46. The expert from EC reminded GRPE of the survey conducted by the European Union as part of the Euro 5 impact study and encouraged all experts to take part in the survey (GRPE-71-14).

95. The representative of EU reported on the work progress of the IWG on Environmental and Propulsion Performance Requirements (EPPR) for L-category vehicles. He introduced a proposal to develop amendments to UN GTR No. 2 (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/127), aimed at inserting environmental and propulsion performance requirements and at extending the scope to three-wheeled vehicles. He added that the proposal also aimed at developing new UN GTRs and Regulations on environmental and propulsion performance requirements for light vehicles, specifying new provisions on (i) crank case and evaporative emissions, (ii) On Board Diagnostic Systems (OBD) and (iii) propulsion unit performances (i.e. power, torque and maximum speed). He concluded his report indicating that the terms of reference and rules of procedures of EPPR had been annexed to the GRPE report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRPE/66. AC.3 endorsed the proposal and requested the secretariat to prepare a corresponding AC.3 document for transmission to GRPE. The Representative of IMMA stated the industry’s support to the IWG EPPR and emphasized the importance of the decision taken in the IWG to give priority to the work on two-wheelers, in particular L3 vehicles. He also emphasized the high ambition of the IWG to deliver the results and final report in 2016.

9. AC.3 endorsed ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/127, a proposal by the EC to develop amendments to UN GTR No. 2, eventually contemplating the possibility to develop new UN GTRs and UN Regulations. The results and the final report on this activity are expected in 2016.

127. The representative of EU reported that the IWG on environmental and propulsion performance requirements (EPPR) for L-category vehicles had met three times before this session. He introduced WP.29-160-18 containing a request for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 (including its scope and purpose, if necessary) and to develop one or more new UN GTRs within the terms of reference of the EPPR group. He stressed the importance of developing UN Regulations and UN GTRs as well as transposing them into domestic law.

128. The representative of IMMA expressed his support for this proposal. AC.3 requested the secretariat to distribute WP.29-160-18 with an official symbol at its next session for further consideration.

TRL showed document EPPR-03-07.

The chair summarized the positions:

• First priority: OBD, EVAP and Type I
• Main priority: L3, also acknowledge to have L1 in the scope

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.

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.

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.
    

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

• Test type I emission laboratory test equipment can be commonly used for 2-, 3- or 4-wheeled vehicles.
• The only differentiation for 2-, 3- or 4-wheeled vehicles that needs to be made, is for the determination of the test bench settings: ‘coast down’ provisions and equivalent inertia mass & running resistances.
• The EC proposes all types of L-category vehicles (2-, 3- or 4-wheels) should follow the same test cycle, the WMTC.

Part of this suggestion is to replace conventional ECE47 test cycle used to type approve L1e (mopeds and light scooters), L2 (three-wheel mopeds) and L6e (light quadricycles) with a new test cycle based on urban, low vehicle speed, part 1 of WMTC test cycle.

The EC explained that R47 is an artificial test cycle: It contains idle, wide open throttle, constant speed phases (20 and 40 km/h) and some accelerations in between, but does not allow sufficient assessment of emission performance in the part-load area. Phase 1 of the WMTC is applied for 50 cm3 motorcycles and should therefore also be applied for 49 cm3 mopeds, allowing a more realistic emission verification of low displacement vehicles operated simulating dynamic conditions occurring in modern urban traffic.

Following the EC’s explanation for Type I, IMMA expressed its concern that the group is losing the agreed emphasis for OBD and EVAP.

The chair disagreed and confirmed that OBD and EVAP remain top priorities as requested by Japan.

The chair added it was his understanding from previous working group meeting that OBD and EVAP would be dealt with as first together with Type I.

Hungary asked for a justification to change the current test cycle for mopeds.

India explained that WMTC was designed for L3 vehicles and that driving data was collected for the creation of it. India considered EC’s synthesis a paper exercise. For expansion to other categories, India suggested collecting data or at least doing a validation.

NL suggested that EC should not only address the problem of mopeds not able to reach the maximum speed of WMTC part 1. NL doubted that mopeds with 1 or 2 horsepower would be able to follow the trace and suggested this needs to be looked at, stating also there would be no time to do this.

D-Heinz Steven explained that the specific dynamic behavior of vehicles cannot be ignored. If WMTC part one would need to be applied to mopeds, the whole cycle would need to be rescaled.

The EC saw no need to collect data, as lots of data was collected for WMTC. The EC stated that the border at at 50 cc is arbitrary and is not technically justified. 50cc motorcycles are already in the scope but are only limited to a certain maximum speed.. The EC said a test cycle is a compromise between regions and the same compromise for mopeds should be made.

54. The Chair of the EPPR group introduced GRPE-66-11, updating the terms of reference and rules of procedure of the informal group considered by GRPE in January 2013, aiming for an approval. Presenting GRPE-66-31, he outlined the main areas of work, provided information on the ongoing discussions taking place in recent meetings, and illustrated a draft road map sketching the work of the group in the forthcoming months. Having underlined that the work address issues both under the 1998 and the 1958 agreement, he mentioned that evaporative emissions, OBD requirements and tailpipe emissions are the first priorities to be considered by the group.

The chair welcomed everyone and thanked The European Commission (EC) for hosting the meeting.

After that he explained the main issue of the meeting today are the documents that we need to submit for GRPE: Terms of Reference + Mandate document, cfr. agenda item 4 and 5.

A revised agenda indicating document numbers was uploaded and shared with participants.

Japan presented document EPPR-03-04e:

• Domestic EVAP and OBD draft regulations for L3 vehicles are to be finalized by end of 2013. As such, Japan suggests to put priority on EVAP and OBD in the EPPR working group.
• Japan suggested having a detailed discussion in the next meeting in India. Japan outlined a draft EVAP test flow, indicating identified points for discussion.
• For OBD, Japan will report at next meeting.

The chairman confirmed EVAP and OBD are highest priority for the group.

The draft Minutes of 2nd meeting, (document EPPR-02-11e) were adopted.

