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?