86. The representative of the EU introduced WP.29-158-15, containing a proposal for setting up, under GRPE, of an informal working group on Environmental and Propulsion Performance Requirements (EPPR) for L-category vehicles. The World Forum endorsed the proposal to establish the informal working group, with a mandate up to November 2016, under the chairmanship of Mr. P. Asman (Sweden) and with secretariat services provided by IMMA. The World Forum also agreed to confirm this decision with the approval of the mandate document at its next session, following the meeting of the group during the January 2013 session of GRPE.

- The chairman introduced this item, based on EC’s proposed mandate document as submitted to WP29.
- The European Commission (EC) explained the regulatory situation for EU:

• o The co-decision regulation containing the base requirements is expected to be published in February.
• o For the non-essential elements EC has delegated power. Since 1,5 year EC has been sharing draft text with EU Member States and stakeholders. One of those ‘delegated acts’ is dedicated to environmental requirements.
• o The whole package will become mandatory from Jan 2016.
• o EC would like to simplify the REPPR by referring to UN regulations.
• o In the exercise of taking stock of international and national legislation globally EC have noted some issues that could serve as basis for international harmonization.
• o EC hope to elaborate and lift global requirements to a level to enable CP’s to implement and refer to from their national regulations including EU regulations. This would be to the benefit for industry and citizens of all Contracting Parties (CP).

- The chairman informed that the purpose of today’s meeting was to collect views of CP’s and stakeholders.

- To a question by India, the EC confirmed that Type VI means the low ambient temperature emission test (as described in R83). India noted that at previous ‘IEPPR workshop’ (June 2012), some stakeholders mentioned that types VI should apply to quadricycles. India wanted to know if participants reflected on that. The chairman took note of that, but suggested not to start detailed discussion on this issue now.
- Spain, asked if the EC’s intention was to repeal R40 and R47? EC stated that there would be no repeal as some CPs were still using the regulations.
- India asked what the EC meant by the restricted L category vehicles’ (cfr. point 10 in WP29-158-15). EC offered the example of mopeds with limitation in power and maximum speed, and suggested that the introduction of sub-classes was to restrict the speed or power).
- EC feels it is important to have a common procedure to measure max. power and vehicle speed. The test procedure needs to be adapted as in EU now HEV’s and EV’s have come to the market.

- Japan presented its position (EPPR-01-06e): (Agenda item no#3.3)

• o Japan supported international harmonization but stressed the importance to put priorities on the tasks.
• o Suggestion for first priority on L3 category with combustion engines, as this has the largest market share and greater environmental influences.
• o In Japan, L6 and L7 category vehicles are considered as four-wheeled vehicles, and the emission requirements for these vehicles are the same with those for M1 and N1 vehicles. As such Japan raised concerns to regulate these “four-wheeled vehicles” along with motorcycles and tricycles. Japan takes it necessary to research the situations in each Contracting Party and to consider in detail how the regulations for these categories (L6 and L7) should be.
• o Japan proposed to put lower priority for EV and HEV, and to discuss these based on the outcome from the EVE and WLTP informal groups (under GRPE),
• o in which overall discussions take place on electric range and energy consumption. and it is desirable to take advantage of their results. Currently the overall discussion of electric energy consumption, electric range determination and such are considered in EVE and WLTP and it is desirable to take advantage of their results.
• o Japan proposed to delete “Test type VI” from the proposed mandate document (WP29-158-15) since they see no need for worldwide harmonization for low temperature test.
• o Proposal to unify the reference fuel when developing the regulations because the limit values vary depending on the reference fuels.
• o And it was also proposed to update GTR2 first, and copy the content (of GTR2) afterwards into R40.

- UK acknowledged that quadricycles are not the largest part of the market, and may be lower priority, but UK did not want them to be out.
- The EC explained their biggest concern is at low-end/low displacement vehicles (mopeds and smaller motorcycles). And the EC suggested to consider to open GTR2 to include mopeds. EC stated there is only a virtual boundary between mopeds and motorcycles.
- IMMA preferred also to continue building on what we already exists (GTR2) for L3-vehicles. IMMA called this the next phase of WMTC.
- EC said that looking into L3 only is preventing us to have a holistic view. EC proposed not to focus on one particular subcategory.
- Italy agreed to look at all vehicles and take into account particular specifications of e.g. quadricycles. But Italy stated there is a need to set priorities, and added that motorcycles should be priority.
- The chairman agreed there is a need for a priority list.
- India support Japan’s proposal for no global harmonization regarding the Type VI (low ambient temp.)
- India was unsure if R85 was useable for current L-vehicles for propulsion performance.
- EC said R85 is usable for EV’s and maybe also for HEV, but for HEV, it is not complete. For ICE-vehicles EC saw no appropriate regulation available.
- India suggested that instead of updating R40 and R47, a new regulation should be developed so that this would allow developing countries to apply these current regulations
- The chairman assumed this was in line with the view within EU.
- EC confirmed their preference to first look at the ‘98-agreement, and then at ’58, as there is a solid base by GTR2.
- EC stated though they found some weaknesses and flaws in GTR2 that need to be addressed. And EC saw a need to upgrade GTR2.
EC mentioned that the ’58 agreement is for them also important, and they would like to keep things in parallel.
- India commented that GTR2 is still a recent document and if there are some flaws that should be addressed we should look at GTR2, and try to resolve them rather than starting a new book. India preferred to find expansion rather than start new GTR.
- The chairman concluded that he sees an understanding between EC, Japan and India that GTR2 should be the basis for further work. The group was invited to send addition, written comments to the chairman and the secretary.

The group drafted a document based on document WP29-158-15.

The new document should clearly request the mandate to work on GTR2 and new GTRs as well as UN regulations.

As the classification in SR1 (’98 agreement) and RE3 (’58 agreement) is very different, it was agreed to use the term ‘light vehicles’, (e.g. “category 3 vehicles” or “L-category vehicles”), in order to indicate the scope of vehicles that EPRP intends to discuss.

The document was preliminary agreed but it was decided to submit the document as drafted to the whole group for review and comment until 17th May.