Mr. Kaganov, delegate from the Ministry of Industry and trade of the Russian Federation started the meeting and introduced Mr. Alexander Gurko, President of GLONASS UNION and the expert responsible for Era-GLONASS project.

The attendees were informed that infrastructure in the Russian Federation (RUS) is currently being completed. RUS is confident that the RUS system achieved good compromises. 2014 will see the start of the complete testing. The system should be in place for processing real emergency calls by 2015.

The UNECE Secretariat recalled the discussions which took place at WP29 at its June 2013 session (see document ECE/TRANS/WP29/1104, paragraphs 74-76).

WP.29/1104 | Report of the World Forum on its 160th session

• Chairmanship: Mr. Denis Zagarin (Deputy general director, Director of NAMI’s Testing centre)
• Secretary: Mr. Olivier Fontaine (Deputy Technical Director – OICA)

OICA was keen that the scope is limited to M1 category, and was of the opinion that the structure of the regulation should be inspired from e.g. Regulation No. 58, i.e. 3 parts (device, installation of the device, vehicle with regard to the device).

RUS was keen to discuss this item further.

The European Commission supported OICA that the Terms of Reference (e.g. scope and timing) should be discussed in details.

RUS indicated they needed justifications for postponing requirements for certain categories.

OICA pointed out that in EU the scope is restricted to light vehicles (M1/N1) because the automatic triggering system (e.g. airbags) is already well implemented. This is not the case for the heavier vehicles.

However in RUS AECS for heavy vehicles does exist and will be applied regarding rollover from 2017 onwards.

OICA acknowledged this, but found it necessary that rollover be well defined. OICA believed that the rollover could be defined as a second step, i.e. starting the 2nd step just after completion of step 1.

RUS pointed out that this 2nd step is of 1st priority to RUS as 1st January 2015 is the date when the RUS regulation starts applying.

OICA found it premature to define now what is achievable. The expert from OICA pointed out that the UN regulation will be if fitted anyway.

The Chair found it necessary that the group achieves compromises.

OICA was keen that the scope is limited to M1 category, and was of the opinion that the structure of the regulation should be inspired from e.g. Regulation No. 58, i.e. 3 parts (device, installation of the device, vehicle with regard to the device).

RUS was keen to discuss this item further.

The European Commission supported OICA that the Terms of Reference (e.g. scope and timing) should be discussed in details.

RUS indicated they needed justifications for postponing requirements for certain categories.

OICA pointed out that in EU the scope is restricted to light vehicles (M1/N1) because the automatic triggering system (e.g. airbags) is already well implemented. This is not the case for the heavier vehicles.

However in RUS AECS for heavy vehicles does exist and will be applied regarding rollover from 2017 onwards.

OICA acknowledged this, but found it necessary that rollover be well defined. OICA believed that the rollover could be defined as a second step, i.e. starting the 2nd step just after completion of step 1.

RUS pointed out that this 2nd step is of 1st priority to RUS as 1st January 2015 is the date when the RUS regulation starts applying.

OICA found it premature to define now what is achievable. The expert from OICA pointed out that the UN regulation will be if fitted anyway.

The Chair found it necessary that the group achieves compromises.

The European Commission offered as a compromise that the regulation be an “if fitted” regulation, with different requirements according to the vehicle category. In EU, the proposal is 2015 for M1 new types.

The UN Secretary found the draft schedule very optimistic.

RUS revealed that the discussion on time implementation lasts for 3 years already in the Russian Federation. But the manufacturers in RUS would have difficulty in approving their vehicles if there are no defined approval procedures.

Germany supported the UN secretariat that the Terms of Reference are ambitious. The expert stressed that the infrastructure also must be adapted in order for the AECS to function properly.

RUS recalled that a working group was established in RUS last year with the participation of all OEMs, where the schedule was approved.

The UK regretted that the discussions were focusing on particular markets, while the informal group should focus on an international regulation. The expert clarified that the UK does support the development of an international regulation, but in the UK cost/benefits ratio is not beneficial (gain of 1% of fatalities). Any market would be free to implement AECS in advance of the UN requirements, but the UK is keen to respect the UNECE regulations and procedures.

RUS was of the opinion that UN R94, UN R95 and R121 should be adapted as well for AECS.

