Session 3 | Moscow | 26-28 Feb 2014
1. Welcome and introduction
2. Adoption of the agenda
3. Approval of the minutes of the previous session
4. Outcomes of GRSG-AECS-02 (5-6 December 2013)
5. Review of the main pending items
5.1. Regulatory items

The informal group acknowledged that UN regulations imply interoperability and require mutual recognition.
Approval tests can only simulate the reality, i.e. cannot capture all real world situations.

5.2. Technical items

EMC
Background:

  • simply referring to UN R10, or including all necessary requirements into the regulation
  • not all UN R10 requirements are necessary for AECD/AECS
Status of discussions at GRSG-AECS informal group: reference to UN R10, plus additional relevant tests if necessary.

Climate resistance
Background:

  • Need to ensure proper resistance to climate extremes in order to guarantee emission of e-call in all circumstances. Item of particular importance in RUS
  • Resistance to climate usually not defined in other regulations, except UN R97, R116 and few others. Industry and J consider this as “over-regulation”.
  • Resistance to climate currently well addressed by the market in the frame of product liability.
Status of discussions at GRSG-AECS informal group: item to be further discussed with proper justifications

Mechanical resistance
Background:

  • Need to ensure proper resistance to mechanical aggressions in order to guarantee emission of e-call in all circumstances
  • OICA concerned that the proposed requirements could be detrimental to safety as the manufacturers usually adapt the specifications to the vehicle.
Status of discussions at GRSG-AECS informal group: item to be further discussed with proper justifications.

AECS triggering conditions (UN R94/R95 environment)
Background:

  • Question on whether UN R94/95 are relevant for assessing AECD/AECS resistance to crash
    • Worst case configuration
    • AECD/AECS post-crash functionality assessment
  • Proposal to perform a separate AECD sled test
  • Status of discussions at GRSG-AECS informal group:
    • Verification (in minimum) of generation of trigger signal during the UN R94/95 impacts,
    • audio capabilities and MSD transmission during crash test procedure.
  • This can also be done via other measures.

Navigation module requirements
Background:

  • Question on whether the regulation should mandate GNSS for achieving accuracy in positioning (design restriction vs. technical necessity)
  • European Commission keen that all AECD/AECS are Galileo compatible
Status of discussions at GRSG-AECS informal group: general requirements with no technology, and approval tests imposing GNSS.

6. Discussion of the draft regulatory text
7. List of action items for next meeting

Requests for guidance

Scope
Background: Conflict between restricted scope and wide scope

IssueAdvantagesDrawbacks
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?

8. Any other business
9. Next meetings