The EC submitted comments to the draft minutes (document EPPR-01-08e).

India asked EC to clarify the issue of reference temperature of dilution air. The EC explained this was just for calculation of emission result.

Regarding Type VI (low ambient emissions), India requested to clearly mention in the minutes that this test type will not be discussed by the group.

Japan asked why EC changed ‘confirmed’ into ‘can agree’. The EC explained they are fine to make developments first under ’98, but they do not want to forget about the ’58 agreement. Initial proposal by EC was to work in parallel (‘98-‘58). But as other stakeholders prefer to put priority on ’98 agreement, EC has accepted that as long as it is clear that ‘58 agreement is also covered.

The secretary revised the minutes according to the comments by the EC (document EPPR-01-07-Rev1) and the minutes were adopted.

The EC submitted comments to the draft minutes (document EPPR-01-08e).

India asked EC to clarify the issue of reference temperature of dilution air. The EC explained this was just for calculation of emission result.

Regarding Type VI (low ambient emissions), India requested to clearly mention in the minutes that this test type will not be discussed by the group.

Japan asked why EC changed ‘confirmed’ into ‘can agree’. The EC explained they are fine to make developments first under ’98, but they do not want to forget about the ’58 agreement. Initial proposal by EC was to work in parallel (‘98-‘58). But as other stakeholders prefer to put priority on ’98 agreement, EC has accepted that as long as it is clear that ‘58 agreement is also covered.

The secretary revised the minutes according to the comments by the EC (document EPPR-01-07-Rev1) and the minutes were adopted.

EPPR Terms of Reference and rules of Procedure and Request for EPPR mandate have been submitted as informal documents for the 66th session of GRPE (documents GRPE-66-11 and GRPE-66-12).

GRPE adopted the Terms of Reference and agreed to the Request for mandate. The ToR document will be annexed to the report from GRPE and the Request for Mandate should be submitted for approval to WP29 (AC1 and AC3) by the sponsor (EU, represented by the European Commission).

54. The Chair of the EPPR group introduced GRPE-66-11, updating the terms of reference and rules of procedure of the informal group considered by GRPE in January 2013, aiming for an approval. Presenting GRPE-66-31, he outlined the main areas of work, provided information on the ongoing discussions taking place in recent meetings, and illustrated a draft road map sketching the work of the group in the forthcoming months. Having underlined that the work address issues both under the 1998 and the 1958 agreement, he mentioned that evaporative emissions, OBD requirements and tailpipe emissions are the first priorities to be considered by the group.

57. GRPE approved the updated EPPR terms of reference, as reproduced in Annex VI of the GRPE meeting report. GRPE also considered GRPE-66-12, supporting its submission for consideration by WP.29 and AC.3 in their next session and endorsing the request for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2, to develop new UN GTRs (if necessary), and to amend and/or develop UN Regulations.

e. Environmental and Propulsion Performance Requirements of L-category vehicles (EPPR)- update was given by Petter Asman (Sweden)

The EPPR IWG initiated work during the January 2013 GRPE session and held a second meeting in Brussels in April 25 – 26, 2013. The focus of work has been on developing a terms of reference and mandate to develop a gtr; updated versions of these documents (GRPE-66-11 and GRPE-66-12) were to be discussed at the 3rd EPPR IWG meeting on June 7th, 2013 in Geneva and presented during the 66th GRPE session. The fourth EPPR session is scheduled for October 8 – 9, 2013 in India.

EPPR Terms of Reference and rules of Procedure and Request for EPPR mandate have been submitted as informal documents for the 66th session of GRPE (documents GRPE-66-11 and GRPE-66-12).

GRPE adopted the Terms of Reference and agreed to the Request for mandate. The ToR document will be annexed to the report from GRPE and the Request for Mandate should be submitted for approval to WP29 (AC1 and AC3) by the sponsor (EU, represented by the European Commission).

55. The EPPR Chair introduced GRPE-66-12, containing the request for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 and to develop new UN GTRs and UN Regulations in the area of Environmental and Propulsion Performance Requirements (EPPR) for light vehicles. He explained that this follows the ongoing revision of environmental and propulsion performance requirements for the type approval of L-category vehicles in the European Commission and aims to increase global harmonization on the subject.

56. Answering to the question raised by IMMA on the need for mandate to develop new UN GTRs, the EPPR Chair suggested following the same route undertaken for the UN GTR development, as in the case of OBD. Responding to a request for clarifications by the expert from Italy on the intentions of the EPPR group on vehicle classifications and the extension to mopeds of the WMTC, the EPPR Chair confirmed that there is an intention to redefine classifications and the scope of UN GTR No. 2, adding that detailed decisions on these subject require further discussions with interested stakeholders.

57. GRPE approved the updated EPPR terms of reference, as reproduced in Annex VI of the GRPE meeting report. GRPE also considered GRPE-66-12, supporting its submission for consideration by WP.29 and AC.3 in their next session and endorsing the request for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2, to develop new UN GTRs (if necessary), and to amend and/or develop UN Regulations.

e. Environmental and Propulsion Performance Requirements of L-category vehicles (EPPR)- update was given by Petter Asman (Sweden)

The EPPR IWG initiated work during the January 2013 GRPE session and held a second meeting in Brussels in April 25 – 26, 2013. The focus of work has been on developing a terms of reference and mandate to develop a gtr; updated versions of these documents (GRPE-66-11 and GRPE-66-12) were to be discussed at the 3rd EPPR IWG meeting on June 7th, 2013 in Geneva and presented during the 66th GRPE session. The fourth EPPR session is scheduled for October 8 – 9, 2013 in India.

EPPR Terms of Reference and rules of Procedure and Request for EPPR mandate have been submitted as informal documents for the 66th session of GRPE (documents GRPE-66-11 and GRPE-66-12).

GRPE adopted the Terms of Reference and agreed to the Request for mandate. The ToR document will be annexed to the report from GRPE and the Request for Mandate should be submitted for approval to WP29 (AC1 and AC3) by the sponsor (EU, represented by the European Commission).