Conclusion:

• Chair and Secretary to produce an update of the Terms of Reference for the next meeting;
• All delegations are invited to provide input.

4.1 Updated document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/67/Rev.1

Document AECS-01-03 was presented by RUS.

OICA pointed out that the comments from Renault integrated in document AECS-01-03 should be disregarded, because they would be integrated in a further OICA document.

OICA was keen that RUS provides the justifications for the structure of their proposal.

RUS explained the 2-part structure as the devices and the installation of the devices. The annexes were too big to be included directly in the 1st draft.

OICA presented document AECS-01-04 focusing on the main points:

• Limited to M1
• 3-parts
• Significant number of comments are of technical nature.
• References to R10, R121
• Part 3 will be developed later, subject to the agreement of the informal group.

RUS agreed with the 3-part draft text.

OICA committed to prepare a revised text for the next meeting with the support from RUS.

Conclusion:

• Renault comments disregarded from document AECS-01-03
• OICA to produce a revised document, based on AECS-01-05, with support from RUS

AECS-01-03/Rev.1 | Responses to the draft UN Regulation concerning In-Vehicle Emergency Call Systems (revised)

AECS-01-04 | Proposal to develop a new UN Regulation on e-call systems Working draft of the proposed new regulation on in-vehicle automated emergency call systems.

4.2 Summary comments ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/67

RUS presented document AECS-01-06.

OICA committed to prepare a new document based on the revision 1 of the RUS document, incorporating the 3rd part, with fully justified comments.

OICA was also keen that RUS provides relevant justifications as well.

RUS agreed to start with M1/N1, with RUS working nationally on the other categories. RUS proposed that the group defines the priorities at this 1st kick-off meeting, and start in-depth discussions at the next meeting.

Conclusion:

• 2-step approach
• Step 1 focusing on M1/N1 category
• Step 2 focusing on the other categories
• OICA to prepare working document with proper justifications (see also conclusions under item 4.1.)
• RUS to provide input and justifications

AECS-01-06 | Further development of the proposed regulation on accident emergency call systems

ITS/AD-160-67 | Proposal to develop a new UN Regulation on e-call systems

Content: AECS devices and functions, test methods

Structure: 3-Part regulatory text:

• type approval of AECS devices for vehicles of categories M1 and N1
• type approval of vehicles with regard to the installation of approved AECS devices
• the type approval of vehicles with regard to AECS function

Scope: M1/N1 as a 1st step

The Chair undertook a tour de table for getting the inputs of the delegations:

• The European Commission committed to develop their provisions on the basis of the UN work.
• UK voiced they will support the informal group activities. The expert stressed the need that the text be technology neutral for not restricting technology, and for avoiding that the regulation becomes out of date.
• Switzerland supported the development of the UN regulation as an observer.
• RUS requested the UK to clarify the term “technology neutral”.
• Germany committed to support the informal group activities, in the spirit of improved harmonization and was optimistic for the success of the exercise. The delegate was also supportive of a technology neutral text.
• Italy supported as well a technology neutral regulation and the step toward harmonization this would bring.
• The Netherlands supported also such AECS regulation. The delegate stressed the need that independent operators (Third Party Services) are not excluded. He also was keen to reduce the number of false alarms.
• Japan supported the work and committed to attend the informal group meetings.
• CLEPA as well supported the AECS informal group work. The delegate committed to comment later about the draft text. CLEPA underlined:
  • hat existing eCall system known as Third Party Systems (TPS-eCall) should be allowed, and
  • That to ensure open choice for customers and fair competition, as well as encourage innovation, the in-vehicle system should be accessible free of charge, in a standardized way and without discrimination to all independent operator.

The European Commission questioned the legislation in RUS. RUS informed that the technical requirements are adopted since 30 January 2013, but the test methods for vehicles equipped with AECS need to be clarified.

Next meeting:

• Date: 5-6 December 2013
• Venue: OICA offices, Paris (4 rue de Berri, 75008 Paris – France)

Action items:

• OICA to prepare working document with proper justifications (see also conclusions under item 4.1.
• RUS to provide input and justifications.
• Comments to be sent to the Chair and the Secretariat:
  • Chair: zagarin@autorc.ru
  • Secretary: ofontaine@oica.net