy injury risk curves, exceeds (by age) around 85% of Victorian pole/tree side impact crash fatalities, but only around 50% of other side impact fatalities.

Mr Ridella presented a summary of an UMTRI investigation of the effects of occupant age on AIS 3+ injury outcomes (PSI-02-17). Mr Ridella undertook to investigate with UMTRI the possibility of separating pole side impacts from other side impacts in the data presented in this study. In response to a question from Ms Tylko, Mr Ridella indicated that while it would decrease the number of available cases, it was possible to identify contact point in the NASS data base.

Mr Terrell presented an Australian side impact field data research study proposal for comments / feedback from members of the informal group (PSI-02-19).

Mrs Meyerson recommended that the study should include an analysis of detailed case studies as these can provide a more accurate understanding of injuries than more broad statistical databases. Mrs Meyerson then suggested that NASS case studies could be considered.

Ms Tylko suggested that the study should focus on crashes where there was side impact damage to the occupant compartment.

Mr Francis suggested that the effects of occupant age should be included in the study.

Mr Hogan advised that Australia would also complete a further round of pole side impact crash tests in collaboration with Transport Canada prior to the next meeting of the informal group and invited any suggestions from the informal group regarding the research focus of these tests.

11. GRSP noted the decision of AC.3 at its March 2011 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1089, para. 109) to transmit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/87 (terms of references and first progress report of the informal group) to GRSP for information and comments. The expert from Australia informed GRSP about the outcome of the last meeting of the group held in Brussels (3-4 March 2011). He clarified that the group was still collecting data to address a candidate test procedure and that a second progress report would be probably available after the June 2011 meeting of the informal group (see para. 6). GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2011 session on the basis of new information provided by the informal group.

106. The representative of Australia, chairing the informal group on PSI, informed AC.3 about the outcome of the third meeting of the group held in Washington D.C. on 9 June 2011. He stated that the group had considered a large amount of background material and research and worked on the safety need case. He added that Australia and Canada were currently conducting a joint crash program testing matched pairs of vehicles in oblique and perpendicular tests. He reported that Australia was also conducting a major research project through the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) including consideration of the effectiveness of airbags. He invited the representatives of WP.29 to provide access to their in-depth crash investigation data. He announced that the Republic of Korea was considering hosting the next meeting of the informal group, to be held in October 2011. AC.3 adopted the terms of reference of the informal group including its first progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/87).

125. The representative of Australia, chairing the informal working group on PSI, presented the second progress report of the group (WP.29-156-29).

126. He clarified that this report sought a change in the terms of reference of the informal working group to allow for a second phase of work on the world side impact dummy (WorldSID) 5th percentile female. He reported that this change was endorsed by GRSP at its December 2011 session. He stated that the informal working group had not met since he reported on its activities at the November 2011 session of AC.3. However, he announced that the fifth meeting of the informal working group would be held on 22-23 March in London (see para. 113), focusing on a revised draft UN GTR in detail, with the aim of submitting an initial draft to the May 2012 session of GRSP. He added that several presentations would be made during the meeting, including further crash tests undertaken
by a number of countries. He specified that the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) would give a presentation of its research, including on injury types, effectiveness of different airbag combinations and the benefits of a regulation. He clarified that, while pole side impacts were not as common as other crashes, they were frequently lethal. He said that MUARC’s work also revealed that injuries in pole side impacts involved very high societal costs frequently involving serious head injuries. He reported that a final first phase UN GTR would be presented to WP.29 and AC.3 for consideration and vote at their June 2013 sessions. He concluded that the sixth meeting of the informal working group was scheduled in the week before the June 2012 session of WP.29 in Munich.

127. The representative of The United States of America supported the revised terms of references for a two stage approach for developing the UN GTR to address the widest range of vehicle occupants.

128. AC.3 endorsed, in principle, the revised terms of references of the informal working group (see para. 32) and requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-156-29 with an official symbol.

90. The representative of Australia, chairing the informal group on PSI, informed AC.3 that since his last update at the March 2012 session of AC.3, the informal working group had held its fifth and sixth meetings in London in late March and in Munich in the previous week. He informed AC.3 that a draft UN GTR had been presented to the May 2012 session of GRSP. He underlined the excellent recent progress on the draft UN GTR and the constructive approach adopted by all members of the informal working group. In particular he acknowledged Canada’s contribution to a large scale crash test programme undertaken with Australia. He stated that the work undertaken by the Monash University Accident Research Centre indicated that the UN GTR would produce major safety gains, due in part to the high proportion of head injuries in both pole side impacts and car-to-car crashes, and the high cost of serious head injuries. Insurance data indicated that the cost of head injuries could exceed notional cost of life as well imposing major societal burdens. He added that the UN GTR would have major benefits in many countries. He informed AC.3 that the major remaining issues were:

• (i) appropriate injury thresholds,
• (ii) material issues impacting WorldSID and
• (iii) appropriate citation of the ISO seating procedure.

He informed AC.3 that the next meeting of the informal group would likely be held in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with the next WorldSID meeting, in September or October 2012. He finally indicated that these meetings should set a definitive timetable for submission of final draft proposals on the WorldSID and Pole Side Impact UN GTRs to GRSP and AC.3.

91. The representative of OICA emphasized the importance of availability of WorldSID for the adoption of the UN GTR on Pole Side Impact, with which the Australian representative strongly concurred.

92. AC.3 adopted the second progress report of the informal working group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/59).

102. The representative of the United States of America, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group on PSI, informed AC.3 about the work progress of the eighth meeting of the informal working group (Paris, 20-21 November 2012) held in conjunction with a meeting of the group on the harmonization of side impact dummies. She added that, as an outcome of this meeting, the third progress report of the informal working group and a draft UN GTR were submitted (GRSP-52-07) to the December 2012 session of GRSP. Moreover, she clarified that the informal working group met virtually through WebEx on 7 February 2013 to consider comments and some additions to the text. Finally, she stated that the draft UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/7) would be considered at the May 2013 session of GRSP. She added that the draft UN GTR could be recommended to AC.3 for consideration and vote at its November 2013 session. She concluded that comments and questions, if any, should be addressed to the Chair of the informal working group on PSI.

121. The representative of Australia informed AC.3 that the first meeting of the informal group was scheduled from 16 to 18 November 2010 in Bonn (Germany). The provisional agenda and the working papers for consideration at the session are available from www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29grsp/psimpact_1.html.

12. Referring to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/28, the expert from Germany, on behalf of the Chair of the informal group on pole side impact test, introduced GRSP-48-20 including the first progress report of the group and its proposed terms of reference. He informed GRSP that the group scheduled several meetings for the year 2011: (i) week 28 February–4 March in Brussels, (ii) week 6–10 June in Washington DC and in (iii) September/October and December (dated unspecified).

13. GRSP agreed to provide comments on GRSP-48-20 in due time to the expert from Australia, in order to submit the proposal for preliminary consideration to WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions.

14. The expert from the United States of America introduced the second progress report (GRSP-48-40) of the informal group on the harmonization of side impact dummies and announced its submission as an Informal document for preliminary consideration to WP.29 and AC.3 at their March 2011 sessions.

12. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP about the outcome of the last meeting of the informal working group on the harmonization work of the World Side Impact Dummy (WorldSID) held in Seoul in October 2011. She announced the completion of a concrete proposal on the 50th percentile dummy within the expected schedule. She added that despite unforeseeable delays the group would also finalize a concrete proposal concerning the 5th percentile dummy in due time. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this agenda item at its December 2012 session on the basis of new information to be provided by the informal working group.

125. The representative of Australia, chairing the informal working group on PSI, presented the second progress report of the group (WP.29-156-29).

