WLTP-28-23e

MINUTES of the 28th WLTP IWG Meeting in conjunction with Low Temp TF

Date and Time : starting at 13:30 on 23rd Septemberexpect to complete by 12:30 on 27th September

Venue : Ittingen, Switzerland

< > indicates the purpose of each agendaIS : Information Sharing, D : Discussion, RC : Reach Consensus

*************** Day_1 (23rd Monday) ***************

1. Welcome & Organization <IS> (13:30-13:45) Welcome by Chair

The Chair welcomed the group. Main objective of the meeting is to forward all of the open issues around

the transposition into the UNECE regulation. The Chair confirmed that he can continue in his role until at least the

end of 2019 – with thanks to JRC. Announcement from sub-group EV that Per Ohlund will resign as the

chair of the sub-group. The Chair thanked Per for his work and contribution in that role.

Administrative information by Host The Chair thanked the Swiss Environmental Agency for hosting this

meeting.

2. Adoption of Minutes & Agenda <RC> (13:45-14:00) Minutes of 27th WLTP IWG meeting (WLTP-27-08e)

On point 4, B. Thedinga had previously stated that he would update on the hub dyno. Update at this meeting: Correlation exercise is planned to take place at JRC in March 2020. EC have approached ACEA and its members to have more parties involved in this evaluation. Would like to have OEM support in terms of reading of OBD data. JRC is currently preparing the test facility and equipment.

On next meetings, shortly after the IWG 27, India offered to host in 2020, 14 -16 April in India.

Minutes agreed as an accurate record of the meeting and adopted. Remove “draft” from website.

Proposed Agenda (WLTP-28-01e) Agenda adopted.

3. Item list to be incorporated into UNR/GTR/ Amd#6/Regional reg. <IS> (WLTP-28-02e) (14:00-14:15)

1

Decision needed at this meeting on whether OBD should be a separate GTR or a new GTR.

Clarity on the fact that durability (line 7) is the proposal for the adoption into the transposition into the UNR.

4. WLTP UNR development_Part1 <D & RC> (14:15-17:30) UNR construction and optional items by R. Gardner (WLTP- 28 -03e )

R. Gardner presented the above document. Working document needs to submitted by October 21st. Obviously if any

corrections or finalisations need to be done after that, they can be sub-mitted as informal documents.

Need an additional meeting (or more) of the drafting group – dates to be agreed.

Durability Procedure by A. Marotta (WLTP- 28 - 04 e ) A. Marotta presented the word document with draft text for the annex

on the durability procedure. Outstanding question around definition of the “useful life” Criteria to define durability family and rules for extension.

a) Thermal ageing b) Chemical ageing – no agreed method for measuring or quantifying

this.c) Physical ageing – no agreed method for measuring or quantifying

this. In order to assess the ability to extend, the chemical ageing and

physical ageing should not vary significantly. For thermal ageing, it could be allowed that a durability system where there is a maximum thermal load, could have extensions made to systems with a lower thermal load. If this can be agreed, it would not be necessary to limit durability families to be in line with the interpolation families. It would also need to be guaranteed that any elements which impact chemical and physical ageing would need to be kept constant.

M. Olichew questioned whether it was important to try to duplicate a comparable EV solution, or should they only focus on the level 2 solution?

N. Ichikawa noted that there is a fundamental difference between ICE and EV durability, but it would be useful to provide a methodology

W. Coleman noted that additive or multiplicative is only significant when one end of the durability approaches 0.

A. Marotta noted that there is a requirement to do a durability test right at the start of the procedure, which was probably included originally just to check that the vehicle is performing normally before starting the bench-ageing test. It could be considered to not mandate this, because the manufacturer would probably do this themselves anyway.

W. Coleman noted that in the EU, this is a 0km test. In Japan, 3000km point extrapolated from the other test. There is an option in the EU to perform the type 1 test on the durability vehicle. This seems to be a useful addition. Japan starts testing at 5000km; EU starts at 6400km. Japan tests every 20000 km up until 80000km. EU tests every 10000km up until 160000km. It would be good if there could be harmonization on these testing intervals. If Japan accept that 4 tests are sufficient, EU could test every 40000km but this would only give Japan one test in its

2

durability process. Japan have a standard for ‘light motor vehicles’ which does not exist in the GTR or UNR.

Y. Khellef noted the debate around minimum useful life versus expected useful life. Industry has concerns that if minimum is used, customers would expect the vehicle to be warranted up until that point.

A. Marotta proposes to have a common mileage for the first test and then have the test every 20000 km until the end of the useful life. Would propose to have the 0km check as optional rather than mandatory and to insert the definition of ‘light motor vehicles’. Japan will provide text for that definition. H. Nakhawa asked whether the proposal to reduce the amount of testing is needed W. Coleman noted that level 1a would be 40000km intervals up until 160000km, whereas level 2 would be 20000km up until 80000km. H. Nakhawa noted that with the 0km test, the regulator can assess whether or not the vehicle was not performing well initially rather than the system has failed early. India just adopt the assigned DF and have not yet used the actual durability procedure. In India when there is a CoP failure, they try to instantly investigate whether there is an unforeseen reason. There would need to be some restrictions on the criteria for this as repeated vehicles could not be allowed to fail for the same unforeseen reasons. Definition of a light motor vehicle is critical. Thermal ageing needs to defined for the durability procedure and could be done as bench ageing or on the vehicle. A. Marotta noted that the definition of light motor vehicle should not be in conflict with any existing definitions. A. Marotta also noted that durability family definition needs to guarantee that vehicles will be covered by the tests. Extension to other vehicles can be granted as long as a list of criteria are fulfilled (see excel spreadsheet ). Need a way to identify the worst case, which can then be used to extend to “better” cases. Excel sheet gives some proposals with the difference between Japan and EU. Awaiting input from industry before having bilateral discussions with Japan / India etc. as well as technical services etc. Objective of this week is to have an agreed list of criteria that can be used to assess ability of extending a family to include new vehicles. W. Coleman stated that industry have just sent a paper to A. Marotta. H. Nakhawa asked whether +/- 5% roadload in the durability family is the same as the tolerance already allowed? A. Marotta responded that this text comes from the NEDC procedure. It was used when WLTP was introduced in EU. There have been questions on how to interpret the relationship between inertia class and interpolation families, which need further discussion. H. Nakhawa noted that the location of temperature measurement needs to very clearly defined otherwise interpretation issues and asked how the addition of new suppliers would be included in extensions? A. Marotta noted that with the introduction of RDE at type approval and in ISC, then any durability weaknesses will be identified anyway.

3

H. Nakhawa requested that all of the issues identified are at least listed in the technical report in order to show that they have at least been considered with the relevant decisions.

COP Procedure by I. Riemersma (WLTP- 28 -05e ) and Input from SG EV (WLTP- 28 -06e )

<Conclusions> There will be a meeting on 17th October to finalise text in order to

submit working document for January 2020 GRPE.<Discussion>

I. Riemersma gave a presentation on the status report of the CoP task force (WLTP-28-05)

It was noted that there was an error on slide 4 – interpolation family should be < 1000 vehicles per 12 months and IP family is CoP family.

