Proposal to

1. Establish terms and definitions to enable differentiation of “centre-steer vehicles” and “side-steer vehicles” (paragraphs 12.7. to 12.9.), and
2. to ensure that the indirect vision provides the driver with adequate view in both vehicle designs.

Proposal to allow additional checks on passive safety at the national level when conducting tests of a complete vehicle (such as checking for damage to seat mounts, objects presenting injury risks in the residual space, and operability of hatches).

Proposal to align UN R43 with provisions in GTR 6 concerning the exemption of possible opaque obscuration areas from Zone I of the test area on the windscreen of M₂, M₃ and N categories of vehicles.

Proposal to align UN R122 to technological progress concerning the use of radiation warmers in electric vehicles. The radiation warmer is expected to increase energy efficiency of EV and is also able to prevent the sharp reduction of All Electric Range (AER).

Proposal from the VRU-Proxi informal group to introduce an alternative method for assessment of the frontal visible volume to address future cab designs with narrower distances between A pillars. The current measurement method is dependent on the position of the A pillar. The alternative method is independent of the cab design and would be available for use at the manufacturer’s discretion.

Proposal from the EDR/DSSAD informal group to revise and clarify the acceleration data accuracy for the lateral and longitudinal acceleration data elements and introduce procedures to verify compliance of the acceleration data with the acceleration sensor accuracy specifications. The proposal is based on the following considerations:

1. There are multiple ways in which the acceleration data accuracy tolerance can be applied. This can potentially lead to different interpretations when applied by type-approval authorities. For clarity, the accuracy tolerance is specified as “+/- 10 per cent of the full range of the accelerometer used in the ECU containing the EDR function”.
2. The proposal enables a component test (including a time-shifting algorithm to address differences in sampling rates between an EDR and bench test) to address difficulties in verifying acceleration sensor accuracy under vehicle crash tests.
3. The proposal adds a footnote to clarify that the manufacturer has discretion (option) over the format for lateral acceleration data in rollover event because such data is not recorded using the lateral airbag deployment sensors.
4. The proposal adds Annex 6 on the verification procedure with an illustration of the tolerance corridor for lateral and longitudinal acceleration.

Proposal from the EDR/DSSAD informal group to revise and clarify the acceleration data accuracy for the lateral and longitudinal acceleration data elements and introduce procedures to verify compliance of the acceleration data with the acceleration sensor accuracy specifications. The proposal is based on the following considerations:

1. There are multiple ways in which the acceleration data accuracy tolerance can be applied. This can potentially lead to different interpretations when applied by type-approval authorities. For clarity, the accuracy tolerance is specified as “+/- 10 per cent of the full range of the accelerometer used in the ECU containing the EDR function”.
2. The proposal enables a component test (including a time-shifting algorithm to address differences in sampling rates between an EDR and bench test) to address difficulties in verifying acceleration sensor accuracy under vehicle crash tests.
3. The proposal adds a footnote to clarify that the manufacturer has discretion (option) over the format for lateral acceleration data in rollover event because such data is not recorded using the lateral airbag deployment sensors.
4. The proposal adds Annex 6 on the verification procedure with an illustration of the tolerance corridor for lateral and longitudinal acceleration.

Proposal from the EDR/DSSAD informal group to revise and clarify the acceleration data accuracy for the lateral and longitudinal acceleration data elements and introduce procedures to verify compliance of the acceleration data with the acceleration sensor accuracy specifications. The proposal is based on the following considerations:

1. There are multiple ways in which the acceleration data accuracy tolerance can be applied. This can potentially lead to different interpretations when applied by type-approval authorities. For clarity, the accuracy tolerance is specified as “+/- 10 per cent of the full range of the accelerometer used in the ECU containing the EDR function”.
2. The proposal enables a component test (including a time-shifting algorithm to address differences in sampling rates between an EDR and bench test) to address difficulties in verifying acceleration sensor accuracy under vehicle crash tests.
3. The proposal adds a footnote to clarify that the manufacturer has discretion (option) over the format for lateral acceleration data in rollover event because such data is not recorded using the lateral airbag deployment sensors.
4. The proposal adds Annex 6 on the verification procedure with an illustration of the tolerance corridor for lateral and longitudinal acceleration.

1. Proposal from the EDR/DSSAD informal group to provide guidance on specification for EDR used in medium and heavy vehicles with regard to the minimum collection, storage, and crash survivability of crash-event data. The performance elements do not include specifications for data retrieval tools and methods which are subject to national or regional requirements.
2. The purpose of these performance elements is to ensure that EDR record, in a readily usable manner, data valuable for effective crash investigations and for analysis of safety equipment performance. These data elements aim to improve understanding of the circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur and facilitate the development of safer vehicle designs. In this context, crashes should be understood as involving property damage and/or personal harm, including that of vulnerable road users involved in the events.
3. Contracting Parties may but are not required to make EDR requirements mandatory for M₂, M₃, N₂ and N₃ vehicles.

1. Proposal from the EDR/DSSAD informal group to enable the type approval of medium and heavy vehicles with regard to the minimum collection, storage, and crash survivability of crash-event data of their event data recorders. The performance elements do not include specifications for data retrieval tools and methods which are subject to national or regional requirements.
2. The purpose of these performance elements is to ensure that EDR record, in a readily usable manner, data valuable for effective crash investigations and for analysis of safety equipment performance. These data elements aim to improve understanding of the circumstances in which crashes and injuries occur and facilitate the development of safer vehicle designs. In this context, crashes should be understood as involving property damage and/or personal harm, including that of vulnerable road users involved in the events.
3. Contracting Parties may but are not required to make EDR requirements mandatory for M₂, M₃, N₂ and N₃ vehicles.

Text revised for clarity and to avoid misinterpretation especially in the certification process.