126. He clarified that this report sought a change in the terms of reference of the informal working group to allow for a second phase of work on the world side impact dummy (WorldSID) 5th percentile female. He reported that this change was endorsed by GRSP at its December 2011 session. He stated that the informal working group had not met since he reported on its activities at the November 2011 session of AC.3. However, he announced that the fifth meeting of the informal working group would be held on 22-23 March in London (see para. 113), focusing on a revised draft UN GTR in detail, with the aim of submitting an initial draft to the May 2012 session of GRSP. He added that several presentations would be made during the meeting, including further crash tests undertaken
by a number of countries. He specified that the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) would give a presentation of its research, including on injury types, effectiveness of different airbag combinations and the benefits of a regulation. He clarified that, while pole side impacts were not as common as other crashes, they were frequently lethal. He said that MUARC’s work also revealed that injuries in pole side impacts involved very high societal costs frequently involving serious head injuries. He reported that a final first phase UN GTR would be presented to WP.29 and AC.3 for consideration and vote at their June 2013 sessions. He concluded that the sixth meeting of the informal working group was scheduled in the week before the June 2012 session of WP.29 in Munich.

127. The representative of The United States of America supported the revised terms of references for a two stage approach for developing the UN GTR to address the widest range of vehicle occupants.

128. AC.3 endorsed, in principle, the revised terms of references of the informal working group (see para. 32) and requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-156-29 with an official symbol.

12. The expert from Australia, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group on a UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) on pole side impact, introduced a proposal for a draft UN GTR on this subject (GRSP-51-16). He informed GRSP about the close collaboration with the informal working group on harmonization of side impact dummies. He added that the reference to the 3-D H Machine was provisional in the proposal and that in the future it should apply in the S.R.2 to keep harmonized tolerances of the seating position (see para. 5 of this report). He finally announced that the next meeting of the informal working group was scheduled on 20-21 June 2012.

13. GRSP recommended experts to send comments concerning GRSP-51-16 to the expert from Australia by 7 June 2012 for consideration at the next meeting of the informal working group.

14. The expert from the United States of America informed GRSP (GRSP-51-30) about the outcome of the last meeting of the informal working group on the harmonization work of the World Side Impact Dummy (WorldSID) held in London, on 21 March, 2012. She reported that the informal working group was confident to finalize the work for the 50th percentile dummy within the scheduled time. However, she indicated major issues remaining the readiness of the dummy: (i) the drawing package and user’s manual still need negotiation with the manufacturer for its availability, (ii) additional certification work is needed for the pelvis and (iii) further discussion was necessary on instrumentation for multi-axis thorax deflection.

15. The experts from OICA and UK suggested the same timeline for adopting the WorldSID and the UN GTR on pole side impact to make the dummy available to Contracting Parties. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this agenda item at its December 2012 session on the basis of a proposal submitted by the informal working group.

90. The representative of Australia, chairing the informal group on PSI, informed AC.3 that since his last update at the March 2012 session of AC.3, the informal working group had held its fifth and sixth meetings in London in late March and in Munich in the previous week. He informed AC.3 that a draft UN GTR had been presented to the May 2012 session of GRSP. He underlined the excellent recent progress on the draft UN GTR and the constructive approach adopted by all members of the informal working group. In particular he acknowledged Canada’s contribution to a large scale crash test programme undertaken with Australia. He stated that the work undertaken by the Monash University Accident Research Centre indicated that the UN GTR would produce major safety gains, due in part to the high proportion of head injuries in both pole side impacts and car-to-car crashes, and the high cost of serious head injuries. Insurance data indicated that the cost of head injuries could exceed notional cost of life as well imposing major societal burdens. He added that the UN GTR would have major benefits in many countries. He informed AC.3 that the major remaining issues were:

• (i) appropriate injury thresholds,
• (ii) material issues impacting WorldSID and
• (iii) appropriate citation of the ISO seating procedure.

He informed AC.3 that the next meeting of the informal group would likely be held in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with the next WorldSID meeting, in September or October 2012. He finally indicated that these meetings should set a definitive timetable for submission of final draft proposals on the WorldSID and Pole Side Impact UN GTRs to GRSP and AC.3.

91. The representative of OICA emphasized the importance of availability of WorldSID for the adoption of the UN GTR on Pole Side Impact, with which the Australian representative strongly concurred.

92. AC.3 adopted the second progress report of the informal working group (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/59).

9. The expert from Australia, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group on Pole Side Impact (PSI), introduced GRSP-52-07, including the last progress report of the group and a draft of the UN GTR. He explained that the draft was provided to gather comments from GRSP experts to be sent in writing to the Chair of the informal working group by 25 January 2013. He underlined that comments were particularly sought on Annex 2 of Part II of the draft UN GTR, which was setting out the seating procedure for the test dummy (50th percentile male dummy). Concerning the scope, the expert from OICA argued that real-world data indicated the low involvement of N1 and N2 category of vehicles in PSI accidents and proposed their removal from the scope. The expert from Australia explained that the Contracting Parties (CPs) to the 1998 Agreement had the discretion to exclude particular vehicle types for which there were sufficient national safety measures to justify the restraint application of the UN GTR (see GRSP-52-07, Part I, para. 47).

10. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this agenda item at its May 2013 session and noted that AC.3 at its November 2012 session agreed to fix the deadline for the Phase 1 of the informal working group at March 2014 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1099, para. 105) Moreover, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-52-07 (only the part related to the draft UN GTR) with an official symbol.

11. The expert from the United States, Chair of the informal working group on harmonization of side impact dummies, gave an oral report of the work progress of the group. She confirmed that her group was finalizing the validation of the 50th percentile of the World Side Impact Dummy (World SID). Concerning the 5th percentile female dummy she announced that the informal working group agreed to start over pelvic re-design reducing contact during pelvis impact test. She added that this activity could take time. Accordingly, she suggested suspending the activity of the Informal Working Group on Pole Side Impact once the Phase I would be concluded, awaiting the outcome of the informal group on side impact dummies on the 5th percentile female.

12. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2013 session and to seek consent of AC.3 to fix the deadline mandate of the informal working group at December 2015.

86. Submitted for consideration and vote, the proposed draft UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/120) was established in the UN Global Registry on 13 November 2013 by consensus vote of the following Contracting Parties present and voting: Australia, China, European Union (voting for Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom), India, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa and Turkey.

87. The technical report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/121) and the adopted proposal for the development of the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/28) will be appended to the established UN GTR.

88. The representative of the United States of America abstained from voting because of the existence of a national pole side impact regulation that incorporates both the 50th percentile and the 5th percentile test dummy in his country. He added that the United States of America was not in a position to commit to proposing the GTR domestically because it included only a 50th percentile test dummy. In addition, the test procedure and injury criteria in the proposed UN GTR had yet to be demonstrated as at least as effective as the existing American standard. The representative of Canada also abstained from voting and gave a similar statement.

89. The representative of the EU volunteered to review the proposed amendments by the United States of America contained in WP.29-161-07 and to provide a written statement for the next session of GRSP that the EU is committed to discuss and, if possible, to address the issues at stake in the second phase of the programme.

90. The representative of India recognized the contribution of Australia in developing the UN GTR. However, he indicated that some areas of improvement need to be addressed, such as the harmonization of the World Side Impact Dummy (WorldSID) and impact test speeds with adequate tolerances.

91. A statement given by the representative of Australia is reproduced in Annex V to this report.

[Russia noted that its transposition of the regulation will be undertaken once its UN Regulation counterpart has been finalized.]

125. The representative of Australia, chairing the informal working group on PSI, presented the second progress report of the group (WP.29-156-29).

126. He clarified that this report sought a change in the terms of reference of the informal working group to allow for a second phase of work on the world side impact dummy (WorldSID) 5th percentile female. He reported that this change was endorsed by GRSP at its December 2011 session. He stated that the informal working group had not met since he reported on its activities at the November 2011 session of AC.3. However, he announced that the fifth meeting of the informal working group would be held on 22-23 March in London (see para. 113), focusing on a revised draft UN GTR in detail, with the aim of submitting an initial draft to the May 2012 session of GRSP. He added that several presentations would be made during the meeting, including further crash tests undertaken
by a number of countries. He specified that the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) would give a presentation of its research, including on injury types, effectiveness of different airbag combinations and the benefits of a regulation. He clarified that, while pole side impacts were not as common as other crashes, they were frequently lethal. He said that MUARC’s work also revealed that injuries in pole side impacts involved very high societal costs frequently involving serious head injuries. He reported that a final first phase UN GTR would be presented to WP.29 and AC.3 for consideration and vote at their June 2013 sessions. He concluded that the sixth meeting of the informal working group was scheduled in the week before the June 2012 session of WP.29 in Munich.

