Presentation of an assessment of 2D vs. 3D impactor positioning methods.

8. GRSP noted a presentation (GRSP-55-09), tabled by the expert from OICA, showing new examples of how the current headform test method created issues for the determination of the test zone or the test execution. The expert from the United States of America announced that the Notice of Proposal of Regulation Making (NPRM), aimed at transposing as a first step UN GTR No. 9 Phase 1, would be published in 2014.

Proposal to amend the draft 01 series of amendments (document WP.29/2014/38 pending for the June 2014 WP.29 session) to bring its “commencement date” and validity-of-approvals provisions into line with the recommendations for the International Whole Vehicle Type Approval system (i.e., to set the effective date to 1 September 2018 and confirm the validity of earlier approvals after the introduction of the 01 series of amendments). This revised document also incorporates the Korean proposal to amend GTR No. 9 (document GRSP-55-24) and OICA proposal on Annex 5 (document GRSP-55-44).

Proposal to clarify figure 11 in the draft amendments to GTR No. 9 by substituting the description “Figure 11: Example of marking of HIC 1000 zone and HIC 1700 zone”.

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

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

27. GRSP resumed consideration on the remaining issues of the proposed 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 127 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/38), such as the tolerances of the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI). GRSP finally adopted GRSP-55-14-Rev.3 (incorporating GRSP-55-24), as reproduced in Annex V to this report. GRSP requested the secretariat to send the proposal (WP.29-163-06) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2014 sessions as a draft amendment to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/38. GRSP also adopted GRSP-55-44, as reproduced in Annex V to this report, to introduce a parallel correction to Supplement 1 of the original version of the UN Regulation (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/37). GRSP requested the secretariat to send the proposal (WP.29-163-07) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2014 sessions as a draft amendment to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/37.

28. GRSP agreed to resume consideration at its December 2014 session of this agenda item based on a possible proposal of an Addendum to the M.R.1 to incorporate the FlexPLI.

The draft Amendment 2 to GTR No. 9 proposes to establish the new FlexPLI impactor as the single harmonized tool for lower leg impact tests. The amendment also proposes injury assessment reference values (IARV) to go with the FlexPLI. The US, however, has consistently expressed concerns that the proposed injury thresholds and IARV have not been validated as appropriate for the American car fleet. Therefore, the US proposes to have ‘recommended’ IARV included in the preamble to Amendment 2 while allowing governments the freedom to use whatever IARV/performance thresholds they deem appropriate until such criteria can be fully validated.

6. GRSP noted that the Administrative Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its March 2014 referred WP.29-162-03 to GRSP, concerning the Injury Assessment References Values (IARVs) for the flexible lower legform (FlexPLI) to bumper test, of the proposal for amendments to the UN GTR. It was also noted that referring this document back to GRSP, the establishment of the UN GTR would be delayed until an agreement on the IARVs would be reached by GRSP (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1108, paras. 91 and 92). Therefore, the expert of the United States of America introduced GRSP-55-36, suggesting to amend the preamble of the draft UN GTR to allow Contracting Parties to choose appropriate values based on their cost and benefit studies and the existing injury risk curves. He concluded that establishing premature values, without the research results would introduce risks of dis-harmonization. The expert from Germany, supported by the expert from OICA, argued that this approach would not be, however, the most favourable one for harmonization. He suggested to put the development of UN GTR No. 9 – Phase 2 on hold until the expert from the United States of America completed his research and to concentrate the work on the corresponding UN Regulation No. 127.

7. Finally, GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its December 2014 session, based on further research results and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-55-40, GRSP-54-33-Rev.2 (draft UN GTR) and GRSP-54-34-Rev.1 (draft final report of the IWG) with official symbols.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft text prepared by the Task Force Bumper Test Area (TF-BTA), a subgroup of the Informal Working Group on gtr No. 9 – Phase 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Referring to the AC.3 decision at its March 2020 session (see ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1151, para. 158), GRSP reiterated its intention to finalise the work on harmonizing UN GTR No. 9 with UN Regulation No. 127, which already incorporates the proposed Amendment 3 to the UN GTR for the headform test (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5 as amended by GRSP-67-13). However, the expert from the United States of America suggested that, due to the postponement of this current GRSP session from May to July, AC.3 had not received the results of the discussions and should first be informed of the process at its next session in November 2020 before vote on the proposed Amendment 3 at its March 2021 session.

Therefore, GRSP recommended: (a) Amendment 3 to UN GTR No. 9 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/5), as amended by Annex II to the session report, (b) the final progress report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2) as amended by Annex II to the session report and (c) the authorization to develop the work (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/31), for consideration and vote at the March 2021 sessions of WP.29 and AC.3.