M. Olichew questioned the engine start on HEV-OVC as he was concerned that this could demonstrate (1) The vehicle is designed too tightly to the test cycle and / or (2) battery durability is poor.

M. Naegeli noted that this was raised at the last meeting. As you apply interpolation families, you could have a vehicle start for VH but not for VL and there is no way to identify the borderline vehicle.

I. Riemersma stated that you would not really expect this to happen in the first cycle, but it is possible

M. Olichew noted a that with power fade in the battery, you could end up with more starts. No ability to go through the cold start procedure, so pollutant emissions could be raised.

H. Nakhawa asked whether there is a desire to harmonise the statistical process.

I. Riemersma replied that ideally there would be, but that there will be a different procedure for the evaluation of the test results in the EU and Japan.

A. Marotta noted that results from 4 phases are considered when evaluating CO2.

I. Riemersma noted that there was a previous suggestion from RDW that if an IP Family was split across factories, it should be at the authority’s discretion as to whether it should be split for CoP purposes.

H. Nakhawa noted that it is hoped that Level 1a and Level 1b could develop in such a way that India could sign up to one of them. They plan to adopt 90% of the GTR as currently written.

M. Naegeli gave a presentation on SG-EV CoP activity. Thanks were noted for the work done by SG-EV and also expressed to R.

Gardner. M. Morimoto gave an update on CoP for Evap stating that in principle, an

OEM can use the simplified method written in UNR83. However, Japan propose some amendments to UNR to take into account the latest technology that is now fitted to some vehicles.

CoP drafting 100920 includes proposals from SG-EV and TF-Evap. W. Coleman noted that there are tanks coming to the market that do

hold pressure, but are not technically “sealed” tanks. Tank pressures “demonstrated” should be “demonstrated and recorded”.

*************** Day_2 (24th Tuesday) ***************4

5. WLTP UNR development_Part2 <D & RC> (9:00-16:30) Items to be discussed for UNR inclusion

(1) Gear selection and shift point determination by H. Steven (WLTP-28 -07e ) *

(2) JPN unique requirements by N. Ichikawa (WLTP- 28 - 08 e )Nick presented the list of topics being discussed within Japan at the

moment. These include items where there are specific requirements for Japan, which need to be added into Level 1b and 2 and lists the parameters which are unnecessary for Japanese requirements. They are also considering whether any additional parameters would be needed for Japan

S. Miyazaki presented an alternative method to measure road load (WLTP-28-10e-app2).

W. Coleman questioned whether, if this proposal does come into the GTR, JPN would accept CFD?

S. Miyazaki replied not necessarily at this point.W. Coleman asked whether the wind tunnel is this manufacturer or

authority wind tunnel? S. Miyazaki replied that it depends on the approval authority.B. Thedinga sought clarity that CFD will not be accepted in Level 1b,

but will be considered for the future?S. Miyazaki noted that CFD is not in draft Level 1b, but Japan can see

that there may be a benefit to accepting in the future, so want to see how CFD works in the current regulation and then reconsider in the future.

There was a discussion on whether bodyshape was still needed. In EU interpretation the scope of CFD is within a bodyshape. CFD can be used to differentiate bodyshapes, but should not be used to do so to determine the scope.

C. Lueginger asked what validation during type approval actually mean in practice? He gave the example that at thebeginning of the year, you introduce diesel engines, and validate the method works. You then introduce a new range of petrol engines (in the same vehicles) – do you need to then revalidate?

M. Morimoto noted that the flowchart might be slightly complicated. Bottom left is type approval, top left is validation, so if you can demonstrate the vehicle is still within scope of the CFD, then you do not need to revalidate.

P. Cognet noted that if such a system is produced in the regulation, it means that a process would need to be defined in the event it fails. If the method is validated at the type approval stage, but is then rejected during in-service use, what does that mean for the type approval?

S. Miyazaki if the method is rejected, it cannot be used for new type approvals. For vehicles already on the market, then it depends on the situation as to what the appropriate corrective action would be.

B. Thedinga questioned how this should be includedM. Morimoto noted that the alternative method includes CFD method

and the other alternative method to cover where the wind tunnel does not comply with Annex 4.

5

B. Thedinga stated that the EU can accept it in level 2 (automatically transferred if it is in Level 1b), but will have to consider whether it is needed in level 1a)

R. Gardner noted that level 1a and level 2 would have CFD as an alternative method. Level 1b and level 2 would have the additional validation method.

C. Lueginger noted that authorities would be able to check robustness of CFD anyway, so this validation could be included in all levels.

H. Nakhawa agreed that this could be included in all levels.B. Thedinga questioned why it is necessary to have this specifically

included as authorities always have the right to checkS. Miyazaki noted that once equivalency is demonstrated, this method

can be used for type approval. With the text written like that, type approval authority may not have the right to ask for equivalency check.

S. Miyazaki document for pollutants (WLTP-28-08e-app2). VH is worst case for CO2, but may not be for pollutants. Worst case for interpolation family may not be tested so need requirements to ensure that this is demonstrated.

C. Lueginger noted that it is already clear in the GTR that all vehicles must meet the emission limits. Even if something additional is needed, it should not be within the family definition. It would be better to have a declaration in Annex 6 perhaps. CoP vehicle would be very unlikely to be VH or VL so would inherently look at other vehicles not tested at type approval.

A. Marotta noted that the UNR needs to be clear that the manufacturer must ensure that all vehicles are in compliance with the emissions limits. CoP (and in Europe ISC) will then check.

(3) Proposals from SG EV by M. Naegeli (WLTP- 28 - 09 e ) M. Naegeli presented the key topics for discussion:o Items 1 and 2 - OVC-FCHVs are not included in current text of UNR

WLTP. Japan view this as a premature step. ACEA believe that it is necessary to have in the first edition of the UNR WLTP text and definition proposals.

o C. Vallaude noted that she thinks it needs more time, but if ACEA have a real need for it to be included in first edition of UNR WLTP, then it can be considered.

o N. Ichikawa noted Japan think it needs longer. Measurement method for OVC-FCVH is still questionable at this time.

o Industry noted that nothing has changed in relation to OVC, so the only concern is how to measure the H2. If accuracy of on-board data can be demonstrated, this can be used. There are vehicles already being developed and produced and without inclusion in the regulation, they cannot come to market. OVC-FCHV falls under definition of a normal OVC, but cannot be tested against the current procedure.

o A. Marotta questioned whether, if this was not possible at the first stage of UNR-WLTP level, would it help if it was solved it at an EU-WLTP level?

o Industry noted that it would also be helpful to not require cycle specific measurements.