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.

Mr. Albus introduced his new colleague at the German ministry responsible for L-category vehicles: Mr. Walter Bleuler.

Mr. Albus said he would not be able to follow the meeting (remotely) the whole, and raised two points:

1. Regarding introduction of new requirements based on EU-requirement, Mr. Albus commented it is very important that we don’t introduce L-cat. issues in existing regulations for passenger cars. He gave the example of R68, R85 and R101 and suggested to maintain the scope of these regulations limited to M- (and N-) category.
2. Scope of UN regulations and gtr’s:
   
   • Under ’58 agreement, there can be an overlap of the scope.
   • But under ’98, overlap of category of vehicles is not allowed.

To the 1st point of Mr. Albus the chair replied it was his understanding that the group agreed at the 1st EPPR meeting not to mix requirements of L- and M- category vehicles. But that the group will of course look at existing specifications for cars.

TRL explained that in their interim report they indeed suggested to introducing L-cat in R68 and 85, by adding separate annex/annexes for L-cat.

Detailed discussion on this topic was then closed at that time, and it was agreed to continue the discussion under the respective agenda items (7, 8 and 9).

Document EPPR-02-04 and EPPR-02-09 were presented by Japan.

Document EPPR-02-04 provides an update of the Future Emission Reduction Measures for Motorcycles.

Document EPPR-02-09 explains how 2-, 3- and 4-wheel vehicles are categorized and tested for pollutant emissions in Japan.

Although the emission regulation of the 2006 Standard is applied, the amount of HC and CO emissions per distance travelled is still much higher than those of four‐wheeled vehicles.

Although the tailpipe emission standard has been implemented for the first time in 1998 and then reinforced in 2006, the relative contribution of evaporative gas within the emission has been higher.

It is important to control the amount of emission through monitoring the in‐use malfunction of emission reduction systems.

Considering the new EURO 4 becoming effective from 2016 and allowing adequate time for due technological development by motorcycle manufacturers, it is considered appropriate that application of new regulation in Japan occurs by the end of 2016. Japan explained that new regulation will apply by the end of 2016 for new type approvals by end of 2016, but the mandatory date for all new vehicles (‘current production’/registration) was not decided yet.

The motorcycle evaporative emission regulation is modeled after the CA Evaporative Emission Test, with the permissible limit of 2.0 g/test.

With regards to the reference to the regulation in California for evaporative emissions, TLR asked whether Japan meant the current or future regulation. Japan confirmed they meant current regulation.

For Japan the OBD equipment that monitors malfunctions caused by a short‐circuit or open electric circuits is now mandated. The implementation will occur by the end of 2016.

Regarding the OBD II that monitors malfunctions caused by deterioration of systems, components or units, it is difficult to determine the validity at this point and will be considered once the technical prospect is confirmed in the future.

It was explained that Japan would like EPPR to give priority to L3, evaporative emissions and OBD.

To a question by India and TRL, Japan explained that L7-vehicles would need to be tested in their country according to cycle for cars (JC07/WLTP).

Document EPPR-02-08 was presented by the EC.

The following concerns in current EU legislation for L-category vehicles should be addressed:

• the complexity of the current legal framework;
• the level of emissions and its increasing share in total road transport emissions, which are decreasing overall;
• safety aspects related to type-approval requirements for vehicles;
• the lack of a legal framework for vehicles fitted with new technologies;
• the entry of products into the EU market which do not comply with the current type-approval requirements regarding functional safety and environmental protection.

Codecision Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles (L-category vehicles) contains essential elements such as the emission limits, obligation to fit advanced brake systems, reference to applicable test procedures, application time table, structure delegated acts etc.

The whole package of 5 Regulations is proposed to become first applicable as of 01 January 2016.

Proposed environmental steps for the EU-legislation:

• Euro 3: (L1e, L2e and L6e (mopeds): mid of 2014;
  
• Euro 4: (L3e, L4e, L5e, L7e): 2016;
  
• Euro 4: (L1e, L2e and L6e): 2017;
  
• Euro 5: 2020;
  
• Durability and evaporative emission requirements.

Environmental effect study to be conducted in 2015 – 2016 timeframe before taking final decision to mandate Euro 5 step.

Use of the World-harmonised Motorcycle Test Cycle (WMTC) as single emission laboratory test for all L-category vehicle categories proposed as of 2020.

Japan stated that the ultimate goal is to have harmonized limit values and asked EC if the environmental study for 2016 will take EPPR work into account. EC confirmed that all relevant information will be used for the study.

Italy underlined that WMTC basically only is representative for L3 category vehicles, and that WMTC was developed on a scientific basis. It was suggested to apply the same approach for mopeds as these vehicles are not used in the same way.

TRL introduced the draft roadmap prepared as part of their contract for EC. See document EPPR-02-06.

The chair commented that the draft was a good starting point for discussion but should be seen as input from one of the members of the group so far and not an agreed document of the EPPR group. The chair further said that the roadmap should be simplified and focus on the activities of the EPPR group and leave side activities out.

Mr. Albus stressed that it needs to be clarified which categories and which end products will be worked on, and also the group’s plan for structure of the regulations (cfr. agenda item no. 9) needs to be clear.

Regarding the line ‘categories+definition’ Mr. Albus also commented that classification should not be confused with VPSD, as both things are independent. Mr. Albus further suggested to check the view of other stakeholders like India and Japan, in case the plan would be to amend the categorization in SR1 and RE3.

Japan explained that except for EVAP and OBD they did not prepare a detailed position about priorities. Japan also informed that EPPR outcome may come too late for implementing in their domestic regulation as they are aiming to soon finalise the regulation for 2016. However if the deadline for 2016 regulation would be missed, harmonization could be explored than for 2020.

The EC thanked India for their proposal and said EC could support the proposal of Japan to give priority to EVAP and OBD.