127. The representative of The United States of America supported the revised terms of references for a two stage approach for developing the UN GTR to address the widest range of vehicle occupants.

128. AC.3 endorsed, in principle, the revised terms of references of the informal working group (see para. 32) and requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-156-29 with an official symbol.

Paired comparisons of 29 km/h perpendicular and 32 km/h oblique pole side impact tests with WorldSID 50th percentile adult male ATDs.

Presentation on the effect of various impact alignment tolerances on test results.

Position paper on the inclusion of light commercial vehicles and trucks within the scope of the proposed GTR on pole side-impact protection.

Analysis of Australian National Crash In-Depth Study (ANCIS) data with regard to pole side impact cases by angle of impact.

Progress report for presentation to the December 2011 session of the Working Party on Passive Safety.

Working draft of the proposed GTR on pole side-impact protection (PSI), presented to the Working Party on Passive Safety to solicit comments and input to the PSI informal group.

12. The expert from Australia, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group on a UN Global Technical Regulation (UN GTR) on pole side impact, introduced a proposal for a draft UN GTR on this subject (GRSP-51-16). He informed GRSP about the close collaboration with the informal working group on harmonization of side impact dummies. He added that the reference to the 3-D H Machine was provisional in the proposal and that in the future it should apply in the S.R.2 to keep harmonized tolerances of the seating position (see para. 5 of this report). He finally announced that the next meeting of the informal working group was scheduled on 20-21 June 2012.

13. GRSP recommended experts to send comments concerning GRSP-51-16 to the expert from Australia by 7 June 2012 for consideration at the next meeting of the informal working group.

9. The expert from Australia, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group on Pole Side Impact (PSI), introduced GRSP-52-07, including the last progress report of the group and a draft of the UN GTR. He explained that the draft was provided to gather comments from GRSP experts to be sent in writing to the Chair of the informal working group by 25 January 2013. He underlined that comments were particularly sought on Annex 2 of Part II of the draft UN GTR, which was setting out the seating procedure for the test dummy (50th percentile male dummy). Concerning the scope, the expert from OICA argued that real-world data indicated the low involvement of N1 and N2 category of vehicles in PSI accidents and proposed their removal from the scope. The expert from Australia explained that the Contracting Parties (CPs) to the 1998 Agreement had the discretion to exclude particular vehicle types for which there were sufficient national safety measures to justify the restraint application of the UN GTR (see GRSP-52-07, Part I, para. 47).

10. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this agenda item at its May 2013 session and noted that AC.3 at its November 2012 session agreed to fix the deadline for the Phase 1 of the informal working group at March 2014 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1099, para. 105) Moreover, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-52-07 (only the part related to the draft UN GTR) with an official symbol.

9. The expert from Australia, on behalf of the Chair of the informal working group on Pole Side Impact (PSI), introduced GRSP-52-07, including the last progress report of the group and a draft of the UN GTR. He explained that the draft was provided to gather comments from GRSP experts to be sent in writing to the Chair of the informal working group by 25 January 2013. He underlined that comments were particularly sought on Annex 2 of Part II of the draft UN GTR, which was setting out the seating procedure for the test dummy (50th percentile male dummy). Concerning the scope, the expert from OICA argued that real-world data indicated the low involvement of N1 and N2 category of vehicles in PSI accidents and proposed their removal from the scope. The expert from Australia explained that the Contracting Parties (CPs) to the 1998 Agreement had the discretion to exclude particular vehicle types for which there were sufficient national safety measures to justify the restraint application of the UN GTR (see GRSP-52-07, Part I, para. 47).

10. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this agenda item at its May 2013 session and noted that AC.3 at its November 2012 session agreed to fix the deadline for the Phase 1 of the informal working group at March 2014 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1099, para. 105) Moreover, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-52-07 (only the part related to the draft UN GTR) with an official symbol.

Status of the informal group developing procedures for the certification and use of biofidelic rear impact dummies (BioRID) within GTR 7 on head restraints.

5. The expert from the United Kingdom, Chair of the informal working group on UN GTR No. 7 Phase 2, informed GRSP (GRSP-52-18) about the ongoing activities of the group. He added that the last meeting of the group was held in Geneva on 10-11 December 2012, prior to the GRSP session. He confirmed that the development of injury criteria was of critical importance and that they would be discussed at the next informal group meeting in February 2013. He added that the development of a proposal for a certification procedure of the dummy was in progress and that extensive study funded by the EC identified areas of dummy performance, particularly regarding reproducibility, that required further investigation. The expert from Japan, secretary of the informal working group, complemented the presentation of the expert from the United Kingdom introducing the last status report of the informal working group (GRSP-52-23). He also confirmed the goal of the group to submit a proposal for consideration at the December 2013 session of GRSP.

6. Referring to the discussion held during the November 2012 session of the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1099, para. 76), GRSP noted that a Mutual Resolution concerning the description and performance of test tools and devices had been adopted (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/124 and WP.29-158-19) and reproduced as ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1101. GRSP, also noted that as part of the proposal of the UN GTR, a specific addenda for the inclusion of the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID II) in this Resolution would be prepared by the informal working group.

Text of the proposed new regulation on pole side impact prepared by Australia on behalf of the GRSP expert group on Pole Side Impact (PSI). Text in brackets remains to be added and/or developed further by the PSI expert group under GRSP guidance.

10. The expert from Australia, Chair of the IWG on Pole Side Impact (PSI), introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/7 and GRSP-53-05, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/2, as the official draft UN GTR proposed by his group. He also introduced the final progress report of the group (GRSP-53-04-Rev.1). The proposal received some comments such as GRSP-53-13, tabled by the expert from the United States and GRSP-53-19 by the expert from France. Moreover, the American expert raised a study reservation on the seating procedure for the World Side Impact 50th percentile male test dummy (WorldSID) (paras. 5.6 to 5.13 of Annex 2 of the text of the Regulation). GRSP also noted that a parallel proposal to the M.R.1 to introduce the WorldSID would be submitted at a later stage to GRSP and to WP.29 for adoption. It was agreed as a provisional solution to refer drawings and specifications of the dummy to the pertaining International Standard Organization (ISO) website. (http://standards.iso.org/iso/15830). Accordingly, it was agreed to seek guidance at the June 2013 session of WP.29/AC.2 on this subject. GRSP considered GRSP-53-23 consolidating all the changes agreed upon the discussion.

Draft text for a global technical regulation on pole side-impact protection, including markup of revisions from the earlier text.

10. The expert from Australia, Chair of the IWG on Pole Side Impact (PSI), introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/7 and GRSP-53-05, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/2, as the official draft UN GTR proposed by his group. He also introduced the final progress report of the group (GRSP-53-04-Rev.1). The proposal received some comments such as GRSP-53-13, tabled by the expert from the United States and GRSP-53-19 by the expert from France. Moreover, the American expert raised a study reservation on the seating procedure for the World Side Impact 50th percentile male test dummy (WorldSID) (paras. 5.6 to 5.13 of Annex 2 of the text of the Regulation). GRSP also noted that a parallel proposal to the M.R.1 to introduce the WorldSID would be submitted at a later stage to GRSP and to WP.29 for adoption. It was agreed as a provisional solution to refer drawings and specifications of the dummy to the pertaining International Standard Organization (ISO) website. (http://standards.iso.org/iso/15830). Accordingly, it was agreed to seek guidance at the June 2013 session of WP.29/AC.2 on this subject. GRSP considered GRSP-53-23 consolidating all the changes agreed upon the discussion.