6

o S. Miyazaki noted that Japan already accept this type of vehicle, but have to be approved as NOVC-FCHV.

o Industry stated that it is not acceptable to approve these vehicles as NOVC. Gravimetric method was chosen to be the reference method, but not quite sure why this was deemed to be more accurate and reliable.

o Chair noted the option that an informal document to GRPE to include after the 21st October to have more time to ensure that the current proposal is actually robust.

o Industry noted that there is no difference in the measurement procedure between OVC and NOVC so why are others happy to accept NOVC in the UNR but not OVC? If there are serious doubts over the measurement, then NOVC needs to be taken out too.

o Item 3 was supported but text needs to be improved and will be discussed in conjunction with pure ICE vehicles

o Item 4 – extrapolation for OVC-HEVs – could not be supported by Japan.

o N. Ichikawa questioned the current process? Can extrapolation be done under CS and CD condition? Testing will need to be done anyway.

o N. Schuetze noted that it is not clear, hence the proposal. Testing would need to be done where a manufacturer knows that a system is close to its limits. If further away from limits then simulation could be used. In all cases, it should be checked.

o Item 5 – extrapolation for PEVs – lack of evidence for proposal on 3Wh/km extrapolation causing concern to EC.

o A. Marotta questioned what prevents a manufacturer from designing the type approval in order to deliberately exploit this provision?

o C. Lueginger noted that several authorities are demanding that a “real” vehicle is type approved and that would restrict any exploitation potential.

o Item 6 – OVC-HEV and PEV family on charge electric energy converter. Japan cannot support this proposal as it is difficult to identify the worst-case condition. Idea is to have different electric energy converters between the recharge plug-in and the traction REESS within one family as long as worst-case in terms of electric energy consumption is tested.

o A. Marotta noted that he understands the intention but the wording raises the same concern that Japan has expressed. Wording could be changed to put the onus on the manufacturer to provide evidence that the worst-case has been tested.

o Item 7 – wording of the nominal voltage in Annex 8, appendix 3. ACEA would like a better description of nominal voltage. Document provided by ACEA intended to address Japan’s concerns with the original proposal. Can this wording be incorporated into the UNR WLTP?

o B. Thedinga noted that it was good to have the overview of what needs to be decided, but due to the need to consult with MS, the EU cannot give an opinion at the moment.

7

o Item 8 – application of the CO2 correction factor clarification – when does the correction factor need to be applied – complete cycle or phase-specific? Japan have provided a counter-proposal to strike out two redundant sentences.

o Chair requested feedback from EC on the proposal including amendments by Japan

o Item 9 – calculation formula of MCO2, weighted. o N. Ichikawa noted that Japan would insist though that any already

issued type approvals should be corrected and values possibly redeclared. This formula should also be applied for pollutants if it is to be used for CO2.

o Item 10 – Annex 1, Paragraph 9.1 – GTR amendment – text for all-electric city range is quite complex currently, so proposed simplification and improvement to the text but is not intended to change the content – supported by Japan

o Item 11 – Annex 8, Appendix 4 – introduction of soaking requirements for PEVs – supported by Japan

o Item 12 & 13 – allowing voluntarily decrease of individual EAER – consider post-processing

o Item 14 – Table A8/A9 – any feedback from MS, just let M. Naegeli know

o Item 15 – Criteria for number of tests.o Item 16 – Proposal for table A6/2o Item 17 – Annex 8, Appendix 4 – will be re-discussed in the web

audio in the next few weekso Item 18 – Annex 8, Paragraph 3.4.4.2.1.2 – addition of one sentence

to specify rate of acceleration.o M. Naegeli noted that the right experts were not all in the IWG

meeting and hence no conclusion could be reached but useful to have discussions in the IWG.

o A. Marotta proposed dividing the issues into three categories: (1) editorial, (2) Japan not supportive and (3) procedural changes.

o M. Naegeli summarized that still need agreement on CoP, engine start and low temperature. Need to prioritise which topics need to go into the GRPE working document.

(4) Proposals from CFD TF by M. Morimoto (WLTP- 28 -1 0 e ) S. Morimoto presented the above document Question to WLTP IWG – approval of text and concept possible?

o I. Riemersma noted that the concept is generally accepted and they have already provided some feedback on the text to further clarify.

o B. Thedinga noted that the text needs improving but supports the principle

o H. Nakhawa questioned why Japan, who do not want to include CFD at this stage, are leading the work into this?

o S. Mayizuki noted that Japan have decided not to include it as an alternative method at this stage because they do not yet have enough experience to know whether it is suitable for type approval.

8

o H. Nakhawa questioned whether there is confidence that any validation would work and would be applied consistently?

o B. Thedinga confirmed that he believed that this should be a helpful tool to ensure that there is guidance available, particularly for those that are less familiar with the regulation.

o H. Nakhawa noted that software validation without guidance would make India reluctant to accept this validation

o M. Morimoto noted that discussions were ongoing to establish whether some sort of software approval could be obtained, but software providers do not have their own wind tunnels to support this approach.

o H. Nakhawa proposed that perhaps the software should be described in the legislation to ensure robustness and consistency.

o B. Thedinga noted that the link between software and homologation is a difficult question and not solely linked to the emissions field. An element of trust has to be applied because it would not be good practice to specify the exact software

o M. Morimoto noted that the sub group is not just industry and software providers, but also academics. Their comment was that it is still difficult for CFD software to generate absolute values, but it is good for generating deltas.

o H. Nakhawa noted that this could lead to virtual emissions certification. More complex, more stringent regulations are dramatically increasing the burden on both the industry and the authorities, so new solutions need to be found.

o The Chair noted that there is an agreement on the concept. The text is available and will be finalized after receipt of further comments.

o M. Morimoto stated she would circulate the EC comments before the 21 October. If this is not possible, an informal paper will be submitted at GRPE in January 2020. No further meetings planned of the sub-group.

o CFD working group can be closed after the final document is submitted.

o The Chair thanked the CFD group, and especially M. Morimoto, for all of the work that they have done to develop the text. Originally, it was expected to be included in Amendment #6 of the GTR, but it can now also be included in the first edition of the UNR-WLTP.

(5) Proposals from ACEA (WLTP- 28 -1 1 e and WLTP-28-17 ) *) will be discussed on Thursday in conjunction with agenda#10<Conclusions>

WLTP-28-17e : The group agreed the proposal and it will be included in the UNR and GTR # 15

WLTP-28-11e : The group agreed the proposal to use worst-case of the possible modes

<Discussion> C. Lueginger presented the editorial document WLTP-28-17e N. Ichikawa states that Japan does not support this proposal

unless aligned with the electric vehicle requirements

9

R. Gardner noted that there is already a holding place in the draft text of the regulation

Chair noted that this also needs to be aligned with GTR #15 R. Gardner noted that the assumption was that all agreed

changes for the UNR will be included in Amendment #6 of GTR #15.

C. Lueginger presented document WLTP-28-11e Discussion on drive modes and predominant modes. The

proposal would be that if there is no predominant mode, then the worst case of any of the modes which can be initialized for engine start is used (“last” mode).

