3.1. The presentation of CPA data of typical panorama roofs was presented and discussed. Data was confirmed by GFE as being correct.

3.2. The presentation and proposal for GTR 6 amendments of Korea was presented and discussed.

Questions: - Is content of GRSG 107-23 to change the scope, still included ?
Is it possible to use an international more clear definition than “sunroof and panorama roof” ?

3.3. Short improvement proposal of CLEPA / GFE on Korean proposal for 6.3.4.1.

3.4. The proposal of OICA for GTR 6 amendments was presented and discussed.

3.5. An intensive discussion of all proposals by the attending members (locally and by phone) was related to the following issues, which were finally not further commented:

OICA amendments 3.2.4.1 and 3.2.4.2 were finally agreed to be removed and other definitions to be searched.

It was supported that a CPA limitation should only affect panes in the overhead zone, which reach into the design glass outline area.

It was supported that in case of a % specific limitation of CPA all ceramic prints should be included. Including markings and dotted areas or other ceramic prints (e.g. Logo).

It was mentioned that a new definition of “overhead glazing” should not lead to additional markings, homologation efforts or other release activities increasing the costs.

It was agreed that a separate definition for the panes in the roof area has to be included in the GTR 6 with clear separation from other typical window panes and the OICA proposal of 3.23 was basically agreed, but needs final wording review.

It was agreed that a combination of OICA and Korea proposal could be a good path for a final agreement level.

It was stated that the group should be concentrating to discuss and define proposals to minimize the risk of driver distraction or injury due to breakage of panes in the overhead zone with CPA.

For the measurement of CPA area the method should be clearly defined and a CAD data based version seems easy to manage.