Working draft of the proposed new regulation on in-vehicle automated emergency call systems.

Proposal for a testing and certification framework for the type approval of in-vehicle automated emergency call devices.

OICA proposals for the test and measurement procedures to be undertaken to assess the post-collision (i.e., following the frontal impact or side impact testing under UN Regulations Nos. 94 and 95) functioning of an automatic emergency call device.

Proposal from the informal group secretary to add classes of emergency call devices to the draft regulation. The three classes proposed would address bandwidth variations (e.g., GSM 900, GSM 1800, UMTS 900, UMTS 2100, UMTS 1700/2100, UMTS 1900) and permit authorities to limit their acceptance of type approvals to particular classes.

OICA raises a number of concerns over the direction of the AECS discussions including implications for all “connectivity” technologies. OICA stresses need for AECS to establish true harmonization through performance (rather than design) requirements and for mutual recognition under the 1958 Agreement as well as to maintain the focus on vehicles (as opposed to unwarranted digressions into broader infrastructure, telecommunications systems, bandwidth, etc.).

Comments on document AECS-02-02/Rev.2.

Proposal to add an automatic emergency call systems tell-tale to UN R121.

During its first session, the EMC Task Force considered proposal regarding the application of UN R10 to trolley buses (under UN R107), to UN R46 (indirect vision and camera monitor systems), and to the work on automatic emergency call systems (AECS), as well as a proposal to amend UN R10 itself. OICA provides the views of its EMC experts in this document.

Proposal to introduce requirements for Automatic Emergency Call Component (AECC) approvals that can be integrated into Automatic Emergency Call Device (AECS) approvals and/or Automatic Emergency Call Device installation approvals (Installation of AECD) under the new AECS Regulation.

Overview of AECS, the draft regulation, and possible next steps.

Proposal to clarify the scope of the Regulation especially with regard to the relationship between AECS and the presence of airbag systems in the vehicle.

Proposal to correct editorial and numbering errors and to clarify references to certain passive safety regulations in the original proposal (regarding the relationship between AECS and the presence of airbag systems in the vehicle).

Proposal to correct and clarify cross-references to testing under Annex 9, including power suppliers other than the back-up power supply.

Proposal to remove the exclusion of M₁ and N₁ not equipped with a side airbag and to specify that the AECS shall be able to output the navigation solution in an NMEA-0183 protocol format (RMC, GGA, VTG, GSA and GSV message), among other clarifications.

This proposal relates to the proposal in document GRSG-116-15. This proposal would:

1. clarify that the application of an AECD approval to other vehicle categories than M₁ and N₁ is not mandatory,
2. align the power supply requirement of Part III, para. 34.1 with the corresponding requirement in Part II, para. 25.1.
3. clarify with regard to para. 34.1 that if the vehicle is equipped with both
   • -a “back-power supply” as listed in para. 35.10.1 and
   • -a “Power supply other than back-up power supply mentioned in paragraph 35.10.1” as listed in para. 35.10.2
   both should be tested according to Annex 9. The “Power supply other than back-up power supply mentioned in paragraph 35.10.1” should indeed only be tested if it is the only power supply for the AECS.
4. Since informal document GRSG-116-15 deletes the existing exemptions in para. 1.3, and hence introduces more severe requirements, the changes should be introduced via a new series of amendments with appropriate Transitional Provisions of 2 years. (In effect, the application of AECS requirements would be based solely on the scope of UN R94 and R95 and no longer takes into account the presence of an airbag and its triggering system. The manufacturers need sufficient time to ensure AECS compliance for new vehicle types and in the same time, the changes should not affect existing vehicle types that were given an AECS type approval already.)

Proposal to clarify that UN R144 does not specify the frequency (number) of attempts or the duration of efforts to establish a network connection (voice or data transmission) for automatic emergency call systems.

The text prepared by the expert from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) to introduce the non-transmission of data retry.

Comments responding to a proposal from the Netherlands to add a dedicated radiated immunity test mode in Annex 6 which includes initiating eCalls or being in an active eCall.