B. Thedinga noted that the EU can accept the proposal in principle, but would like some discussion on the final wording.

I. Riemersma noted this text would call for a definition on what is “last” mode in line with the definition of predominant mode

M. Naegeli noted there is also a proposal on this for electrified vehicles. There is a more detailed description of modes, which could be used as the start of the discussion and obviously there should be no conflict between the two sets of requirements.

N. Ichikawa noted that Japan supports the concept of this proposal.

M. Naegeli presented the flowcharts for electrified vehicles. R, Gardner noted that the regional option is obviously just for

GTR #15, but not the UNR. Matthias presented the second proposal in the document There are four interpolations : cycle energy, mass, F0 and CdA.

As soon as interpolation is used on one, it can then cause unexpected effects on the others. The proposal addresses this issue.

The technical part should be treated separately from the principle concerning whether it should be mandated or guidance.

I. Riemersma noted that the Commision welcomes this proposal and it should be a requirement.

N. Ichikawa noted that as long as it is only guidance, Japan does not have much interest but they would be unable to accept it as a requirement. He presented a document to put in various deltas on the interpolation parameters as long as the overall is > 5g/km.

C. Lueginger noted the 5g/km is already in the regulations and therefore cannot control the ability to have a large delta on one interpolation parameter.

R. Gardner noted that to address the guidance versus mandated issue, the transposition could have level 1b as guidance and level 1a and 2 as a requirement.

N. Ichikawa noted that some Japanese manufacturers may have difficulties if it is a requirement.

W. Coleman questioned the meaning of guidance within legislation

10

S. Miyazaki noted that in Japan, guidance will be applied in the normal situation, but can be discussed with type approval authority and not used if appropriate.

C. Lueginger noted that more text can be developed to accommodate Japanese concerns

C. Lueginger presented third ACEA proposal on the chassis dyno mode. There are several vehicle functions which will impact WLTP testing on a dyno. Some are complicated to solve, but it seems logical to, as a first step, mandate that the coasting function is switched off during dyno testing.

B. Thedinga noted that this is difficult because the coasting feature is actually an eco-innovation. Eco-innovations are handled by a different directorate, so they haven’t yet reached a conclusion with EU Com.

N. Ichikawa stated that Japan supports principle H. Nakawa questioned how this can be simulated on a dyno

when in real life coasting will only be experienced at slow speeds and downhill

C. Lueginger noted that they cannot be simulated. You derive a utility factor for the coasting function for the evaluation of the function as an eco-innovation. If you do the test without coasting and then apply the eco-innovation benefit, that seems the right way to do it. Eco-innovation benefit is derived from real world driving and customer data.

Japan would like a more general proposal if possible. Can discussion on whether it can be included in the general

transpositionRCB Correction by W. Coleman (WLTP-28-17e)

<Conclusions> Chair requested that Japan confirms its position on this proposal to the

WLTP IWG as soon as it is available. If Japan cannot support the proposal, this item will be carried forward to the next WLTP IWG #29 in Geneva in January.

<Discussion> The concept of RCB correction is treated differently in Annex 6 (ICE) and

Annex 8 (Electrified Vehicles) Proposal from ACEA is not to prohibit correction for ICE vehicles, but to

introduce an alignment between the two annexes and technologies. B. Thedinga stated that the EC can accept the proposal as is but

questioned if it would be better to completely remove this correction criterion?

W. Coleman noted that industry would like the option to choose for themselves. The correction makes the results more consistent rather than more representative.

Japan have not had time yet to discuss this. In principle, it seems logical but will confirm.

If Japan are in agreement, EC would assist the drafting coordinator in preparing the correct text.

6. OBD TF <IS&D&RC> (16:30-17:30)Status report by M. Morimoto (WLTP-28-12e + 3 appendices)

<Conclusions>11

There is a strong wish by industry and EC to have major parts of OBD in EU-WLTP amending act with a target date for implementation of October 2021; will take content from UN working documents.

OBD TF should continue work as originally planned.<Discussions> Charge depleting mode in Status of OBD TF (1/2) should be charge

sustaining. B. Thedinga noted that EC have had bilateral discussions with Japan. Was

the original idea to have an OBD GTR or...? EU and Japan are both happy to base their requirements on the UN R83 text.

S. Miyazuki voiced support for the creation of OBD within UNR WLTP. It should not go into R83 because it is not a harmonized approach. Also think that an OBD GTR is necessary but not important if it is standalone or not.

B. Thedinga noted that the scope of the group had now widened and while the focus is still on the introduction of the WLTP cycle, there are now a lot of additional issues which is difficult to support given the limited time. They will obviously include whatever is actually essential in the EU text where possible. They are not planning for any additional amendments and post-Euro 6 discussion will take precedence. So anything that needs to be included in EU-WLTP needs to be done now if at all possible.

Japan supports EC comments. M. Morimoto confirmed that her preference would be to stay in line with

the UN secretariat and have the GTR OBD added as an optional annex to GTR #15.

R. Gardner noted that it is different to the low temp situation which would have had to duplicate almost the entirety of GTR #15. However, it does still make sense, from an administrative perspective, for it to be an optional annex to GTR #15.

H. Nakhawa was open to both options. If it is an annex to GTR #15, it needs to be optional to CP or it can be a separate GTR. No preference as to which method is used, but whichever method is decided, it should be harmonized.

R. Gardner confirmed that it is possible to include annexes on an optional basis.

W. Coleman noted that the timeframes are contradictory. UNR-WLTP is a working document for January 2020. OBD GTR is not due until June 2020. OBD UNR is not due until January 2021. So where does OBD sit with WLTP until then? If it is not in UNR-WLTP, it has to be in UNR83-08. Neither are acceptable to Japan.

B. Thedinga questioned how to include the SCR monitoring amendment? W. Coleman noted that the proposal had been submitted and was

awaiting agreement from Japan. It can then be put into whichever regulation but he personally thinks it would be best in the GTR and hence UNR-WLTP.

B. Thedinga agrees with this. The Chair asked when Japan would be able to give their position on SCR

monitoring R. Gardner noted this had already been discussed in the transposition

task force and that the proposal is to take the existing R83 text and put into UNR-WLTP.

Make it clear for next actions (inclusion to UNR first edition/GTR) by All

12

<note> Further discussion and text development will be conducted at separate meeting (on 30th September and 1st October in Stuttgart).

*************** Day_3 (25th Wednesday) ***************

7. Collaboration with EVE <IS&D> (9:00-10:30)Information exchange between EVE and WLTP

< Battery Durability, HEV Power Determination and so on >System power determination

M. Olichew gave an update on the work of the EVE. Working on a standalone GTR. Originally thought that equivalent results would be achieved with TP1 and

TP2, but this does not appear to be the case. It might be that one is more appropriate for certain types of architecture than the other.

Draft text is developed already but will obviously need further refinement depending upon the results of the TP1 / TP2 analysis.