It was suggested that the chair and secretary together with those of the group that wanted to participate to draft a simplified roadmap that could be discussed by the group at the next meeting in June. IMMA, EC and TRL volunteered to participate in such an activity.

Japan clarified that the draft should reflect the discussions regarding priorities that have been discussed in this meeting and the meeting in January.

The chair also explained his view that the roadmap in the mandate document should be sufficient for that purpose. The intention is then to have a report in power point format as an informal document based on this more detailed roadmap for the GRPE meetings in order for GRPE and those delegates not directly taking part in our activities to follow the work of the group.

Document EPPR-02-05, slides 6 – 11 were presented by Ecorys.

Japan understood the questionnaire highlights the cost-impact, and explained that cost is not the only reason for worldwide harmonization. E.g. from authority viewpoint, Japan looks first at environmental impact, and 2nd at consistency e.g. with domestic regulations. Japan added that if there are no details available about the test it is not possible to analyse the cost. As an example, Japan explained that there is no test for crankcase emissions in the domestic regulation. And if a test would be introduced, the cost could be hugely different.

India expressed its support for the remarks of Japan, and explained they did not supply cost estimates. India expected the questionnaire to focus more on technical side instead of the cost.

The EC suggested to at least giving cost estimation a try.

Document EPPR-02-05 was presented by TRL.

With regards to slide no. 19, the EC clarified that the presented document does not reflect latest developments.
Meanwhile test time and pressure had been changed to 300s, and 5 kPa.

Japan pointed out that all their regulations are translated in English. Japan requested to update the report according to the information given under agenda item 6.b. Japan also suggested adding a description to the test type numbers as not everyone is familiar with the numbering only.

Japan asked for clarification about the plan for Type I. TRL explained they see some issues in the current test procedure and they are now in the process of identifying/listing the issues.

Japan repeated its suggestion to focus on L3 gasoline vehicles first. TRL disagreed as new technologies could be restricted this way. Japan pointed out that we are focusing on 2016 and there won’t be much new technologies by that time. The EC pointed out that updates needed to include certain other technologies should be really simple.

The EC added they would like to discuss L1 and not only L3. Japan an India agreed to that. Italy could agree to include L1 provided that the inherent characteristics compared to motorcycles would be taken into account.

The chair commented that the group should look at what might come to the market in the future, and make the regulation as ‘future proof’ as possible. The chair recommended starting with a holistic view. IMMA suggested looking at the majority of the vehicles, which are currently L3 – petrol. IMMA repeated that we have to be realistic, and not put too much in our work plan otherwise we risk not to make the deadline of 2016.

Italy informed that a group within ISO is also discussing a procedure for evaporative emissions testing.

India questioned why TRL mentioned running loss testing, and suggested it is not appropriate to discuss this now. TRL explained that this is currently considered in California.

China explained their domestic regulatory situation, having now ‘Chinese #3’ including type I-V and a regulation for net power, maximum speed. And they are updating the regulations now to ‘Chinese #4’ and ‘#5’. For ‘Chinese #4’ WMTC may be used for L3 and L4. The chair asked if the presentation could be given in writing as well in one of the coming meetings as input from the major contracting parties is important for the work of the EPPR group.

Document EPPR-02-04 and EPPR-02-09 were presented by Japan.

Document EPPR-02-04 provides an update of the Future Emission Reduction Measures for Motorcycles.

Document EPPR-02-09 explains how 2-, 3- and 4-wheel vehicles are categorized and tested for pollutant emissions in Japan.

Although the emission regulation of the 2006 Standard is applied, the amount of HC and CO emissions per distance travelled is still much higher than those of four‐wheeled vehicles.

Although the tailpipe emission standard has been implemented for the first time in 1998 and then reinforced in 2006, the relative contribution of evaporative gas within the emission has been higher.

It is important to control the amount of emission through monitoring the in‐use malfunction of emission reduction systems.

Considering the new EURO 4 becoming effective from 2016 and allowing adequate time for due technological development by motorcycle manufacturers, it is considered appropriate that application of new regulation in Japan occurs by the end of 2016. Japan explained that new regulation will apply by the end of 2016 for new type approvals by end of 2016, but the mandatory date for all new vehicles (‘current production’/registration) was not decided yet.

The motorcycle evaporative emission regulation is modeled after the CA Evaporative Emission Test, with the permissible limit of 2.0 g/test.

With regards to the reference to the regulation in California for evaporative emissions, TLR asked whether Japan meant the current or future regulation. Japan confirmed they meant current regulation.

For Japan the OBD equipment that monitors malfunctions caused by a short‐circuit or open electric circuits is now mandated. The implementation will occur by the end of 2016.

Regarding the OBD II that monitors malfunctions caused by deterioration of systems, components or units, it is difficult to determine the validity at this point and will be considered once the technical prospect is confirmed in the future.

It was explained that Japan would like EPPR to give priority to L3, evaporative emissions and OBD.

To a question by India and TRL, Japan explained that L7-vehicles would need to be tested in their country according to cycle for cars (JC07/WLTP).

Document EPPR-02-05 was presented by TRL.

With regards to slide no. 19, the EC clarified that the presented document does not reflect latest developments.
Meanwhile test time and pressure had been changed to 300s, and 5 kPa.

Japan pointed out that all their regulations are translated in English. Japan requested to update the report according to the information given under agenda item 6.b. Japan also suggested adding a description to the test type numbers as not everyone is familiar with the numbering only.

Japan asked for clarification about the plan for Type I. TRL explained they see some issues in the current test procedure and they are now in the process of identifying/listing the issues.

Japan repeated its suggestion to focus on L3 gasoline vehicles first. TRL disagreed as new technologies could be restricted this way. Japan pointed out that we are focusing on 2016 and there won’t be much new technologies by that time. The EC pointed out that updates needed to include certain other technologies should be really simple.

The EC added they would like to discuss L1 and not only L3. Japan an India agreed to that. Italy could agree to include L1 provided that the inherent characteristics compared to motorcycles would be taken into account.