11. Finally, GRSP recommended ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/7, as amended by Annex II of the session report and GRSP-53-04-Rev.1 (final report of the IWG as reproduced in Annex II to the session report) for their establishment in the Global Registry. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal and its final report to the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) for consideration and vote at its November 2013 session. GRSP also agreed to circulate by August 2013 a possible proposal for electronic ballot via e-mail to GRSP experts, tabled by the expert from the United States and concerning a revised test seating position of the WorldSID.

Proposal to correct and refine the draft global technical regulation on pole side-impact protection (document GRSP/2013/7) by the chair of the PSI informal working group.

10. The expert from Australia, Chair of the IWG on Pole Side Impact (PSI), introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/7 and GRSP-53-05, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/2, as the official draft UN GTR proposed by his group. He also introduced the final progress report of the group (GRSP-53-04-Rev.1). The proposal received some comments such as GRSP-53-13, tabled by the expert from the United States and GRSP-53-19 by the expert from France. Moreover, the American expert raised a study reservation on the seating procedure for the World Side Impact 50th percentile male test dummy (WorldSID) (paras. 5.6 to 5.13 of Annex 2 of the text of the Regulation). GRSP also noted that a parallel proposal to the M.R.1 to introduce the WorldSID would be submitted at a later stage to GRSP and to WP.29 for adoption. It was agreed as a provisional solution to refer drawings and specifications of the dummy to the pertaining International Standard Organization (ISO) website. (http://standards.iso.org/iso/15830). Accordingly, it was agreed to seek guidance at the June 2013 session of WP.29/AC.2 on this subject. GRSP considered GRSP-53-23 consolidating all the changes agreed upon the discussion.

Draft GTR presented for consideration to the Working Party on Passive Safety.

10. The expert from Australia, Chair of the IWG on Pole Side Impact (PSI), introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/7 and GRSP-53-05, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/2, as the official draft UN GTR proposed by his group. He also introduced the final progress report of the group (GRSP-53-04-Rev.1). The proposal received some comments such as GRSP-53-13, tabled by the expert from the United States and GRSP-53-19 by the expert from France. Moreover, the American expert raised a study reservation on the seating procedure for the World Side Impact 50th percentile male test dummy (WorldSID) (paras. 5.6 to 5.13 of Annex 2 of the text of the Regulation). GRSP also noted that a parallel proposal to the M.R.1 to introduce the WorldSID would be submitted at a later stage to GRSP and to WP.29 for adoption. It was agreed as a provisional solution to refer drawings and specifications of the dummy to the pertaining International Standard Organization (ISO) website. (http://standards.iso.org/iso/15830). Accordingly, it was agreed to seek guidance at the June 2013 session of WP.29/AC.2 on this subject. GRSP considered GRSP-53-23 consolidating all the changes agreed upon the discussion.

10. The expert from Australia, Chair of the IWG on Pole Side Impact (PSI), introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/7 and GRSP-53-05, superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/2, as the official draft UN GTR proposed by his group. He also introduced the final progress report of the group (GRSP-53-04-Rev.1). The proposal received some comments such as GRSP-53-13, tabled by the expert from the United States and GRSP-53-19 by the expert from France. Moreover, the American expert raised a study reservation on the seating procedure for the World Side Impact 50th percentile male test dummy (WorldSID) (paras. 5.6 to 5.13 of Annex 2 of the text of the Regulation). GRSP also noted that a parallel proposal to the M.R.1 to introduce the WorldSID would be submitted at a later stage to GRSP and to WP.29 for adoption. It was agreed as a provisional solution to refer drawings and specifications of the dummy to the pertaining International Standard Organization (ISO) website. (http://standards.iso.org/iso/15830). Accordingly, it was agreed to seek guidance at the June 2013 session of WP.29/AC.2 on this subject. GRSP considered GRSP-53-23 consolidating all the changes agreed upon the discussion.

11. Finally, GRSP recommended ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/7, as amended by Annex II of the session report and GRSP-53-04-Rev.1 (final report of the IWG as reproduced in Annex II to the session report) for their establishment in the Global Registry. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal and its final report to the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) for consideration and vote at its November 2013 session. GRSP also agreed to circulate by August 2013 a possible proposal for electronic ballot via e-mail to GRSP experts, tabled by the expert from the United States and concerning a revised test seating position of the WorldSID.

New pole side impact GTR presented as a prelude to its formal presentation for an adoption vote at the November 2013 WP.29 session.

115. The representative of Australia, Chair of the IWG, informed AC.3 that GRSP at its May 2013 session had recommended the draft UN GTR and the final report (see Annex 2 of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/53) for adoption by AC.3 at its November 2013 session. He clarified that the draft UN GTR (WP.29-160-14) was submitted to the current session of AC.3 to initiate consideration for voting at the next session. Accordingly, he encouraged AC.3 representatives to undertake all preparations necessary to ensure a unanimous vote for the establishment of the UN GTR at the November 2013 session. He informed AC.3 that his country had already initiated the task of transposing the UN GTR into a UN Regulation, pending clarification from GRSP in December 2013, whether the UN GTR would be part of an amendment to UN Regulation No. 95 or a new UN Regulation.

116. The representative of Australia informed AC.3 (see para. 44 of this report), that the secretariat had prepared WP.29-160-36-Rev.1 amending the draft UN GTR, suggesting the removal of ISO references and other related changes, and recommended its adoption. AC.3 requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-160-14 with an official symbol at its November 2013 session for consideration and vote, as amended by WP.29-160-36-Rev.1.

Document raising concerns that the current draft of the proposed UN Regulation 0 on whole vehicle type approvals would impose new mutual recognition requirements beyond the current 1958 Agreement.

Australian proposal to allow for a “not to apply at this time” notification rather than the current term expressing “disagreement”. Australia notes that a Contracting Party can perfectly agree with a regulation, but be unable to implement it until a date later than the UN date of “entry into force”.

Guidebook for the installation and use of emergency warning lamps (such as flashing lights used on police, ambulance, and other emergency vehicles as well as on construction and other heavy equipment).

Proposal to replace the term “climate of trust” with a “risk assessment methodology” in addressing conformity of production assessments.

Comments from Australia and the UK on the draft “Proposal for Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement”.

Australia and the UK propose:

• New text for Article 4 (rights and obligations in cases of a non-conforming approval to a UN regulation), particularly to clarify the terminology used (threat to road safety or to the environment….) and to strengthen the provisions;
• New text in Schedule 7, Section 5 to allow the granting of individual “exemption approvals” without committing Contracting Parties to accept such approvals within their own market;
• Changes to Article 3 to clarify that the acceptance of a UN regulation that has been applied is also subject to it meeting any discretionary options allowed for within the regulation;
• Changes to Article 8 so that approvals issued by a CP automatically cease to be valid after a defined period should the CP withdraw from the Agreement; and
• UK acceptance of text proposed by Australia to address CP’s that do not have approval authorities.

Draft version of the proposed UN Regulation that would transpose Global Technical Regulation No. 14 on pole side-impact protection into the type-approval system of the 1958 Agreement. This draft is presented for informational purposes only pending submission of a final document for consideration by the GRSP.

24. The expert from Australia introduced, for information to GRSP, a draft proposal (GRSP-54-14) for a UN Regulation to transpose the UN GTR on pole side impact into the 1958 Agreement. He urged adopting the proposal in 2014 and that for this task, the IWG on pole side impact was no longer needed. He also underlined that the scope of the proposal was different from that of the UN Regulation No. 95 as well as having different dummies and injury criteria. Therefore, he suggested that the proposal would be a new UN Regulation instead of an amendment to UN Regulation No. 95. GRSP agreed by consensus to resume consideration on this matter at its May 2014 session on the basis of a proposal of a new UN Regulation voluntarily prepared by the expert from Australia.

