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.

No objections to the proposals which are passed for consideration to adopt during the AC.1 session.

55. Agenda item 4.6.5, Regulation No. 127, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/38, insert the following amendments:

Paragraphs 11.1. to 11.4., amend to read:

Annex 4, paragraphs 1.1. and 1.4., square brackets shall be removed.

Annex 5, paragraph 3.2.1., amend to read:

Annex 5, Figure 5, amend to read:

“Figure 5
Example of marking of HIC1000 zone and HIC1700 zone
See document WP.29/2014/38 for the drawing accompanying the revised title.

Annex 6, paragraph 2.2.4., amend to read:

Annex 6, Figure 5, the title, amend to read:
“Figure 5
Flexible lower legform impactor: Test set-up for the knee joint in the static certification test (see paragraph 1.2.5. of this Annex) …”

Annex 6, Figure 6, the title, amend to read:
“Figure 6
Flexible lower legform impactor: Test set-up for the dynamic lower legform impactor certification test (pendulum test, see paragraph 1.3.3.1. of this Annex) …”

Annex 6, Figure 7, the title, amend to read:
“Figure 7
Flexible lower legform impactor: Test set-up for the dynamic lower legform impactor certification test (inverse test, see paragraph 1.4.3.1. of this Annex) …”

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.

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.

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 He explained that the proposal superseded ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2011/13, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/25 and GRSP-54-08, leaving pending the issues of the Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARVs) for the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

8. GRSP recommended ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2013/25, as amended by Annex II to the session report and adopted the final progress report of the IWG (GRSP-54-34-Rev.1), as reproduced in Annex II. GRSP agreed to seek guidance of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement (AC.3) at its March 2014 session concerning IARVs of para. 5.1.1. and seek endorsement of AC.3 to extend the mandate of the IWG until November 2014 to complete the addendum to M.R.1 to incorporate the FlexPLI. Finally, GRSP requested the secretariat to submit the proposal as draft Amendment 2 to UN GTR No. 9 and its final progress report to AC.3 for consideration and vote at its June 2014 session.

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.

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.

8. The expert from EC introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/17 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/30, submitted by the Task Force on Bumper Test Area (TF-BTA), a subgroup of the Informal Working Group on global technical regulation No. 9 – Phase 2, and proposing an amendment to the provisions of the bumper test. He explained that the current provisions allow the area to be narrower than intended in the provisions of the UN GTR. He added that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/17 was proposing a new method by introducing a practical determination of angle surfaces, to be tested with the FlexPLI, by using a corner gauge. Moreover, he explained that ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/30 was proposing the introduction of the definition of rigid bumper beam in the test area in addition to the above-mentioned new test method. He finally informed GRSP that a test report on research conducted by EC on this issue was available. The expert from Japan gave a presentation (GRSP-56-03) to support ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/17. The expert from Korea presented GRSP-56-20 supporting ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/30. The expert from OICA introduced GRSP-56-30, supporting the new method as proposed by ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/17, because the test is less sensitive to specific design features and it could be performed without disassembling parts. Moreover, GRSP discussed GRSP-56-38 and GRSP-56-39, superseding respectively ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/17 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2014/30.

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

9. The expert from the EC introduced GRSP-54-07-Rev.1 to clarify provisions of the headform tests and superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/14 (including the final report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2). The expert from the United States of America stated that, as a general issue, the proposal was not evidence-based (GRSP-54-31) and lacked data from the current method. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2014 session on the basis of more data and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-54-07-Rev.1 with an official symbol and to keep GRSP-54-31 as a reference.

9. The expert from the EC introduced GRSP-54-07-Rev.1 to clarify provisions of the headform tests and superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/14 (including the final report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2012/2). The expert from the United States of America stated that, as a general issue, the proposal was not evidence-based (GRSP-54-31) and lacked data from the current method. GRSP agreed to resume discussion at its May 2014 session on the basis of more data and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSP-54-07-Rev.1 with an official symbol and to keep GRSP-54-31 as a reference.

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.