The chair commented that the group should look at what might come to the market in the future, and make the regulation as ‘future proof’ as possible. The chair recommended starting with a holistic view. IMMA suggested looking at the majority of the vehicles, which are currently L3 – petrol. IMMA repeated that we have to be realistic, and not put too much in our work plan otherwise we risk not to make the deadline of 2016.

Italy informed that a group within ISO is also discussing a procedure for evaporative emissions testing.

India questioned why TRL mentioned running loss testing, and suggested it is not appropriate to discuss this now. TRL explained that this is currently considered in California.

China explained their domestic regulatory situation, having now ‘Chinese #3’ including type I-V and a regulation for net power, maximum speed. And they are updating the regulations now to ‘Chinese #4’ and ‘#5’. For ‘Chinese #4’ WMTC may be used for L3 and L4. The chair asked if the presentation could be given in writing as well in one of the coming meetings as input from the major contracting parties is important for the work of the EPPR group.

Document EPPR-02-05, slides 6 – 11 were presented by Ecorys.

Japan understood the questionnaire highlights the cost-impact, and explained that cost is not the only reason for worldwide harmonization. E.g. from authority viewpoint, Japan looks first at environmental impact, and 2nd at consistency e.g. with domestic regulations. Japan added that if there are no details available about the test it is not possible to analyse the cost. As an example, Japan explained that there is no test for crankcase emissions in the domestic regulation. And if a test would be introduced, the cost could be hugely different.

India expressed its support for the remarks of Japan, and explained they did not supply cost estimates. India expected the questionnaire to focus more on technical side instead of the cost.

The EC suggested to at least giving cost estimation a try.

The EC submitted comments to the draft minutes (document EPPR-01-08e).

India asked EC to clarify the issue of reference temperature of dilution air. The EC explained this was just for calculation of emission result.

Regarding Type VI (low ambient emissions), India requested to clearly mention in the minutes that this test type will not be discussed by the group.

Japan asked why EC changed ‘confirmed’ into ‘can agree’. The EC explained they are fine to make developments first under ’98, but they do not want to forget about the ’58 agreement. Initial proposal by EC was to work in parallel (‘98-‘58). But as other stakeholders prefer to put priority on ’98 agreement, EC has accepted that as long as it is clear that ‘58 agreement is also covered.

The secretary revised the minutes according to the comments by the EC (document EPPR-01-07-Rev1) and the minutes were adopted.

- EC explained their view for the different topics:

• o First look at categories and consider whether to work under the 98 or 58 agreements
• o Type I: Suggestion to look into GTR2, upgrade where needed, e.g. require PM measurement as this is not yet in the GTR. And regarding dilution air, the current GTR is not much developed.
• o Durability: There is the AMA, and EC developed its own cycle, ‘the SRC’
• o EVAP: EC sees common grounds which are going in the direction of the Californian ‘Shed test’, or alternatively more cost effective method ‘permeation’ testing for lower end vehicles – still reflecting on it.
• o Regarding propulsion requirements there is a lack of harmonized requirements at UNECE for power testing.

- Japan requested that the priority for this group had to be OBD and EVAP, as Japan has pressure to develop these regulatory issues on national level. Japan also informed that they do not have requirements for crankcase emissions, and suggested priorities were set.

- The chairman welcomed everyone, and introduced himself and the secretary, providing their contact details, EPPR-01-02 (slide no.1-3)
- The agenda was adopted with the suggested change of order as proposed by the chairman.

- Presentation made by Andrew Nathanson, ECORYS/TRL and informed of the questionnaire that had been set-up. To get the link for the questionnaire, contact: int-l-cat-leg@trl.co.uk.
- The chairman welcomed this work and assumed this would become important for the group.
- India asked what the EC meant by ‘global harmonization of testing equipment’ and what was the purpose of this, and added regional test equipment should not be restricted by this.
- EC explained that they want to harmonize equipment for Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles. As example EC mentioned the reference temperature, even if this may not be a big issue because you can re-calculate it, it may lead to confusion and errors.
- Korea and India noted that the information shown by TRL at slide no. 15 contained a mistake and would give the correct information on legislative bodies involved in regulations in their countries.
- The chairman invited all CPs and stakeholders of the group to respond to the questionnaire as this will bring important input to the work of the EPPR group.

Presentation by Japan-MoE
- Japan stated that their expectations had been to amend limit values, prepare for regulations (evap emissions and OBD) to be developed by the IG.
- EC saw several elements that were open for harmonization;
- EC informed that in EU they are putting OBD out of the environmental scope by including safety. As such, EC saw a central role for OBD more fast and efficient vehicle repair, by setting a flag for both environmental and safety problems.

45. GRPE agreed to appoint Petter Asman (Sweden) as Chair of the EPPR group, while secretariat services will be assured by Thomas Vercammen (IMMA). The Chair of the EPPR informal working group introduced GRPE-65-15 (containing background information, terms of reference and rules of procedure of the informal group), clarifying that it should be considered as a discussion draft. He stated that this document is going to be discussed in EPPR meetings before being resubmitted to GRPE, in June 2013, in a revised form, for final approval. He invited all interested stakeholders to participate in the first group meeting, scheduled after the GRPE session, to discuss it. He agreed with the suggestion by the GRPE Chair that the EPPR group should take a two-step approach, focused first on the review of a suitable roadmap, and later on its execution.

46. The expert from India conveyed his support for this activity, but expressed concerns about the timeline currently outlined, questioning whether it is realistic to assure the delivery of results. He suggested prioritizing the tasks, giving preference to L3 category vehicles because of their global relevance. The expert from IMMA supported an approach focused first on the development of a roadmap, and then focusing on the development of UN GTR. He also confirmed the concerns raised by India on the current timeline. The expert from Japan stressed the need to avoid any overlap with the activity of the informal working group on Electric Vehicles and the Environment (EVE). The Chair of the EVE group offered his contribution and help to assure that this will not be the case.