Draft text transposing GTR No. 14 on pole side impact protection into a UN Regulation under the 1958 Agreement. A proposal for the 01 series of amendments (document GRSP/2014/12) has also been prepared to enable the Contracting Parties applying this Regulation to require a vehicle-to-pole impact speed of 32 ±1 km/h regardless of the “vehicle width”.

34. The expert from Australia summarized (GRSP-55-16) the work of transposing UN GTR No. 14 (Pole Side Impact) into a draft new UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9). The experts from the Netherlands and France questioned the inclusion of N1 category of vehicles into the UN Regulation since it was not justified by national data. The expert from the United Kingdom supported this conclusion. The expert from EU informed GRSP that a cost benefit analysis by his organization would better identify the category of vehicles to be addressed. GRSP noted that the specifications of the three-dimensional H-point machine (3-D H machine) of the draft UN Regulation differed from those of the 3-D H machine of the Consolidated Resolution No. 3 (R.E.3). The expert from France, supported by the expert from Italy, questioned the reference to the ISO standard, concerning drawings and dummy specifications instead of a reference to an addendum to the M.R.l. Following the suggestion of the expert from the Netherlands, GRSP also noted that a possible development of the UN Regulation (in parallel to the future Phase 2 of the UN GTR No. 14) could be to include the viscous criteria (VC) and the thorax deflection limit. Moreover, GRSP considered GRSP-55-45 incorporating the amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9 agreed during the session.

35. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9, as amended by Annex VII to this report and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/12, not amended, this last introducing a vehicle-to-pole impact speed of 32 ± 1 km/h regardless to the vehicle width. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9 as draft UN Regulation on Pole Side Impact and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/12 as draft 01 series of amendments to the UN Regulation to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2014 sessions. However, GRSP requested the expert from Australia to send the proposals to WP.29 at its June 2014 session on a preliminary basis and to seek guidance from WP.29/AC.2 on: (i) Reference to ISO STD (WorldSID) instead of an Addendum to M.R.1. and (ii) transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments simultaneously adopted with the original version of the UN Regulation.

36. Finally, GRSP agreed to seek consent from WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2014 sessions on mandating an IWG to harmonize the 3-D H point machine specifications.

Proposal for a 01 series of amendments to the proposed new UN Regulation on the approval of vehicles with regard to their pole side impact performance to enable Contracting Parties applying this new regulation to require a vehicle-to-pole impact speed of 32 ±1 km/h regardless of the “vehicle width”.

34. The expert from Australia summarized (GRSP-55-16) the work of transposing UN GTR No. 14 (Pole Side Impact) into a draft new UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9). The experts from the Netherlands and France questioned the inclusion of N1 category of vehicles into the UN Regulation since it was not justified by national data. The expert from the United Kingdom supported this conclusion. The expert from EU informed GRSP that a cost benefit analysis by his organization would better identify the category of vehicles to be addressed. GRSP noted that the specifications of the three-dimensional H-point machine (3-D H machine) of the draft UN Regulation differed from those of the 3-D H machine of the Consolidated Resolution No. 3 (R.E.3). The expert from France, supported by the expert from Italy, questioned the reference to the ISO standard, concerning drawings and dummy specifications instead of a reference to an addendum to the M.R.l. Following the suggestion of the expert from the Netherlands, GRSP also noted that a possible development of the UN Regulation (in parallel to the future Phase 2 of the UN GTR No. 14) could be to include the viscous criteria (VC) and the thorax deflection limit. Moreover, GRSP considered GRSP-55-45 incorporating the amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9 agreed during the session.

35. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9, as amended by Annex VII to this report and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/12, not amended, this last introducing a vehicle-to-pole impact speed of 32 ± 1 km/h regardless to the vehicle width. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9 as draft UN Regulation on Pole Side Impact and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/12 as draft 01 series of amendments to the UN Regulation to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2014 sessions. However, GRSP requested the expert from Australia to send the proposals to WP.29 at its June 2014 session on a preliminary basis and to seek guidance from WP.29/AC.2 on: (i) Reference to ISO STD (WorldSID) instead of an Addendum to M.R.1. and (ii) transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments simultaneously adopted with the original version of the UN Regulation.

36. Finally, GRSP agreed to seek consent from WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2014 sessions on mandating an IWG to harmonize the 3-D H point machine specifications.

Proposal to define procedures for resolving differences in cases where a Contracting Party determines that a product approved by another Contracting Party does not conform with the requirements of the regulation under which it was approved.

Explanations from Japan and Australia concerning specific vehicle marking requirements relevant to the development of the UN regulation to govern international whole vehicle type approvals.

Revisions to the draft regulation on international whole vehicle type approvals.

Presentation of Australian concerns over incompatibilities between its local requirements for top-tether anchorages in child restraint systems and the provisions of UN R14. Since it wishes to participate fully in the IWVTA system, Australia proposes that UN R14 be transferred from the IWVTA List A (single global requirement) to List B (multiple requirements to account for regional differences). Australia also can thus accept UN R16 (occupant restraint systems) on List A. Australia needs more time to reach a position on UN R10 (electromagnetic compatibility).

Explanation of the steps taken to transpose the provisions of GTR No. 14 into a type-approval UN Regulation on pole side-impact protection, including discussion of the scope, impact side, treatment of hydrogen vehicles, and proposal for a 01 series of amendments that would entail a 26 km/h impact speed for narrow vehicles initially before the amendments would bring narrow vehicles into line with other vehicles at 32 km/h.

34. The expert from Australia summarized (GRSP-55-16) the work of transposing UN GTR No. 14 (Pole Side Impact) into a draft new UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9). The experts from the Netherlands and France questioned the inclusion of N1 category of vehicles into the UN Regulation since it was not justified by national data. The expert from the United Kingdom supported this conclusion. The expert from EU informed GRSP that a cost benefit analysis by his organization would better identify the category of vehicles to be addressed. GRSP noted that the specifications of the three-dimensional H-point machine (3-D H machine) of the draft UN Regulation differed from those of the 3-D H machine of the Consolidated Resolution No. 3 (R.E.3). The expert from France, supported by the expert from Italy, questioned the reference to the ISO standard, concerning drawings and dummy specifications instead of a reference to an addendum to the M.R.l. Following the suggestion of the expert from the Netherlands, GRSP also noted that a possible development of the UN Regulation (in parallel to the future Phase 2 of the UN GTR No. 14) could be to include the viscous criteria (VC) and the thorax deflection limit. Moreover, GRSP considered GRSP-55-45 incorporating the amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9 agreed during the session.

35. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9, as amended by Annex VII to this report and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/12, not amended, this last introducing a vehicle-to-pole impact speed of 32 ± 1 km/h regardless to the vehicle width. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9 as draft UN Regulation on Pole Side Impact and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/12 as draft 01 series of amendments to the UN Regulation to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2014 sessions. However, GRSP requested the expert from Australia to send the proposals to WP.29 at its June 2014 session on a preliminary basis and to seek guidance from WP.29/AC.2 on: (i) Reference to ISO STD (WorldSID) instead of an Addendum to M.R.1. and (ii) transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments simultaneously adopted with the original version of the UN Regulation.

36. Finally, GRSP agreed to seek consent from WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2014 sessions on mandating an IWG to harmonize the 3-D H point machine specifications.

Proposal for a new UN Regulation transposing the requirements of the UN Global Technical Regulation on pole side impact (GTR No. 14). This proposal is accompanied by a proposal for a 01 series of amendments (documentGRSP/2014/12) that would enable Contracting Parties applying this Regulation to require a vehicle-to-pole impact speed of 32 ± 1 km/h regardless of the “vehicle width”. This proposal supersedes the earlier version presented in document GRSP/2014/9.

