The European Commission presented earlier document EPPR-03-05e:

• For regulatory structure of the EPPR-output under the 1998 Agreement, the EC proposed:
  
  • Expand scope of GTR2:
    
    1. Include engine displacement < 50 cm3
    
    
    2. Add durability (type V) apart from cold start pollutant emissions (type I), idle (II) and CO2 (VII). The EC noted India’s proposal to create a new GTR for durability, for reason of test fuel. But EC suggested to find a creative solution for the test fuel issue.
    
    
  • New GTR for crankcase and evaporative emissions (types III and IV)
  
  
  • New GTR for test type VIII, to be discussed if functional OBD can be included. In EU, OBD includes functional safety.
  
  
  • New GTR for propulsion performance (max vehicle design speed, max torque and power)
  
  
• For regulatory structure of the EPPR-output under the 1958 Agreement:
  
  • The EC sees 2 options:
    
    1. Replicate structure of R83 & R101 (include all environmental test types in one new UN Regulation and the propulsion performance requirements into another new one); or
    
    
    2. Mimic structure as proposed for 1998 Agreement in new “shadow” Regulations.
       EC is neutral, and is open to any of the two options above.
       
    
    
  • The EC proposed to consider upgrading R40 and R47 with measurement equipment requirements (NOT the test cycles) from GTR No 2.
    The EC suggests to discuss if categories L6 and L7 (light 4-wheel vehicles) can be included in the scope of new UN Regulations (58 Agreement only). As a principle, EC suggests to consider applying provisions for 3-wheel vehicles also to 4- wheelers.
    

India presented their revised proposal, document EPPR-03-02e:

• India prefers to give priority for GTR’s first and subsequent transposition to ECE for categories covered both in SR 1 and RE3.
• India suggested discussing quadricycles first under the ’58 agreement, as these vehicles are not included in the categorization of SR1.
• India proposed:
  
  • To group tailpipe emissions: Cold start pollutant emissions (type I), Idle (II) & CO2 (VII), and make an amendment to GTR2.
  • To group EVAP and crankcase emissions in a new GTR
  • To create a separate, new GTR for OBD
  • To create a separate, new GTR for durability
  • To create a separate, new GTR for performance related tests

• India proposed to give priority to EVAP, OBD and tailpipe emissions.
• India suggested to put 2-wheel (L1, L3 & L4-categories) and 3-wheel vehicles (L2 & L5-categories) under a common GTR, but separated in different annexes of the GTR. India added L3 can be given priority.

TRL presented doc. EPPR-03-06e suggested following priorities:

• First:
  • Test type I: Emissions after cold start
  • Test type IV: Evaporative emissions
  • Test type VIII: OBD
  
  
• Second
  • Test type V: Durability of pollution control devices
  • Test type III: Crankcase emissions
• Third
  • Test type VII: Energy efficiency, i.e. CO2 emissions, fuel/energy consumption, electric range
  • Test type II: Idle emissions
  
  
• Fourth
  • Propulsion performance requirements
  
  
• Fifth
  • Classification of vehicles and definitions

TRL recommended also the chair and secretary to maintain a definitions list and made reference to a revised detailed roadmap ( EPPR-03-07e.xlsx) they had developed and were proposing to the group based on the discussions in the 2nd meeting.

With regards to structure of regulations under the ’98 agreement, TRL said durability (Type V) and OBD (Type VIII) could either be grouped in GTR2, or put into separate new GTRs.

For propulsive performance TRL remained to have the idea that R68 and R85 could be expanded.

Following the proposal by India to have 2- and 3-wheel vehicles as separate annexes in a common GTR, the chairman asked if the group could agree to amend GTR2 in order to include 3-wheel vehicles.

IMMA raised a study reservation, and said they need to check from a technical point of view if current WMTC is suitable for 3-wheelers.

The chairman suggested to follow a similar approach as used in the Heavy Duty Hybrid working group (under GRPE): Describe in the EPPR work plan/roadmap that the intention is to have 2- and 3-wheel vehicles as separate annexes in a common GTR, but if ‘on the road’ any problem is discovered with this approach, we remain having the option to split 2- and 3-wheel vehicles in separate GTR’s.

Following a discussion, the chairman confirmed the positions as basis for the structure:

• Japan and India prefer priority is given on specifications 2-wheelers, especially for L3 category. They can accept to include L1 and to have 2 and 3-wheeler specifications in a same GTR.
• EC can accept to focus on L3, but prefers also to have L1 (lower powered vehicles) included.

The chairman summarized the position of the group for structure under the ’98 agreement:

The proposal by India to discuss quadricycles under ‘58 agreement first was accepted by the group.