47. GRPE agreed with the approach suggested and endorsed the decision to further discuss updated terms of reference and rules of procedure in its next session. GRPE also invited the EPPR informal group to submit a proposal for a roadmap, indicating which portions of the work fall under the scope of the 1958 Agreement (ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.2) and which fall under the 1998 Agreement (ECE/TRANS/132 and Corr.1) and outlining the expected timeframe for amendment of existing UN Regulations and UN GTRs and/or new regulatory texts.

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.

- Chairman said it was not his intention to have final agreement on this today but to exchange views in order to have a document to be submitted in June (GRPE).
- IMMA suggested the potential need for sub-groups to be mentioned in the ToR, and added that the timing foreseen (2016) seems challenging.
- The chairman replied that the timeline needs to be discussed within the group. Regarding the need for subgroups
the chairman argued for a simple structure where ad-hoc groups could be formed based on the need
during the work (see agenda item #7).
- India commented that the timeline is connected to the scope. If the entire L-category would be in the scope, finishing the work in 2016 will be difficult.
- As outlined in their position document (EPPR-01-06e) Japan supports the amendments (Inf.doc.GRPE-64-26) that UK submitted at last GRPE and would like to amend 2© as follows;

• o “c) work both on Regulation under the 1958 and in particular 1998 Agreements, bearing in mind…”

- UK said they put trust on the chairman to put that trough.
- It was generally agreed that the ToR text is acceptable however the document will be discussed and decided at the next meeting of the IWG in April before submitted to GRPE.

The chair explained he understood that there was an agreement at previous meeting, as there were not many comments in January. Formatting of the document would still be necessary because current draft e.g. does not have a title yet.

Italy noted a discrepancy between EPPR-01-02 and the proposed roadmap by TRL (EPPR-02-06): EPPR-01-02 says Final submission is within 2016, whereas in roadmap goes until 2017.

The chairman replied that we have an endorsement of WP29 and if that needs to be changed we need to ask GRPE.

IMMA suggested that the group should decide on the end date as this would determine the work load; 2016 as proposed versus 2017 a more realistic target.

India raised concern about the timeline and suggested L3 should be reviewed first by 2016 and then moving to other categories after.

The chairman repeated that if 2016 is considered as not realistic, we should inform GRPE, or alternatively we could keep 2016, and limit the scope, and after that consider an extension for expansion of the work.

Japan noted they made a comment during previous meeting (Add in Item 2.C), which was agreed according to their understanding. The chair reconfirmed, and there were no objections from the group.
The chair concluded to put square brackets around the dates, and suggested to revise that part, after discussing the mandate document and roadmap.

- The chairman welcomed everyone, and introduced himself and the secretary, providing their contact details, EPPR-01-02 (slide no.1-3)
- The agenda was adopted with the suggested change of order as proposed by the chairman.

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.

50. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal for corrigendum to UN GTR No. 2 (GRPE-64-05), to correct some equations in accordance with the units used, as well as a figure on the gear use during acceleration phases.

51. The experts from India and IMMA requested more time to analyze this document in detail.

52. Taking the new criteria for corrigenda into account, GRPE considered the proposal from Japan as an amendment rather than a corrigendum and requested the expert from Japan to ask for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 from WP.29 and AC.3. GRPE also asked Japan to discuss with India and IMMA the concerns expressed and to submit an updated version of GRPE-64-05, so that the secretariat can distribute it as an official document for consideration at the next GRPE session, in January 2013, subject to the consent of WP.29 and AC.3 on a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2.

53. The expert from the EC introduced documents GRPE-64-02 and GRPE-64-09. He explained the European process of revising type approval procedures for L-category vehicles, introduced a proposal containing the terms of reference for the establishment of an Informal Working Group on International L-category vehicle approval in the area of Environmental Performance and Propulsion Requirements (IEPPR), confirmed the invitation to GRPE participants to attend a stakeholder consultation workshop on the topic, and briefly outlined its content. He announced that the documents GRPE-64-10, GRPE-64-12 and GRPE-64-22 were to be introduced during the stakeholder consultation workshop.

54. The expert from Switzerland asked whether there would also be other working groups in other Working Parties subsidiary to WP.29. The expert from the EC clarified that the main focus is on environmental issues and that this is not foreseen at the moment, also stating that he would be open to such a development, if needed.

55. The expert from the EC introduced GRPE-64-11, containing draft Terms-of-Reference (ToR) for the IEPRR informal working group. The expert from the UK introduced GRPE-64-26, elaborating on the draft ToR of GRPE-64-11 with the aim to align them with the overall objectives of regulatory harmonization, technology neutrality and real-world representativeness in order to clarify the aims of the group. He explained that GRPE-64-26 also contains the addition of procedural issues such as project plans, document submission deadlines, meeting arrangements. He noted that the candidates as of Chair and Secretary should also be specified once they have been identified.

56. The expert from Japan supported the initiatives of the EC and the UK and expressed interest in the activity. The expert from IMMA thanked the EC and the UK for presenting the draft ToR and for considering items that help its effectiveness. He underlined the notion that the informal group should at least maintain, and ideally increase, current levels of harmonisation, he supported the idea of real world representativeness of the tests considered in this activity, and announced that IMMA is willing to discuss engagement in the informal group after a clarification of its scope and its ToR.

57. GRPE expressed the intention to agree, in principle, to ask for a mandate for the setup of an informal working group as soon as some remaining issues, such as the identification of an informal group Chair and Secretary, will be addressed. The GRPE Chair asked Japan, the UK, the EC, IMMA and other interested Parties to work on this, so that a formal request for a WP.29 mandate can be finalized at the next GRPE session, in January 2013. He also suggested that the work should be set up in a two-step approach, first focusing on the development of a roadmap and then concentrating on the development of the draft Regulation(s).

50. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal for corrigendum to UN GTR No. 2 (GRPE-64-05), to correct some equations in accordance with the units used, as well as a figure on the gear use during acceleration phases.