34. The expert from Australia summarized (GRSP-55-16) the work of transposing UN GTR No. 14 (Pole Side Impact) into a draft new UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9). The experts from the Netherlands and France questioned the inclusion of N1 category of vehicles into the UN Regulation since it was not justified by national data. The expert from the United Kingdom supported this conclusion. The expert from EU informed GRSP that a cost benefit analysis by his organization would better identify the category of vehicles to be addressed. GRSP noted that the specifications of the three-dimensional H-point machine (3-D H machine) of the draft UN Regulation differed from those of the 3-D H machine of the Consolidated Resolution No. 3 (R.E.3). The expert from France, supported by the expert from Italy, questioned the reference to the ISO standard, concerning drawings and dummy specifications instead of a reference to an addendum to the M.R.l. Following the suggestion of the expert from the Netherlands, GRSP also noted that a possible development of the UN Regulation (in parallel to the future Phase 2 of the UN GTR No. 14) could be to include the viscous criteria (VC) and the thorax deflection limit. Moreover, GRSP considered GRSP-55-45 incorporating the amendments to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9 agreed during the session.

35. GRSP adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9, as amended by Annex VII to this report and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/12, not amended, this last introducing a vehicle-to-pole impact speed of 32 ± 1 km/h regardless to the vehicle width. The secretariat was requested to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/9 as draft UN Regulation on Pole Side Impact and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/12 as draft 01 series of amendments to the UN Regulation to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2014 sessions. However, GRSP requested the expert from Australia to send the proposals to WP.29 at its June 2014 session on a preliminary basis and to seek guidance from WP.29/AC.2 on: (i) Reference to ISO STD (WorldSID) instead of an Addendum to M.R.1. and (ii) transitional provisions of the 01 series of amendments simultaneously adopted with the original version of the UN Regulation.

36. Finally, GRSP agreed to seek consent from WP.29 and AC.3 at their June 2014 sessions on mandating an IWG to harmonize the 3-D H point machine specifications.

Annotated update of the first draft of the proposed UN R0 on whole vehicle type approvals.

Draft proposal transposing the provisions of the pole side-impact protection Global Technical Regulation into a UN Regulation as approved by the Working Party on Passive Safety (document GRSP/2014/9, as amended by Annex VII to the report of the 55th GRSP session). This proposal is submitted with a request for guidance on the use of references to an ISO Standard (ISO 15830:2013) instead of preparing an Addendum to the Mutual Resolution No. 1 (M.R.1.) for the WorldSID 50th male specifications.

41. The representative of Australia introduced the draft UN Regulation (WP.29-163-14) as well as a draft 01 series of amendments (WP.29-163-15) to receive guidance (see para. 29 above). He explained that a revised version of WP.29-163-14 would be submitted for consideration and vote to the November 2014 session of WP.29 on appropriately addressing the reference to the ISO standard. He indicated that in the framework of the IWG activities on side impact dummies, work was adequately progressing on including the 50th percentile WorldSID into the draft Addendum 2 to M.R.1. He added that, as a result of recent negotiations, ISO would provide the specifications needed. Therefore, he announced that a draft Addendum 2 would be ready for consideration and vote by the end of 2015 or beginning 2016. The representative of the United States of America confirmed this schedule.

Proposal for an 01 series of amendments to the proposed new UN Regulation on pole side-impact protection (transposing GTR No. 14). This proposal would permit contracting parties to to require a vehicle-to-pole impact speed of 32 ± 1 km/h regardless of the “vehicle width” and is based upon document GRSP/2014/12 and amends the draft PSI regulation as proposed in document WP.29/163/14. The Working Party on Passive Safety approved this proposal provided that Australia would seek guidance on its transitional provisions (since this amendment would, in principle, be adopted at the same time as the original PSI regulation at the November 2014 WP.29 session). This draft incorporates comments from Germany, Japan, and OICA received after the GRSP 55th session.

41. The representative of Australia introduced the draft UN Regulation (WP.29-163-14) as well as a draft 01 series of amendments (WP.29-163-15) to receive guidance (see para. 29 above). He explained that a revised version of WP.29-163-14 would be submitted for consideration and vote to the November 2014 session of WP.29 on appropriately addressing the reference to the ISO standard. He indicated that in the framework of the IWG activities on side impact dummies, work was adequately progressing on including the 50th percentile WorldSID into the draft Addendum 2 to M.R.1. He added that, as a result of recent negotiations, ISO would provide the specifications needed. Therefore, he announced that a draft Addendum 2 would be ready for consideration and vote by the end of 2015 or beginning 2016. The representative of the United States of America confirmed this schedule.

42. WP.29 noted the information by OLA that the legal notification procedure for any amendment to a UN Regulation which was not in force would be initiated only after the entry into force of that UN Regulation. Therefore, WP.29 agreed that the draft 01 series of amendments, even if adopted at its November 2014 session, would await the entry into force of the draft UN Regulation. WP.29 noted that a revised version of WP.29-163-15 would be submitted by Australia, with new transitional provisions in line with the general guidelines ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1044/Rev.1.

Explanatory document on the deliberations and outstanding issues concerning the draft UN Regulation and its proposed 01 series of amendments. These issues concern the references to an ISO standard and transitional provisions for the amendment.

Proposal for a 01 series of amendments to the proposed new UN Regulation on the approval of vehicles with regard to their pole side impact performance to enable Contracting Parties applying this new regulation to require a vehicle-to-pole impact speed of 32 ±1 km/h regardless of the “vehicle width”.

72. On item 4.13.3 (01 series of amendments to the new Regulation on PSI), the secretariat reminded WP.29 delegates that the UN Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) will not initiate the legal procedure for adoption of the 01 series of amendments until the original version of the Regulation on PSI entered into force.

Outline proposal for an Addendum 2 to M.R.1. to include specifications of the 50th percentile WorldSID side impact dummy.

[Australia, Canada, China, EU (voting on behalf of its constituent member-states), India, Japan, Korea, Norway, Russian Federation, South Africa, Turkey, and USA voted in favor. This amendment is considered a necessary stop-gap measure pending eventual completion of work on the WorldSID ATD.]

83. WP.29 noted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/89 proposing Addendum 2 to M.R.1. to include specifications on the 50th percentile World Side Impact Dummy (WorldSID). The representative of Australia clarified that the proposal was a temporary solution to complement the new UN Regulation on PSI, awaiting the full set of drawings and specifications to be provided by the IWG dealing with side impact dummies in cooperation with ISO. WP.29 adopted the proposal and noted that consideration and vote would continue during the session of AC.3 (see para. 110).

110. The proposed draft amendment to Mutual Resolution No. 1 (M.R.1) (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/89) was submitted for consideration and vote, and was adopted on 13 November 2014 by consensus vote of the following Contracting Parties present and voting: Australia, Canada, China, European Union (voting for Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom), India, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa, Turkey and the United States of America.

Proposals to modify UN Regulations 10 and 14 to address requirements under Australian law.

Request to move UN R44 on child restraint systems to the “B list” of regulations (eventual consideration for inclusion in the whole vehicle type approval) from the “A list” of regulations identified for use in the first phase implementation of the IWVTA system.

Proposal to raise the voting threshold required under the 1958 Agreement to approve a given text (e.g., new UN Regulation or amendment of an existing regulation) from the present two-thirds majority (achievable by the EU vote alone) to a four-fifths majority.

54. On behalf of Australia, Japan, Malaysia and the Russian Federation, the representative of Japan introduced WP.29-164-14 justifying the need to raise the voting majority threshold from the two-third to a four-fifths majority. The representative of EU presented a declaration (WP.29-164-30) by the European Commission Services on behalf of the EU member States and announced the intention to establish a coordinated position by March 2015.

55. The representative of India stated that his country was thankful to Japan for representing its views in IWVTA on the revision of 1958 Agreement. India was already a Contracting Party to 1998 Agreement. He noted that some of the suggestions were under consideration with respect to the 1958 Agreement. Ideally, India would prefer a consensus vote. Additionally, some suggestions have not reached consensus such as proxy voting, choice for accepting or not accepting higher version of UN Regulation, mechanism of validation of test agencies, dispute resolution mechanism, flexibility to apply a UN Regulation to a sub-set of vehicle categories, Contracting Party’s right to declare which versions it would accept, etc. He further stated that India appreciated that several countries had shown interest in developing the Indian market. This had improved the indigenous manufacturing industry in India, but India was carefully analysing the advantages that the 1958 Agreement would bring. He added that apart from being a large consumer market, India was also a significant producer of automobiles. India had established testing facilities in the country and was planning other advanced testing centres in near future. India also aspired to participate in other markets in future. India would like to actively participate in all WP.29 sessions and remained committed to better safety, emission and energy solutions, thus accepting regulations which were relevant for the country. India would, therefore, convey its decision on the 1958 Agreement after a detailed study of the final draft document before the March 2015 session of WP.29.

