III or BioRID II, as a Contracting Party option. Then, as a second step, harmonization of the dummy, evaluation of upright postures, tests at higher speed and at mid-speed to be considered in 2014 and later. (b) Option 2: Extend the work schedule of the informal group to require a proposal to amend UN GTR No. 7 to be submitted to GRSP in December 2012, in anticipation that a harmonized dynamic backset evaluation proposal would be made based on the injury criteria using BioRID II only. Then, as a second step, harmonization of the dummy, evaluation of upright postures, tests at higher speed and at mid-speed to be considered in 2014 and later.

168. OICA expressed strong concerns that both of these options would result in a UN GTR of choice by the Contracting Parties. 169. At the 152nd session of WP.29, the expert from Japan proposed a revision of the ToR to AC.3 that would establish the timeline of the group until 2012. This schedule should allow completion of the injury criteria analysis, but if the work was not complete, a detailed BioRID II test would be added to the UN GTR as an alternative to the existing test (the option already exists as a placeholder). The experts from the United States of America presented an alternative proposal which revised the ToR to allow the group to take a comprehensive approach in addressing both long-term and short-term minor neck injuries. AC.3 sent the proposals to GRSP, noting that it anticipated a revised session.* proposal to revise the ToR at the 153rd 170. At the fifth meeting of the IWG it was confirmed that the group preferred to deliver a new proposal of a single procedure to assess protection against neck injury for integration into the UN GTR. The group also agreed with the recommendation of the expert from the United States of America that the injury criteria that emerge from the ongoing research effort in Japan and the United States of America should guide the development of the final procedure. 171. The expert from Japan showed associated lower-speed tests with injuries at the AIS1 level and said that any change to address more severe injury levels would take longer than December 2012. It was agreed that AIS1 injuries remain the focus but that, if possible, consideration would be given in the long term as well as short term injuries. 172. Thus, the group recommended that GRSP amend the ToR to specify that the primary focus of the IWG should be developing a proposal for the BioRID II that would provide benefits that were equal or better than the benefits of the existing option in UN GTR No. 7. If the group was able to provide additional benefits within the specified time frame it would be permitted to do so, but if this work was not completed, any discussion of further work in this area would take place at a further stage. 173. At the sixth IWG meeting, the expert from the United States of America reported that BioRID II had the best Biofidelity and reproducibility. The experts from Japan and the United States of America informed IWG about the planned, joint study of the injury criteria by the end of 2011. 174. At the seventh IWG meeting, the expert from the Partnership for Dummy Technology and Biomechanics (PDB) reported that the shoulder of the BioRID II interacts with the seat back of the hard bucket seat depending on the seat back shape, with a load path via the T2 jacket bolt/shoulder plate; PDB also presented the simulation and sled test results that affect the upper neck Fx and My. 175. At the sixteenth IWG meeting, NHTSA reported that significance of flexion in PHMS studies and, like Hybrid Ⅲ, the BioRID neck did not fully replicate this movement.

(iii) Dummy drawings (2D and 3D)

176. At the first and second IWG meetings, the progress of the drawing harmonization between Denton and First Technology Safety Systems (FTSS) was