51. The experts from India and IMMA requested more time to analyze this document in detail.

52. Taking the new criteria for corrigenda into account, GRPE considered the proposal from Japan as an amendment rather than a corrigendum and requested the expert from Japan to ask for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 from WP.29 and AC.3. GRPE also asked Japan to discuss with India and IMMA the concerns expressed and to submit an updated version of GRPE-64-05, so that the secretariat can distribute it as an official document for consideration at the next GRPE session, in January 2013, subject to the consent of WP.29 and AC.3 on a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2.

53. The expert from the EC introduced documents GRPE-64-02 and GRPE-64-09. He explained the European process of revising type approval procedures for L-category vehicles, introduced a proposal containing the terms of reference for the establishment of an Informal Working Group on International L-category vehicle approval in the area of Environmental Performance and Propulsion Requirements (IEPPR), confirmed the invitation to GRPE participants to attend a stakeholder consultation workshop on the topic, and briefly outlined its content. He announced that the documents GRPE-64-10, GRPE-64-12 and GRPE-64-22 were to be introduced during the stakeholder consultation workshop.

54. The expert from Switzerland asked whether there would also be other working groups in other Working Parties subsidiary to WP.29. The expert from the EC clarified that the main focus is on environmental issues and that this is not foreseen at the moment, also stating that he would be open to such a development, if needed.

55. The expert from the EC introduced GRPE-64-11, containing draft Terms-of-Reference (ToR) for the IEPRR informal working group. The expert from the UK introduced GRPE-64-26, elaborating on the draft ToR of GRPE-64-11 with the aim to align them with the overall objectives of regulatory harmonization, technology neutrality and real-world representativeness in order to clarify the aims of the group. He explained that GRPE-64-26 also contains the addition of procedural issues such as project plans, document submission deadlines, meeting arrangements. He noted that the candidates as of Chair and Secretary should also be specified once they have been identified.

56. The expert from Japan supported the initiatives of the EC and the UK and expressed interest in the activity. The expert from IMMA thanked the EC and the UK for presenting the draft ToR and for considering items that help its effectiveness. He underlined the notion that the informal group should at least maintain, and ideally increase, current levels of harmonisation, he supported the idea of real world representativeness of the tests considered in this activity, and announced that IMMA is willing to discuss engagement in the informal group after a clarification of its scope and its ToR.

57. GRPE expressed the intention to agree, in principle, to ask for a mandate for the setup of an informal working group as soon as some remaining issues, such as the identification of an informal group Chair and Secretary, will be addressed. The GRPE Chair asked Japan, the UK, the EC, IMMA and other interested Parties to work on this, so that a formal request for a WP.29 mandate can be finalized at the next GRPE session, in January 2013. He also suggested that the work should be set up in a two-step approach, first focusing on the development of a roadmap and then concentrating on the development of the draft Regulation(s).

50. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal for corrigendum to UN GTR No. 2 (GRPE-64-05), to correct some equations in accordance with the units used, as well as a figure on the gear use during acceleration phases.

51. The experts from India and IMMA requested more time to analyze this document in detail.

52. Taking the new criteria for corrigenda into account, GRPE considered the proposal from Japan as an amendment rather than a corrigendum and requested the expert from Japan to ask for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 from WP.29 and AC.3. GRPE also asked Japan to discuss with India and IMMA the concerns expressed and to submit an updated version of GRPE-64-05, so that the secretariat can distribute it as an official document for consideration at the next GRPE session, in January 2013, subject to the consent of WP.29 and AC.3 on a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2.

53. The expert from the EC introduced documents GRPE-64-02 and GRPE-64-09. He explained the European process of revising type approval procedures for L-category vehicles, introduced a proposal containing the terms of reference for the establishment of an Informal Working Group on International L-category vehicle approval in the area of Environmental Performance and Propulsion Requirements (IEPPR), confirmed the invitation to GRPE participants to attend a stakeholder consultation workshop on the topic, and briefly outlined its content. He announced that the documents GRPE-64-10, GRPE-64-12 and GRPE-64-22 were to be introduced during the stakeholder consultation workshop.

54. The expert from Switzerland asked whether there would also be other working groups in other Working Parties subsidiary to WP.29. The expert from the EC clarified that the main focus is on environmental issues and that this is not foreseen at the moment, also stating that he would be open to such a development, if needed.

55. The expert from the EC introduced GRPE-64-11, containing draft Terms-of-Reference (ToR) for the IEPRR informal working group. The expert from the UK introduced GRPE-64-26, elaborating on the draft ToR of GRPE-64-11 with the aim to align them with the overall objectives of regulatory harmonization, technology neutrality and real-world representativeness in order to clarify the aims of the group. He explained that GRPE-64-26 also contains the addition of procedural issues such as project plans, document submission deadlines, meeting arrangements. He noted that the candidates as of Chair and Secretary should also be specified once they have been identified.

56. The expert from Japan supported the initiatives of the EC and the UK and expressed interest in the activity. The expert from IMMA thanked the EC and the UK for presenting the draft ToR and for considering items that help its effectiveness. He underlined the notion that the informal group should at least maintain, and ideally increase, current levels of harmonisation, he supported the idea of real world representativeness of the tests considered in this activity, and announced that IMMA is willing to discuss engagement in the informal group after a clarification of its scope and its ToR.

57. GRPE expressed the intention to agree, in principle, to ask for a mandate for the setup of an informal working group as soon as some remaining issues, such as the identification of an informal group Chair and Secretary, will be addressed. The GRPE Chair asked Japan, the UK, the EC, IMMA and other interested Parties to work on this, so that a formal request for a WP.29 mandate can be finalized at the next GRPE session, in January 2013. He also suggested that the work should be set up in a two-step approach, first focusing on the development of a roadmap and then concentrating on the development of the draft Regulation(s).

50. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal for corrigendum to UN GTR No. 2 (GRPE-64-05), to correct some equations in accordance with the units used, as well as a figure on the gear use during acceleration phases.