56. The World Forum recognized that the Contracting Parties would need more time to review the above proposals and agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in March 2015. The representatives of Germany and the United Kingdom noted the need for a finalized text prior to submitting to their national authorities for approval and so the World Forum agreed that adoption of the revised agreement would be delayed accordingly. The secretariat was also requested to circulate WP.29-164-23 as a separate official document.

The scope of the new Global Technical Regulation on Pole Side Impact includes vehicles of category N1 (limited to GVM < 3.5 t) and vehicles of category M1 (without mass limit). However, the vehicle fleet includes a small number of M1 vehicles with a GVW > 3.5t which are based on vehicles of category N2, N3, M2 or M3. Based on the OICA proposal (document GRSP-56-12) and ensuing discussions, Australia proposes to limit the scope of the GTR to both M1 vehicles under 3.5 t maximum vehicle mass and to certain N1 vehicles based on geometric measurements.

48. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-56-33 (superseding GRSP-56-12), to clarify the scope of the UN Regulation. GRSP adopted the proposal as reproduced in Annex VII of this report. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration and vote at their June 2015 sessions, as draft Supplement 1 to the new UN Regulation on Pole Side Impact.

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55-04­­-11, R55-05-05, R55-06-09, R55-07-06, R55-07-14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55-09-04, R55-09-05, R55-09-11, R55-09- 13, R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06; R55-10-07; R55-10-08; R55-10-15)
At the previous meeting Mr. Stokreef requested more of the background information to the ISO18868:2013 standard. In order to respond to that request Mr. Svensson had uploaded the documents R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06. The last of those documents was a history summary over the work with that standard going back to 2002. The document R55-10-07 was a summary of many recent measurements of coupling forces in different vehicle combinations. There is also a comparison with the requirements as calculated using the ISO18868:2013. It could be noted that the measure peak forces only at on instance came close to the fatigue test load corresponding to the performance required.

Mr. Westphäling at the 9th meeting argued that road conditions in Germany are worse than in Australia. To this meeting Mr. Svensson had gathered information that showed that the German Autobahn does not have worse conditions than the Australian roads. Hence the measured forces and the experience over 30 years supporting the ISO18868 are valid. Mr. Stokreef was not present but had prior to the meeting expressed support for the proposal for this item. Mr. Westphäling argued that different engine power and and brakes requirements would the still make the proposal questionable. In response to that Mr. Svensson showed the diagram in the document R55-10-07. There it could be seen that the real high coupling forces is generated neither by traction nor by braking but through interaction between unevenness in the road and the geometric layout of the vehicle combination. Hence the difference in engine power and braking performance is not a significant factor. While support for the proposal is converging Mr. Westphäling wanted to the next meeting to challenge OEM:s and trailer manufactures for more measurements. Mr. Alguëra was doubtful whether there are any better measurements available. Next meeting

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55-04­­-11, R55-05-05, R55-06-09, R55-07-06, R55-07-14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55-09-04, R55-09-05, R55-09-11, R55-09- 13, R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06; R55-10-07; R55-10-08; R55-10-15)
At the previous meeting Mr. Stokreef requested more of the background information to the ISO18868:2013 standard. In order to respond to that request Mr. Svensson had uploaded the documents R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06. The last of those documents was a history summary over the work with that standard going back to 2002. The document R55-10-07 was a summary of many recent measurements of coupling forces in different vehicle combinations. There is also a comparison with the requirements as calculated using the ISO18868:2013. It could be noted that the measure peak forces only at on instance came close to the fatigue test load corresponding to the performance required.

Mr. Westphäling at the 9th meeting argued that road conditions in Germany are worse than in Australia. To this meeting Mr. Svensson had gathered information that showed that the German Autobahn does not have worse conditions than the Australian roads. Hence the measured forces and the experience over 30 years supporting the ISO18868 are valid. Mr. Stokreef was not present but had prior to the meeting expressed support for the proposal for this item. Mr. Westphäling argued that different engine power and and brakes requirements would the still make the proposal questionable. In response to that Mr. Svensson showed the diagram in the document R55-10-07. There it could be seen that the real high coupling forces is generated neither by traction nor by braking but through interaction between unevenness in the road and the geometric layout of the vehicle combination. Hence the difference in engine power and braking performance is not a significant factor. While support for the proposal is converging Mr. Westphäling wanted to the next meeting to challenge OEM:s and trailer manufactures for more measurements. Mr. Alguëra was doubtful whether there are any better measurements available. Next meeting

Proposed text to explain procedures for the withdrawal or revocation of a whole vehicle type approval, including differences between a universal (U-IWVTA) approval and a limited (L-IWVTA) approval.

Australia Road Research Board (ARRB) Internal Report related to ISO/TC22/SC15/WG4 N 535 Annex 5.

Item 21 (Limiting cases for the usage of certified characteristic values) (R55-04­­-11, R55-05-05, R55-06-09, R55-07-06, R55-07-14, R55-08-03, R55-08-04, R55-08-05, R55-09-04, R55-09-05, R55-09-11, R55-09- 13, R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06; R55-10-07; R55-10-08; R55-10-15)
At the previous meeting Mr. Stokreef requested more of the background information to the ISO18868:2013 standard. In order to respond to that request Mr. Svensson had uploaded the documents R55-10-03: R55-10-04; R55-10-05; R55-10-06. The last of those documents was a history summary over the work with that standard going back to 2002. The document R55-10-07 was a summary of many recent measurements of coupling forces in different vehicle combinations. There is also a comparison with the requirements as calculated using the ISO18868:2013. It could be noted that the measure peak forces only at on instance came close to the fatigue test load corresponding to the performance required.

Mr. Westphäling at the 9th meeting argued that road conditions in Germany are worse than in Australia. To this meeting Mr. Svensson had gathered information that showed that the German Autobahn does not have worse conditions than the Australian roads. Hence the measured forces and the experience over 30 years supporting the ISO18868 are valid. Mr. Stokreef was not present but had prior to the meeting expressed support for the proposal for this item. Mr. Westphäling argued that different engine power and and brakes requirements would the still make the proposal questionable. In response to that Mr. Svensson showed the diagram in the document R55-10-07. There it could be seen that the real high coupling forces is generated neither by traction nor by braking but through interaction between unevenness in the road and the geometric layout of the vehicle combination. Hence the difference in engine power and braking performance is not a significant factor. While support for the proposal is converging Mr. Westphäling wanted to the next meeting to challenge OEM:s and trailer manufactures for more measurements. Mr. Alguëra was doubtful whether there are any better measurements available. Next meeting

Australian proposal to adapt UN R14 to current Australian child restraint system anchorage requirements within the context of enabling the use of UN R14 within the international whole vehicle type approval system.

17. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-58-13 that aims to: (i) solve the incompatibility of the requirements of the UN Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia, Canada and the United States of America and (ii) include Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future UN Regulation No. 0 of the IWVTA. He added that this proposal would avoid splitting UN Regulation No. 14 into two Regulations: safety-belt anchorages and child restraint anchorages (the latter would be excluded by Annex 4 of UN Regulation No. 0). He clarified that the proposal would instead propose changes to UN Regulation No. 14, making CRS anchorages suitable for both safety-belt anchored CRS and rigid ISOFIX type CRS in a larger number of countries. The Chair of GRSP introduced GRSP-58-24, which supports, in principle, the proposal and shows the benefits of harmonizing CRS standards. The expert from OICA requested time to examine the proposal in view of splitting the UN Regulation, which he considered to be the most pragmatic approach.