H. Nakhawa questioned if the EVE work is covering low-powered vehicles and off-road vehicles

M. Olichew noted that this procedure is supposed to be applicable to all vehicles but they have not yet looked at lower powered vehicles specifically and have instead focused on light duty. There has been no consideration of off-road yet.

Chair questioned whether there was anything outstanding that needs addressing within the WLTP IWG

Main areas are around the k factor and the TP1 and TP2. M. Naegeli noted that when it was identified that there were differences

between TP1 and TP2, VDA prepared a checklist of what needs to be recorded to allow good analysis of the deviation. If there any questions from the EVE group on this, then he will forward to colleagues for clarification / comment.

N. Klein stated no preference for TP1 or TP2 but need to determine what is the acceptable difference in the results.

M. Olichew noted that the conclusion might be that we give up trying to address the differences and just make sure that we have a robust procedure for each of the architectures.

The Chair questioned how to address the fact that the will not be a power determination GTR in time for the transposition in UNR-WLTP.

M. Naegeli stated that while there is a need to have system power determination, downscaling etc. is not being done for hybrid vehicles so it should be currently clear what is needed. The new test procedure must be robust.

W. Coleman noted that the UNR cannot reference the GTR R. Gardner agreed that GTR #15 needs to cross-refer to the new GTR M. Olichew noted that any manufacturers that wish to class their vehicles

as class 3 without necessarily doing the system power determination, this could be introduced very quickly.

M. Naegeli noted that it would be a good idea to write into the regulation that system power determination only needs to be done where downscaling is being looked at.

It was noted that EVE #32 must conclude with agreement as to how to progress the GTR developments.

Durability

13

EVE sub group has done some research to understand what the current status is

All manufacturers are assessing durability differently, but using the same parameters.

Industry is clear that it is hard to assess an appropriate test cycle for an aged battery in an emerging market with technology, infrastructure and customer behaviour evolutions.

Question around whether this is a battery issue or a vehicle issue => It is the impact of battery degradation on the vehicle emissions.

Primary direction seems to be to establish a pre-determined deterioration factor depending on the architecture. Should the DF be multiplicative or additive? For larger numbers, multiplicative is more useful, so, as this generally relates to CO2, probably multiplicative.

Slide 12 on the areas that durability would impact (criteria pollutants, CO2 & energy consumption, electric range)

W. Coleman noted that durability on a PHEV could consider two extremes - drive 160000km without ever charging, or 160000km only in electric mode. Criteria emissions highlights this because the regulation tests on worst-case which does not demonstrate the potential benefit of PHEVs on air quality.

M. Olichew noted that Contracting Parties had not yet agreed on the slide 12 requirements.

C. Astorga noted that consumer satisfaction is key to this as well. From a policy-maker perspective, plug-ins are seen as the cleaner option in terms of city access for example. If this is significantly impacted by battery deterioration this could cause issues in the future for consumers.

M. Olichew noted the concern about the environmental performance, but if the durability is addressed from an environmental perspective, the customer issues will be addressed simultaneously.

C. Astorga questioned what will happen before the GTR is in place M. Olichew noted that this is why a DF would be helpful, perhaps based on

empirical data rather than a test cycle. N. Klein noted that every manufacturer has their own way of assessing,

given the technology, the vehicle, the infrastructure, the customer etc. All manufacturers are currently warranting batteries for a significant period of time (e.g. 8 years). He also noted that we need to be wary of any change to the regulation which encourages customers to purchase vehicles with oversized batteries which they do not actually need.

N. Klein confirmed that it is possible to include the temperature effect in the modelling

M. Naegeli noted that manufacturers are doing a lot of investigation but are still learning in order to predict the ageing effect on the battery.

B. Thedinga noted that the EC was preparing position for EVE #32. Given the urgency, the EC have a separate department for developing the EV durability requirements. No artificial testing of the battery outside of the vehicle. WLTP should be used as the basis. Could look at the use of battery health indicators. Will further develop their position. Initial view is that electric range for PEVs would be needed.

Japan position is that if battery durability relates to pollution, it should be included. There are some discussions on electric range also being important for the customer.

H. Nakhawa noted that India think there should be electric range for all. A. Marotta noted that when developing the requirements, it should be

emphasized that there is an improvement over pure ICE vehicles.

14

Obviously, there is a requirement for the vehicle to always be below the limits.

M. Olichew noted that cold start could be particularly concerning as it will not be as well-controlled on PHEVs as for ICE.

8. Low Temp TF <IS&D&RC> (11:00-17:30)Status report and preparation of informal document by C. Astorga (WLTP-28-

13e and appendices) and input from SG EV (WLTP-28-14e)Note that information on the Low Temp TF can now be found via the UN wikipages: https://wiki.unece.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85295115

C. Astorga presented the status report The group had identified issues that might be ready for drafting.

Feedback is needed on what is already ready and what needs to be done for those topics not quite ready.

C. Petitjean presented the status of the auxiliaries sub-group. Some of the auxiliaries are dependent on each other, so decisions on

one item may impact others. W. Coleman noted that in the US, historically, there has been a slight

conflict in environmental requirements versus safety requirements. Can US clarify where this has got to?

One of the reasons that NHTSA was given the authority to set fuel economy standards was in order to prevent manufacturers making much lighter vehicles which are less safe. This concern still remains. NHTSA are now considering fleet renewal in order to get the newer, safer vehicles on the road.

C. Astorga questioned the proposed timing on slide 6 and whether it was realistic.

C. Lueginger noted that one cannot have requirements for auxiliaries before deciding on powertrain.

The Chair noted that a working document on low temperature is due for June 2020, so submission of document is needed by mid-March 2020.

B. Thedinga stated this timing was supported by the Commission and the group should not be overwhelmed by the detail. If an accessory is fitted and can be operated by the consumer, it should be switched on and set to maximum

H. Matthiasson noted that it should not be assumed that all cars are running in darkness and in very cold conditions in the northern part of Europe.

B. Thedinga noted that we need a solution that all Contracting Parties are happy with. Worst-case scenario would be all auxiliaries on, but as there is at least always a driver, we should consider the auxiliaries, which support the driver.

C. Lueginger noted that while the list looks simple, there could be very long discussions to finalise the details. What would happen if an agreement could not be reached at this stage?

C. Astorga noted 21oC for the heating should be the starting position. W. Coleman noted that simplification will almost certainly reduce the

repeatability and reproducibility of the test procedure. It would be normal to run a round robin on a new test procedure and it is unlikely

15

this could happen before March. C. Astorga introduced the document on the Low Temp TF Open Issues M. Morimoto went through the list to provide Japan comments. Some items were very difficult for members to be able to agree on, so

the documents include the understanding of what was agreed. See summary document at:

https://wiki.unece.org/display/trans/LowT+TF+28th+f2f+meeting+Bern%2C+25th+September+2019

o Further discussion on open issues within Low Temp TF and SG EV members

M. Naegeli gave an update on SG EV actions on low temperature. Presentation from B. Roos on preconditioning and Shortened Test

Procedure / Short Method information: Normal test = 5 hours STP = 3.5 hours SM = 1.5 hours

New technologies should allow better holding of the temperature in the battery. 7% loss with no preconditioning and 3% even with pre-conditioning but a good compatibility between STP and SM.

