Requests for guidance
Scope
Background: Conflict between restricted scope and wide scope
| Issue | Advantages | Drawbacks |
|---|
| Restricted scope:M1 < 2.5 tons and lowest seat “R” point < 700 mm with regard to their automatic AECD/AECS | - Limits the scope to the vehicles aimed by both UN R9495 for automatic AECD/AECS
- Avoids liability concerns for vehicles not included in scopes of UN R94/95 (i.e. equipped with manual AECD/AECS).
| - In conflict with EU Directive (all M1/N1)
- Cannot capture vehicles equipped with only manual AECD/AECS
- No mutual recognition of complying vehicles beyond the scope (must be approved nationally)
|
| Wide scope:all M1/N1 vehicles with regard to their automatic or manual AECD/AECS | - Aligned on EU Directive (all M1/N1)
- Captures a maximum of categories, Contracting Parties can introduce exemptions nationally.
| - Could provoke product liability issues as the scope would include vehicles not addressed by R94 (N1) and R95 (M1>700mm)
- Possible need for national exemptions for some vehicles mentioned above
|
Request for guidance:
Should the AECS UN regulation have a wide scope or a restricted scope?
Communication with mobile phone networks
Background:
- AECD/AECS need mobile phone communication for sending MSD and establishing voice communication
- Mobile phone networks are currently not compatible worldwide
- Mobile phone technology evolves quickly
- Existing technology (Quad band) may provide basic performances almost anywhere, with maximum performance in one particularly aimed area
Status of discussions at
GRSG-
AECS informal group:
Possible solutions:
- Frequency requirements to be out of the AECS regulation, i.e. AECD/AECS shall fulfil the national requirements for what concerns the frequencies.
- General requirements not addressing the frequencies, test method proposing “relevant” frequencies.
- Quad band technology
Request for guidance:
How to achieve mutual recognition when the frequency requirements are regulated nationally and not compatible to each other?
Data transmission mechanism and MSD
Background:
- Need for clear definition of MSD,
- Need to address TPSs (Third Party Services) for supporting the J Helpnet and for guaranteeing e-call selection between the vehicle and the PSAP (about 80% of manual e-calls are false due to wrong trial, child manipulation, etc.)
- VIN, transmission process and protocols not harmonized worldwide
Status of discussions at
GRSG-
AECS informal group:
- UN regulation to limit the MSD to the mandatory part of CEN 15722 for the time being
- Agreed to bring space for TPSs in the regulation
- Mechanism of data transmission: no technology can support all Contracting Parties’ national provisions. Possible solutions:
- limiting the regulation to a list of data, and letting the transmission process and protocols to the national legislation
- Establishing one regulation per mechanism of data transmission
- Introducing different series of amendments in the regulation. (AEBS solution)
- Introducing different classes of type-approvals, with one definition of AECD/vehicle types by class of type approval.
Request for guidance:
How to achieve mutual recognition when the different mechanisms of data transmission are regulated nationally and not compatible to each other?