55. The Chair of the VPSD informal group introduced a report (GRPE-65-12) containing a proposal for a framework system of classification of the main terms and definitions to be annexed to Special Resolution No. 1, concerning the common definitions of vehicle categories, masses and dimensions (S.R.1) and the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3). Having clarified that he sees GRPE-65-12 as a living document requiring updates, and supported by the overview presented in GRPE-65-13, he explained that GRPE-65-12 contains definitions regarding powertrains and powertrain components (e.g. energy storage system, energy delivery system, energy converter and drivetrain), vehicles (such as mono fuel, bi fuel, flex fuel, dual fuel, hybrid, electric, fuel cell, etc.), as well as attributes of vehicles and powertrains (external chargeability, energy recuperation, energy consumption, emissions, state of charge, electric range, etc.).

56. The expert from Hungary pointed out that the definitions should target fuels. The Chair of VPSD clarified that fuels are not included at the moment because the current focus of the work is on the WLTP activities, clarifying that the extension of the scope to fuels can certainly be foreseen in a later stage. The expert from India expressed his support for this work, underlined the need for precise definitions and the importance to link them with regulatory texts. The expert from Sweden offered inputs on heavy duty vehicles.

57. Responding to a request by the Chair of the VPSD informal group, the expert from OICA expressed the interest in having informal groups meetings. He also offered to share a database on definitions available with the VPSD group. The expert from NGV Global expressed interest in the VPSD work and underlined the need to maintain e-mail contact besides informal meetings. He expressed the view that existing ISO definitions be considered as guidelines for the VPSD definitions, particularly for gaseous fuel systems. The expert from CLEPA also supported the VPSD work.

58. GRPE agreed to the structure and approach suggested and endorsed the decision to hold VPSD meetings, asking the secretariat to create a VPSD area on the UNECE web site for the upload of relevant documentation. GRPE also agreed to the upload of the database that OICA offered to deliver, on the UNECE website (VPSD area).

The Co-Chair from Japan presented document EVS-02-17e, the report of the second session of the EVS, and indicated that the Terms of Reference of the group were submitted to the 158th session of the WP.29.

The Chair of the WLTP-EV explained that his group is in phase 2 of validation 2 and that they have begun developing the gtr sections pertaining to EVs. The Chair of the WLTP-EV could not respond if a specific EV cycle would be available.

The Chair of the HDH referred the EVE members to the presentation made at EVE-02 and indicated that a gtr drafting group will have their first meeting at their next session in March.

The Chair of the VSPD referred EVE members to the document GRPE-65-12 that will be presented at the upcoming GRPE. He further mentioned that this work was currently in support of the WLTP work and that he planned to complete this by June 2013. The VSPD Chair indicated that timing of future meetings was going to be discussed in the upcoming GRPE.

Petter Asman, Chair of the newly formed EPPR informed the EVE members that the first meeting of the IWG would be held this coming Friday afternoon, and that the mandate of the group was scheduled to end in 2016. He mentioned that the objective of the first session was to seek input and agree to Terms of Reference.

An EVE member joining by conference call asked how the EPPR and EVE IWGs differed and if it would cover nonroad vehicles?

The EPPR Chair responded that the scope of the group covered all types of propulsion systems, including petrol, and that the focus was on onroad vehicles.

The Co-Chair from China asked if the group had a mandate to develop a gtr for motorcycles.

The EPPR Chair suggested having a look at the draft Terms of Reference currently on the GRPE website.

68. Mr. Rijnders indicated that there are some inconsistencies in the VPSD informal group and that the GFV must notify the VPSD of the differences and encourage them to update their document to reflect the definitions used and developed within the GFV. There still is time to submit definitions from GFV and provide them to the VPSD group to create a new consolidated document.

69. There was some concern expressed that the communication to participate in the meeting on VPSD on January 30th in Brussels was somewhat confused. The co-secretariat indicated that participation was upon request of the VPSD secretariat but the VPSD group was mainly for the principals. Mr. Dekker had requested further information to participate VPSD but, in the end, was not notified to participate.

70. The GFV has a wide-ranging discussion to determine who could represent the group and what the process might be to clarify the GFV definitions and position toward them that is represented to the VPSD. One suggestion is that the three participating associations in the GFV – AEGPL, NGV Global and NGVA Europe – form a subgroup to work on the GFV response to VPSD. The three association representatives – Mr. Piccolo, Mr. Seisler and Mr. Del Alamo – each suggest that they would have to receive approval to spend more time on this task.

71. The definitions currently coming out of VPSD tend to be general and broad, however, if these are going to be the ‘norm’ then these will have to be carried back into all the other regulations. This could present a problem due to the number of regulations using the various different definitions, particularly when the definitions are more complex but comprehensive in their coverage that the recommended VPSD definitions.

72. NGV Global has supported the idea that the ISO definitions be used in the VPSD document, however, some discussants in the GFV felt that the ISO definitions remain general and are good as ‘models’ but may not be suitable as legislative language. In the HDDF VI regulatory language, for example, the dual-fuel definition is complex and very specific to the D-F regulations being developed. Thus the more generalized definitions (from VPSD) will be inadequate. The current definition of D-F coming from VPSD really is more like a bi-fuel vehicle than a D-F definition.

73. A possible approach discussed is to have the definitions (speaking specifically of gaseous fuels) in VPSD taken from those existing within the gaseous fuel regulations (as opposed to ISO). While the VPSD definitions could be simpler than the existing, detailed NGV regulatory definitions, they might but designed to encompass the more detailed definitions that must be more appropriate for specific regulations. The examples of D-F and OBD are raised as examples. But the definitions of bi-fuel systems also will be an issue as there continues to be great divergence internationally in defining these terms.

74. Finally there is a general consensus amongst the group that the basic elements of each definition (speaking of bi-fuel and dual-fuel as examples) be incorporated into a broad definition while details of the definitions that must applying to specific regulations can be sub-sets of this general, more encompassing definitions that might be created in the VPSD.

75. Mr. Rijnders would like GFV to be represented, to influence the VPSD in a positive way. But someone has to take responsibility for assessing the VPSD and attempt to suggest improved definitions that represent the GFV position(s). The VPSD has asked for input by 28th March, with a web-conference convened on either the 4th or 5th of April. Clearly, however, the GFV is not ready to make a concrete proposal at this time.

76. Mr. Rijnders will address the VPSD secretariat and Chairman to express the GFV concerns that the initial gaseous fuel definitions need improvement/refinement. Mr. Piccolo will propose a message for use by Chairman Rijnders to the VPSD before 28th March. For GFV a ‘deadline’ is proposed that by the end of April the GFV could create a response to VPSD. But individuals on the GF V are not identified to do the required work.

77. It also would be appropriate for the associations – AEGPL, NGVA Europe and NGV Global – to try and formulate a GFV proposal on definitions. But the associations need to authorize such involvement.