B. Roos noted that it seemed appropriate to focus on the preconditioning rather than looking at alternative test procedures.

M. Morimoto noted that this proposed method cannot be accepted in Japan because of a law which prohibits a certain amount of electricity to be produced; i.e. if it is above a certain threshold, it is deemed to be a power plant.

M. Naegeli noted the need to look at the open issues on each of these points to assess feasibility of having a working document in March. UBE is the biggest challenge.

Key points on the procedure itself, preconditioning and family concept. The short method currently is still longer than the standard method for ICE vehicles.

B. Roos noted, in response to Japan’s concern on power plants, it is possible to discharge a vehicle not to the grid.

Still the debate exists on whether the worst-case is on criteria emissions or energy consumption

If manufacturer’s worst case across the model range can be identified, this could be applied to all of the families, although obviously the manufacturer could also choose to do more specific testing.

I. Riemersma thought the customer information would include the ratio between the 23oC and the -7oC.

M. Naegeli noted that we are still trying to decide what is the best way of presenting the information to a consumer.

I. Riemersma noted that if you base it on an offset from your worst case, you may find that something that has a lower offset may have a higher ratio.

M. Neageli agreed and noted the need to take care. This proposal is still under discussion within the SG-EV.

M. Naegeli noted that it was a challenging timeframe to have an informal document in January 2020

16

The short method shown today has good potential but may need to move into a future phase of WLTP as there are too many outstanding points to resolve within the current timeframe.

The Chair noted that the next step of Low Temp TF is to have an informal working document for the January GRPE.

C. Astorga confirmed that this was feasible

< note > Parallel discussion on UNR specific issues may be expected during Low Temp TF discussion

*************** Day_4 (26th Thursday) ***************

9. Gear Shift TF by H. Steven<IS&D> and DTI study by Korea(9:00-11:00)

Gear selection and shift point determination (WLTP-28-07e) H. Steven presented the above document. Items highlighted in yellow

were discussed by the IWG. Slide 8 – paragraph 3.4.2 – agreed by all parties Slide 10 – paragraph 8.2 – needed for clarity by the programme co-

developers – agreed by all parties Slide 11 – paragraph 8.3 – data to be recorded aligned with 9.2 –

agreed by all parties Slide 13 – paragraph 3.1 – additional detail added to provide clarity –

agreed by all parties Slide 14 and 15 – paragraph 3.3 – add text around deceleration phase

o W. Coleman noted that the assessment of deceleration is dependent upon rounding, and the rounding is to 1d.p. – at which point it should be “vehicle speed >= 1.0km/h”.

o H. Steven agreed but noted it would have to be done in multiple places

o R. Gardner agreed to do this as drafting coordinatoro Agreed by all parties

Slide 16 – paragraph 3.4 – agreed by all parties Slides 20-24 – paragraph 4(b) – agreed by all parties Slide 29 – paragraph 5 – agreed by all parties Slides 30-31 – paragraph 5 – agreed by all parties General comment from R. Gardner – how do we cross-reference the

ACCESS tool from the GTR or the UNR? If we should? W. Coleman does not believe that there should be a reference from the

regulations. The access tool is an interim help until the full programming is done.

The ACCESS tool will not be referenced in either the GTR or the UNR.

Status report of Programming Code (WLTP-28-15e) H. Steven presented the above document Outstanding questions for IWG: The aim, the need and the legal status of such codes

o W. Coleman noted that there is a need. If this is in the Amendment #6 of the GTR but not in UNR or EU-WLTP, what is the legal status of this if it only exists in the GTR.

o C. Vallaude confirmed that a technical service would probably

17

use it as a guidelineo A. Marotta noted that if the existing tool can be demonstrated

not to work and there is an improvement to the tool, which solves the issue, even if not officially in the applicable legislation, it was agreed at TCMV that it should be used.

The possibility to make the codes only partly publicly accessible,o Commission view that this would not be acceptableo W. Coleman noted that the people who are putting in this work

are at commercial risk and that they have a choice not to do this though.

The risk of modifications by userso They will be available on the UN Wiki. Someone could hack into

the UN Wiki, but is it a problem? License issues

o Commission view that it should not be licensedo All parties agree with the Commission

What to do if differences between the codes will be found in future.o As long as they are all legal, does it matter?

The Chair questioned whether there is an intention to put this into the GTR and the UNR?

A. Marotta noted the appendix can be in Amendment #6 in the GTR. It cannot be put into the EU-WLTP amending act, because this needs to be closed at the end of October. Equally, would not want UNR to be out of line with EU-WLTP.

W. Coleman again noted that the tool is to assist, so there would not be a misalignment. The only way that would happen is if the tool no longer reflects the legal text. Would propose addressing that at the point it happens, as it is unlikely.

A. Marotta would need to consult EU legal department to be able to make a decision.

M. Morimoto questioned what happens if the code does not work in the timeframe?

H. Steven noted that he does not believe there should be differences as everyone has the same interpretation. If it did happen, it would be taken out of the text and discussed at GRPE.

H. Steven confirmed that they should be able to meet the January 2020 deadline

DTI study by Dr. Kim (Korea) (WLTP-28-16e) Presentation on the effects of DTI on fuel economy Testing done on a single vehicle Conclusions that DR and ER cannot be used for FTP-75 Request to send any questions on this presentation via email to Mr.

Kim at mskim85@kotsa.or.kr I. Riemersma noted that the testing was done on the FTP75 and the

HW. Does Mr. Kim think it would have reached the same conclusions if it had been done over the WLTC?

Mr. Kim noted that Dr. Charyung Kim will attend GRPE in January 2020 to explain

W. Coleman noted that in the original version of the GTR, we defined pre-conditioning. It is not clear whether limits have to be upheld during the pre-conditioning.

18

When you warm-up for the dyno setting, you drive a WLTC. Some interpretations indicate that during the warm-up you have to meet the DTI. For warm-up and pre-conditioning, you have to put over 75km on a brand new vehicle. If anything has to be repeated, it is not good for consumer relations.

I. Riemersma noted that the DTI should not be applicable to the pre-conditioning cycle or warm-up. DTI should only be used for the type 1 test

W. Coleman proposed that this clarification should be included in the text to state that the DTI should not be applied to warm up for dyno setting and perhaps have a separate discussion on pre-conditioning.

P. Cognet noted that it is quite clear in the text of the GTR that the DTI is only applicable for the test

W. Coleman agreed that it becomes clear in Amendment #5 of the GTR, but it is not yet clear in EU-WLTP; only that it applies to the type approval test, so it could include all aspects of the approval process

Chair issued an open invitation for members of the IWG to share the results of any studies which are relevant to the work of the group.