18. GRSP agreed to resume consideration on this subject at its May 2016 session and requested experts to provide comments on the proposal to the expert from Australia by the end of March 2016, pending other comments from the IWVTA IWG. Finally, it was agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 in the agenda of the next session of GRSP as an informal document and as a possible basis for development of proposals on harmonization in the framework of the 1998 Agreement.

15. The expert from Australia recalled the purpose of GRSP-58-13 aimed at solving the incompatibility of the requirements of the UN Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia and North America, and including UN Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future UN Regulation No. 0 on the IWVTA. He added that he received the following main comments: (i) recommending the exclusion of any provision to cover non-ISOFIX anchorages and leave to be regulated at the national level and (ii) changing the excursion limits to the test applied load. The expert from OICA reiterated his preference for splitting the UN Regulation into two Regulations: safety-belt anchorages and child restraint anchorages (the latter would be excluded by Annex 4 of UN Regulation No. 0). He explained that this solution would cope with the lack of harmonized provisions on CRS anchorages worldwide and would avoid type approval issues in countries like Australia. The expert from United Kingdom expressed his preference in a long-term solution by keeping a unique Regulation. However, he added that if this would result in design and type approval issues to vehicle manufacturers, he would eventually be in favour of the solution proposed by the expert from OICA. The expert from France supported the opinion of the expert from United Kingdom. However, he raised a study reservation to review all the consequences implied by splitting the UN Regulation.

16. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its December 2016 session, on the basis of a possible revised proposal and to keep GRSP-58-13 on the agenda of the next session of GRSP as an informal document.

14. The expert from OICA introduced two proposals: (a) GRSP-60-04 to remove ISOFIX anchorages from the Regulation and (b) GRSP-60-05 to incorporate them into a new one dedicated to these anchorages only. He explained that, in his opinion, the two proposals constitute the most viable solution aimed at solving the incompatibility of the requirements of the Regulation with the existing designs of Child Restraint Systems (CRS) in Australia and including Regulation No. 14 into Annex 4 of the future Regulation No. 0 on the International Whole Vehicle Type Approval (IWVTA). The expert from Australia supported the solution proposed by the expert from OICA as well as the experts from Italy, Japan and Sweden. However, the experts from the Netherlands and EC argued that the improvement proposed by Australia and covering harmonization issues should not be disregarded. The experts from France and the United Kingdom supported the splitting of Regulation No. 14 and urged that some improvements on ISOFIX provisions were needed once that the new Regulation was established.

15. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2017 session, on the basis of revised proposals tabled by OICA including the replacement of dynamic with static references in Regulation No. 14 and in a number of other Regulations. In the meantime, it was agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 on the next GRSP agenda for future development of ISOFIX provisions.

45. The expert from OICA introduced the draft new UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/7) on ISOFIX. He also provided for information the list of UN Regulations (GRSP-61-11) affected by the splitting of UN Regulation No. 14. He also introduced GRSP-61-06-Rev.1, amending ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2017/7. GRSP adopted the proposal as amended by Annex VIII to the report for submission to WP.29 in November 2017.

46. Finally, GRSP agreed to keep GRSP-58-13 as a reference in the agenda of the next session for possible future discussion on harmonization of requirements on ISOFIX.

42. The expert from Australia withdrew GRSP-58-13 and GRSP agreed to delete this item from the agenda of its May 2018 session.

Australia wishes to accept the new full-width rigid barrier crash test regulation (expected as UN R137) as an alternative to its ADR 69/00; however, Australia wishes to avoid possible confusion over the use of an airbag deactivation device (such as used to turn off an airbag when a child seat is used in the front seat). Therefore, Australia proposes to clarify the provisions of UN R16 to avoid misunderstandings or misuse of such devices along the lines of requirements found in Euro NCAP and US FMVSS 208.

24. The expert from Australia introduced GRSP-58-14 proposing to introduce a provision on airbag de-activation switches; this would be in line with EuroNCAP requirements and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2016 session and experts were recommended to provide comments on GRSP-58-14 to the expert from Australia before the end of January 2016 to allow the submission of a revised official proposal.

Proposal to insert provisions for vehicles equipped with manual airbag deactivation devices, especially to ensure that vehicles meet performance requirements regardless of the airbag activation setting and to specific requirements for airbag status reminders and telltales.

23. Finally, GRSP agreed to defer discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13 to its December 2016 session due to lack of time.

16. The expert from Australia introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13 aimed at introducing provisions for airbag deactivation devices (where fitted). The expert from France argued that the proposed requirements should provide the right information for airbag deactivation and avoid [erroneous] reactivation of the airbag when e.g. a rearward-facing CRS is installed on the front passenger seat. Finally, he required data rationales to justify the proposal. GRSP agreed to resume discussion on this subject at its May 2017 session and requested experts to provide their comments on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13 to the expert from Australia.

19. GRSP resumed discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13 which aims at introducing provisions for airbag deactivation devices (where fitted). The expert from Australia requested that more statistical data was needed to support the proposal and reiterated his invitation to experts to provide information, otherwise he would withdraw the proposal at the December 2017 session of GRSP.

16. Finally, the expert from Australia, withdrew ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2016/13.

Proposal to clarify the purpose of UN R139 which was originally established through the extraction of brake assist system (BAS) provisions from UN R13-H on brake systems. Within the context of UN R13-H, the BAS provisions were written to assess performance in cases where a vehicle was fitted with a brake assist system. As a stand-alone regulation, UN R139 applies only to vehicles that are equipped with BAS. Therefore, this supplement proposes to refine the text to remove the “if fitted” language and ensure that UN R139 can only be applied to a vehicle equipped with a BAS.

12. The expert from Australia presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/3 clarifying the obligation for the vehicle type to be equipped with a Brake Assist System (BAS) or an Electronic Stability Control (ESC) system in order to receive a type approval according to UN Regulation No. 139 or UN Regulation No. 140 respectively. GRRF supported both proposals and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplements 1 to UN Regulations Nos. 139 and 140 for consideration and vote at their June 2018 sessions.

Proposal to remove “if fitted” language from the text to clarify that UN R140 can only be applied to a vehicle equipped with a ESC system. UN R140 was originally established through the extraction of electronic stability controls (ESC) provisions from UN R13-H on brake systems. Within the context of UN R13-H, the ESC provisions were written to assess performance in cases where a vehicle was fitted with an electronic stability control system. As a stand-alone regulation, however, UN R140 applies only to vehicles that are equipped with ESC. The proposal also would correct an apparent error in to Annex 4, paragraph 2.1. where the reference to “ISO 15037 Part 1:2005” should read “ISO 15037 Part 1:2006”.

12. The expert from Australia presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/2 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2018/3 clarifying the obligation for the vehicle type to be equipped with a Brake Assist System (BAS) or an Electronic Stability Control (ESC) system in order to receive a type approval according to UN Regulation No. 139 or UN Regulation No. 140 respectively. GRRF supported both proposals and requested the secretariat to submit them to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplements 1 to UN Regulations Nos. 139 and 140 for consideration and vote at their June 2018 sessions.

Proposal to clarify that UN R140 does not mandate the installation of electronic stability control systems (ESC) on vehicles but rather specifies requirements for the approval of vehicles should they be equipped with an ESC system.

47. The expert from Australia introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/6 addressing the concern expressed during the 175th WP.29 session. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-02-30) and reproduced in Annex IV. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 3 to UN Regulation No. 140 for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.

Proposal to clarify that UN R139 does not mandate the installation of brake assist systems (BAS) on vehicles but rather specifies requirements for the approval of vehicles should they be equipped with a BAS system.

50. GRVA considered ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/12 (together with ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2019/6) under agenda item 7 (a) above. GRVA adopted the proposal as amended (GRVA-02-29) and reproduced in Annex V. GRVA requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 2 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 139 (BAS) for consideration and vote at their June 2019 sessions.