143. The representatives of the United States of America requested that AC.3 agree to a deferral of the vote on this item due to its final technical evaluation of the amendment earlier this year. They explained that technical experts in the United States had identified how the proposed amendment to UN GTR No.9 on Pedestrian Safety lowers the stringency of the underlying performance requirement for head impact protection. Due to important safety considerations, the United States of America requested additional time to discuss its scientific findings with GRSP. In addition to the need to further evaluate the underlying safety protections as proposed in the amendment, the representatives of the United States of America noted that there are no fewer than three additional amendments pending or being planned, from various contracting parties. Some of which will have a direct impact on the stringency of the UN GTR. In fact, one of these amendments has the potential to improve the stringency of the testing requirements. Therefore, they questioned why WP.29 would adopt the amendment at this session which reduces the stringency of the UN GTR, only to retighten or potentially improve it shortly thereafter. The representatives of the United States of America detailed some of their expert findings and urged the group to pay closer attention to how proposed amendments to UN GTRs relate to each other, take the time to make sure all parties are confident that they are based on the best available scientific evidence available before being presented for adoption to ensure the highest possible levels of safety are attained. The representatives of the United States of America also pointed out that the requested postponement would have no effect on Contracting Parties that operate under the 1958 Agreement because the pending amendment was already incorporated into UN Regulation No. 127. Furthermore, the representatives reminded AC.3 that according to the rules and procedures of the 1998 Agreement (Paragraph 6.2.5.1.), a proposal that is found to be inadequate may be returned to the originating Working Party for revision. Finally, the United States of America representatives also reminded AC.3 that the process of international harmonization of vehicle regulations is an inclusive process, initiated through regulatory activities within the scope of the 1998 Agreement and continued with corresponding activities under the 1958 Agreement, with the aim to encompass the largest representation at the global level.

144. The representative of the European Union argued that the request for postponement on such short notice was undermining the consensus reached by experts after more than six years of discussion in GRSP, based on which the amendment was submitted to the vote in March 2021 WP29 meeting. She stressed that this created a dangerous precedent, whereby any Contracting Party, in disregard of the outcome of work that had already been finalised and validated by the experts, can delay adoption of the legislation and disrupt the procedure at any time. GR level is the one to propose and discuss technical solutions until submission of the draft text for vote. United States of America despite request to this end formulated already in 2015, did not provide any elements for discussion supporting their position, only until March 2021 AC3 session. She stressed that this is not appropriate way of proceeding. She underlined that technical explanations provided by the expert from the United States of America were already examined by GRSP at length (the United States of America had a study reservation on the proposal since 2012), were not endorsed by GRSP and therefore could not be considered at this stage as a basis for postponement by AC.3. She also added that the allegations of lowered stringency of the proposed amendment, the provisions of which are based on UN Regulation No. 127 would create a precedent affecting the credibility of the 1958 Agreement. She underlined that no Contracting Party voiced concerns with regard to the safety levels of Regulation 127, which is a mirror legislation to GTR 9 with the suggested amendment.

145. The representative from Canada proposed to delay the vote until June 2021 in order to retain the work performed so far by GRSP.

146. The expert from Germany expressed his view on the necessary urgency for reaching a solution and called on GRSP to immediately commence with appropriate activities, having in mind the short timeframe between the upcoming GRSP session in May 2021 and the next AC.3 and WP.29 sessions scheduled for June 2021.

147. Upon repeated consultations with the Committee concerning positions of AC.3 members with respect to the possible establishment of the amendment, the Chair of AC.3 concluded that the support from the Committee to reach consensus was not adequate.

148. AC.3 agreed to defer vote under this agenda item to its June 2021 session pending further discussions concerning the proposal for Amendment 3 to UN GTR No. 9 at the next session of GRSP, scheduled to take place in May 2021. AC.3 requested GRSP to give highest priority to the task and to report back to AC.3 and WP.29 with the greatest urgency on the progress towards a resolution of outstanding matters in this context. AC.3 agreed to keep this item on its agenda for the next session with the expectation to vote on the amendment.