10. Meeting schedule <IS> (11:30~11:45) Schedule of upcoming meetings (WLTP-28-19e)

https://wiki.unece.org/display/trans/WLTP+calendar 29th WLTP IWG meeting (January 2020 @ Geneva) Intermediate IWG meeting (prior to deadline of WD submission @ TBD)

To be held in Brussels 19-20 February 2020 30th WLTP IWG meeting (Spring 2020 @ India)

To be held in Delhi 14-16 April 202011. AoB <IS or D or RC> (11:45~12:00)

Consider new Chair for SG EV There is a need for a Chair Peter Bonsack has volunteered for the role. The group fully supports his nomination.

Others, if necessary Evap – one change needed to GTR # 19 following discussion in

transposition TF. Scope of GTR #19 is only for positive ignition engines, but there are compression ignition engines, which use gasoline and these should also be within scope. Mono fuel gas vehicles fitted with a < 15litre vehicles are out-of-scope but Japan think it should be included. Japan would accept that a Contracting Party could excluded from the scope.

W. Coleman noted that OICA are against options for Contracting Parties in GTRs. Could adopt the changes already included in R83. Also R83 defines mono-fuelled vehicles but then rarely uses it, instead referring to 15 litres etc. Need to amend and align terminology with GTR 19.

B. Thedinga suggested that the scope be changed just to say “engines fuelled with gasoline” rather than getting involved in compression / positive ignition.

P. Ohlund agreed that this is about the fuel system, not the engine, so that would be sufficient

19

R. Gardner will produce working document for the next GRPE meeting.

Other AOB – US presentation on CO2 test cycles vs WLTC

12. WLTP UNR development_Part3 <D & RC> (13:00-17:30) Development of Working Document (WLTP-28-03e_Appendix01~0X) Topics revisited

Durability: update by A. Marotta on development of concrete pro-posals based on WLTP-28-04eA. Marotta presented a draft document on proposals...

Description of useful life - still under debate, but maybe tar-get / regulated?

W. Coleman noted that “target” may be preferable as “regulated” is not a useful term in a regulation as it might lead to different behaviours once the vehicle is outside of the regulation.

Light Motor Vehicles – add a definition in line with vehicle classification in GTR15

Japan will provide a proposed definition in line with a K car

Vehicle maintenance and adjustments – if failure is not re-lated to durability, it can be fixed; if it is related, then it needs a discussion between manufacturer and type approval au-thority

All parties agree Initial WLTP test – proposed compromise between EU and

Japan – first test between 3000km and 5000km Japan still need to confirm OICA support

Frequency of testing – after first test, subsequent tests every 20000km until the end of the useful life

OICA support Additive deterioration factors - add “if the additive deteriora-

tion factor calculated with the above formula is negative, then it shall be put equal to zero”.

OICA support The proposals will be included in the draft text and treated as

a whole Durability Family Definition and Extension criteria

Guiding principles:o Physical ageing is considered of secondary impor-

tanceo Chemical ageing shall be the same within a dura-

bility family and / or for granting extensionso Worst case approach possible for thermal ageing

– this would replace inertia classes up and down and roadload flexibilities

Japan will have to take these proposals back to Japan as they differ from the original position.

Is there a definition for what is part of the after-treatment system?

20

Layout of catalytic converters etc. – if we have the thermal requirement of each of those elements, then perhaps the layout is insignificant. Position of cat in overall vehicle will impact on the performance charac-teristics.

What are filtering characteristics? Low pressure and high pressure EGRs cannot be in the

same family, but you could have a vehicle, which has both types fitted to it. It canot then be in its own fam-ily.

Clarification of the conditions to measure the type 1 test needs to more defined.

Will spend some time looking at how the proposals could be improved.

CoP: update by I.Riemersma on way forward and inclusion EVAP Trusting that no feedback from the WLTP IWG means that

they are happy to continue the work and discussions within the task force.

Still one issue that needs to be resolved on establishing the annual production volume of an IP family and how to deal with vehicles produced in different facilities.

W. Coleman noted that in the transposition, this will have to be something left in square brackets. OBFCM is not an issue to solve by CoP TF, but should be dealt with WLTP IWG.

O. Berg questioned how would this work if you have very small volumes in several factories?

I. Riemersma is aware that there are some Technical Services who view that all factories have to be covered by CoP.

C. Vallaude confirmed that there would have to be a mini-mum requirement for every factory.

On Evap CoP, the changes proposed to the R83 mode still need to be consulted on with the Evap Task Force.

The group is initially working on text for level 1a and then will look to level 1b and level 2.

This covers all of the existing open topics, but should be prepared for additional points that may arise as the drafting is done.

Japan unique requirements: concrete proposal by C. Lueginger based on WLTP-28-08e

C. Luenginger went through a proposal developed to satisfy Japan’s requirement for a representative vehicle.

Addition of the following paragraph: In the case, that vehicles within an interpolation family

are equipped with different emission control systems that could have impact on the emission behavior, the manufacturer shall either explain to the responsible authority that the test vehicle(s) selected and their results from the Type 1 test are representative for the interpolation family or demonstrate the fulfilment of the criteria emission within the interpolation family by testing one or more individual vehicles

21

A. Marotta clarified that this means that within the same IP, you could have different DF for different emission control systems.

SG EV input to UNR development: update by M.Naegeli of consen-sus/compromises based on WLTP-28-09

Discussion with EC and Japan on proposed amendments M. Naegeli ran through a presentation with proposed amend-

ments and status of agreement B. Thedinga made one addition to the presentation on the ex-

trapolation for pure EVs. EC support the concept and but lin-earity and behavior of an electric vehicle need some further work.

Japan support modification proposed by J. Wiessner. EC would agree with this additional test.

Minimum delta: updated proposal by C.Lueginger based on WLTP-28-11e

C. Lueginger presented the new proposal Japan support in principle but need to confirm I. Riemersma ssupport the principle but just some small

editorial changes required. R. Gardner clarified that this also addresses the issue of the

artificially ageing VH? OBD: introduction of OBD in first set of UNR WLTP and R83.08 pro-

posals by R. Gardner In the working document for October, it will be OBD light in

UNR WLTP; the first amendment will then include the revised harmonized OBD procedure

Level 1b will have to have the Japanese OBD process. Level 2 would therefore have both procedures. W. Coleman noted that in his understanding it is not possible

to calibrate a system to two different OBD procedures. It ei-ther needs to not go into UNR WLTP and go into UNR 83-08

B. Thedinga noted that his understanding was that R83 OBD requirements would go into level 1a.

M. Morimoto noted that level 1b would be Japanese WLTC 3-phase, but with text R83

RCB Correction (W. Coleman): Japan are still unsure of this. I. Riemersma proposes drafting text so that Japan can con-

sider actual proposal.

Contradictions (W. Coleman): I. Riemersma questioned why the delta method has been

deleted from the text W. Coleman noted that if the delta method has been used,

then it has already been demonstrated to the type approval authority so the proposed wording negates the need for the reference.

