| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document Title | Updated L-category vehicle EPPR roadmap | ||||||||
| Reference Number | EPPR-03-07 | ||||||||
| Date |
6 Jun 2013
|
||||||||
| Source(s) | TRL | ||||||||
| Rulemaking Area(s) | UN R40 Motorcycle Emissions, UN R47 Moped Emissions, and GTR No. 2 WMTC | ||||||||
| Meeting(s) | |||||||||
| Downloads | |||||||||
| UNECE server | .xls format | ||||||||
| Excerpts from session reports related to this document | |||||||||
| EPPR | Session 3 | 7 Jun 2013 |
TRL showed document EPPR-03-07. The chair summarized the positions:
IMMA supported a broad scope for EPPR, but expressed a concern regarding feasibility to discuss L3 and L1 at the same time, considering the number of subjects. IMMA proposed to work sequentially, dealing first with L3 because this is the most important and biggest class of vehicles looking at the worldwide market. IMMA explained that only EU and China have mopeds (L1) and moped share in China is 11%, but a strong decline is observed in China as ICE-mopeds are replaced by electric vehicles. EC said there is an artificial threshold between L3 and L1, and added that there is no difference between them that justifies a different assessment methodology of the environmental and propulsion performance of a 49 cm3 moped compared to a 50 cm3 motorcycle. The chair proposed to combine discussions for L3 and L1 as much as possible and to work sequential on a case by case basis if there is a clear difference, focusing in that case on L3 first. The group accepted the proposal that chair and the secretary will draft a more detailed roadmap. |
||||||||