Proposal is to delete “criteria emissions” from 1st paragraph. 22

A. Marotta noted that despite agreeing with the principle, there is a concern that if we delete criteria emissions, that may mean they are not tested at all

W. Coleman noted that this could be addressed with a simple change to the word order

New proposal from Japan on durability requirement – presented by S. Miyazaki:<Conclusion>

Proposal should be included<Discussion>

W. Coleman noted that this concept only works if you have fixed DFs because you have to apply those for CoP methods. This means that presumably there will be fixed DFs for diesels.

S. Miyazaki did not agree that this would impact on whether or not there were fixed DFs for diesels.

Update on dual-axis dyno – I. Riemersma Short update – there was an agreement to include the 4WD

dyno into the transposition. The only thing needing resolution is the vehicle restraint system on the dyno. Telecon last week went through EU-WLTP text. Intense discussions and no con-clusions were reached. Text has been slightly changed, with greater clarity introduced. Under scrutiny in Japan and await-ing response.

Development of Working Document (WLTP-28-03e_Appendix01..) R. Gardner introduced the topic of monofuel gas vehicles. In the

current R83, there is no need for Type IV test for a vehicle with a petrol tank < 15 litres.

Proposal from Liquid Gas Association Europe (George Nicklau) Japan still see the need for evap on these vehicles, but the EU

does not. B. Thedinga noted any changes to the legislation would require

transitional provisions. Could keep current EU requirements for Level 1a. Japan requirement would then go into Level1b and Level 2.

Japan position is that if a vehicle can run with gasoline, then full emission protocol shall be carried out. Normal mileage for a normal vehicle is different to a light vehicle.

W. Coleman noted that surely it can be demonstrated that monofuel vehicles are driven for the vast majority of time on the gas engine rather than petrol. Can understand the desire for evap, but the environmental influence of the vehicle operating on petrol is negligible as it will almost never happen.

S o c i a l E v e n t @ A p é r o R i c h e 1 8 : 0 0 ~

*************** Day_5 (27th Friday) ***************

23

13. WLTP UNR development_Part4 <D & RC> (9:00-12:30) Development of Working Document (WLTP-28-03e_Appendix01~0X)

Topics to address:a) OBFCM

A. Marotta noted that a new device has not been introduced in type approval, they have just acknowledged that most vehicles have such a system and therefore they have introduced standardization and the ability to store and access the data with an accuracy requirement of 5%.

Level 1a has to have OBFCM installed and demonstrated to be within 5% accuracy over 4 phases. It could go into Level 2 as well. Same concept exists for ATCT.

Japan agree. B. Thedinga cannot see any other solution. W. Coleman noted that OBFCM would seem to be logical to have in

Japan as Japan have fuel consumption regs. In EU, it is used to monitor CO2 regulations which is not a robust way of doing this.

b) OBD Proposal to use R83 text, but with thresholds relevant to each

region. Level 2 would then comply with both. A. Marotta noted that for type 1 test for level 2, we will require the

fulfilment of the Japanese limits under 3 phases and EU limits under 4 phases. For OBD, can you also do only one test to demonstrate both requirements or is this not possible?

The above is the only proposal that Japan can accept as harmonized test.

ACEA will not currently accept this so needs to be discussed further in OBD TF to determine what is feasible.

M. Morimoto questioned whether there are revisions to OBD in EU-WLTP?

R. Gardner noted that the version of R83 on the OJ was not the latest, so there was text in EU-WLTP to explain how to read the OJ text. The version in the OJ has now been updated, so the amending act for OBD will be taking out the adjustments.

W. Coleman noted that EU-WLTP still refers to NEDC demonstration for OBD

A. Marotta noted that the NEDC reference can still be used as needed until September 2022 for type approvals

W. Coleman noted that 692/2008 is repealed in January 2022. It makes sense to therefore to have UN-WLTP only referring to WLTC. His personal preference would be to put OBD into R83-08 until such time all of the repercussions around this are fully understood.

Japan position is that if OBD uses WLTC, it should be put into UNR WLTP

W. Coleman noted that WLTC already exists in UNR 83 as an alternative procedure and came into force in June 2019.

Discussions will have to continue in OBD TF Monday/Tuesday

c) Vehicle restraint for dual axis dyno New proposal has been sent to ACEA members involved in this

discussion. Assuming that it is agreed by them, it will be sent to Japan for them to confirm that this is acceptable.

24

d) Dilution air temperature

e) Evaporative emissions that will take some time, so need to discuss at this stage

f) Dates of meetings for the Transposition Task Force and 1 meeting for CoP TF

R. Gardner updated schedule of meeting taking into account sub-groups.

g) FAME content of diesel Japanese reference B0 EU reference B7 B. Thedinga noted that the market fuel is max 5% by weight in

Japan, min 6% by volume in EU and questioned how these things can be brought closer to being the same thing?

Japan are willing to change their reference fuel within the parameters of the market fuel.

If Japan cannot accept higher, then EU will look at how much they can lower this limit.

Currently, Level 1a would be with B7, level 1b would be B0, level 2 would be B0 for three phase and B7 for four phase.

B. Thedinga noted it would be helpful for industry to come forward with a proposal

h) SCR into GTR

i) Minimum delta Put into draft in square brackets which can be removed once

agreement received from Japan

j) CFD M. Morimoto will finish draft and then will be circulated to experts –

no further discussion needed in IWG.

k) Annex C tests Currently first two annexes are reserved for Type 2 and Type 3 – is

this the right thing to do or should we try to align annex numbering with type numbering?

l) Amendment to Annex 5 3.3.2.1 GTR # 5 O. Berg gave an update on two tasks from Low Temp TF One on diluted air temperature and one on whether the CVS should

be placed within the wind tunnel Diluted air temperature could be 18 (23 +/- 5) – 52oC – would need

to be careful of condensation R. Gardner noted that the idea is to have a separate annex at the

end, where you could list exceptions to other annex test procedures.

m) Representative vehicle B. Thedinga presented a small change to the wording

25

It should be clear which part of the test is being referred to. General discussion on how the UNR should be structured when we

have different requirements for the same paragraph according to level. The plan is to have one document at this stage, which will then be split into a Level 1 document and a Level 2 document.

Drafting for drive modes has been almost completed so should present

I. Riemersma worried that 2.6.6.3 could allow cherry-picking. N. Schuetze presented the document for pure EVs The flowcharts have also been updated. Japan will take a close look at the proposal and provide feedback as

quickly as possible.

The Chair thanked the participants with particular note to Mayumi Morimoto for whom it would be her last IWG meeting and Peter Bonsack for his hospitality in hosting the meeting.

**** Meeting is facilitated by Leading Team and each TF Leaders ****Leading Team SG EV Leading Team

Rob Cuelenaere (Chair) Daisuke Kawano (Vice Chair)Anna Lindt (co-Secretariat) Matthias Naegeli (co-Secretariat)Nick Ichikawa (co-Secretariat) Nick Ichikawa (co-Secretariat)

26