51. The experts from India and IMMA requested more time to analyze this document in detail.

52. Taking the new criteria for corrigenda into account, GRPE considered the proposal from Japan as an amendment rather than a corrigendum and requested the expert from Japan to ask for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 from WP.29 and AC.3. GRPE also asked Japan to discuss with India and IMMA the concerns expressed and to submit an updated version of GRPE-64-05, so that the secretariat can distribute it as an official document for consideration at the next GRPE session, in January 2013, subject to the consent of WP.29 and AC.3 on a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2.

53. The expert from the EC introduced documents GRPE-64-02 and GRPE-64-09. He explained the European process of revising type approval procedures for L-category vehicles, introduced a proposal containing the terms of reference for the establishment of an Informal Working Group on International L-category vehicle approval in the area of Environmental Performance and Propulsion Requirements (IEPPR), confirmed the invitation to GRPE participants to attend a stakeholder consultation workshop on the topic, and briefly outlined its content. He announced that the documents GRPE-64-10, GRPE-64-12 and GRPE-64-22 were to be introduced during the stakeholder consultation workshop.

54. The expert from Switzerland asked whether there would also be other working groups in other Working Parties subsidiary to WP.29. The expert from the EC clarified that the main focus is on environmental issues and that this is not foreseen at the moment, also stating that he would be open to such a development, if needed.

55. The expert from the EC introduced GRPE-64-11, containing draft Terms-of-Reference (ToR) for the IEPRR informal working group. The expert from the UK introduced GRPE-64-26, elaborating on the draft ToR of GRPE-64-11 with the aim to align them with the overall objectives of regulatory harmonization, technology neutrality and real-world representativeness in order to clarify the aims of the group. He explained that GRPE-64-26 also contains the addition of procedural issues such as project plans, document submission deadlines, meeting arrangements. He noted that the candidates as of Chair and Secretary should also be specified once they have been identified.

56. The expert from Japan supported the initiatives of the EC and the UK and expressed interest in the activity. The expert from IMMA thanked the EC and the UK for presenting the draft ToR and for considering items that help its effectiveness. He underlined the notion that the informal group should at least maintain, and ideally increase, current levels of harmonisation, he supported the idea of real world representativeness of the tests considered in this activity, and announced that IMMA is willing to discuss engagement in the informal group after a clarification of its scope and its ToR.

57. GRPE expressed the intention to agree, in principle, to ask for a mandate for the setup of an informal working group as soon as some remaining issues, such as the identification of an informal group Chair and Secretary, will be addressed. The GRPE Chair asked Japan, the UK, the EC, IMMA and other interested Parties to work on this, so that a formal request for a WP.29 mandate can be finalized at the next GRPE session, in January 2013. He also suggested that the work should be set up in a two-step approach, first focusing on the development of a roadmap and then concentrating on the development of the draft Regulation(s).

50. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal for corrigendum to UN GTR No. 2 (GRPE-64-05), to correct some equations in accordance with the units used, as well as a figure on the gear use during acceleration phases.

51. The experts from India and IMMA requested more time to analyze this document in detail.

52. Taking the new criteria for corrigenda into account, GRPE considered the proposal from Japan as an amendment rather than a corrigendum and requested the expert from Japan to ask for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 from WP.29 and AC.3. GRPE also asked Japan to discuss with India and IMMA the concerns expressed and to submit an updated version of GRPE-64-05, so that the secretariat can distribute it as an official document for consideration at the next GRPE session, in January 2013, subject to the consent of WP.29 and AC.3 on a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2.

53. The expert from the EC introduced documents GRPE-64-02 and GRPE-64-09. He explained the European process of revising type approval procedures for L-category vehicles, introduced a proposal containing the terms of reference for the establishment of an Informal Working Group on International L-category vehicle approval in the area of Environmental Performance and Propulsion Requirements (IEPPR), confirmed the invitation to GRPE participants to attend a stakeholder consultation workshop on the topic, and briefly outlined its content. He announced that the documents GRPE-64-10, GRPE-64-12 and GRPE-64-22 were to be introduced during the stakeholder consultation workshop.

54. The expert from Switzerland asked whether there would also be other working groups in other Working Parties subsidiary to WP.29. The expert from the EC clarified that the main focus is on environmental issues and that this is not foreseen at the moment, also stating that he would be open to such a development, if needed.

55. The expert from the EC introduced GRPE-64-11, containing draft Terms-of-Reference (ToR) for the IEPRR informal working group. The expert from the UK introduced GRPE-64-26, elaborating on the draft ToR of GRPE-64-11 with the aim to align them with the overall objectives of regulatory harmonization, technology neutrality and real-world representativeness in order to clarify the aims of the group. He explained that GRPE-64-26 also contains the addition of procedural issues such as project plans, document submission deadlines, meeting arrangements. He noted that the candidates as of Chair and Secretary should also be specified once they have been identified.

56. The expert from Japan supported the initiatives of the EC and the UK and expressed interest in the activity. The expert from IMMA thanked the EC and the UK for presenting the draft ToR and for considering items that help its effectiveness. He underlined the notion that the informal group should at least maintain, and ideally increase, current levels of harmonisation, he supported the idea of real world representativeness of the tests considered in this activity, and announced that IMMA is willing to discuss engagement in the informal group after a clarification of its scope and its ToR.

57. GRPE expressed the intention to agree, in principle, to ask for a mandate for the setup of an informal working group as soon as some remaining issues, such as the identification of an informal group Chair and Secretary, will be addressed. The GRPE Chair asked Japan, the UK, the EC, IMMA and other interested Parties to work on this, so that a formal request for a WP.29 mandate can be finalized at the next GRPE session, in January 2013. He also suggested that the work should be set up in a two-step approach, first focusing on the development of a roadmap and then concentrating on the development of the draft Regulation(s).

50. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal for corrigendum to UN GTR No. 2 (GRPE-64-05), to correct some equations in accordance with the units used, as well as a figure on the gear use during acceleration phases.

51. The experts from India and IMMA requested more time to analyze this document in detail.

52. Taking the new criteria for corrigenda into account, GRPE considered the proposal from Japan as an amendment rather than a corrigendum and requested the expert from Japan to ask for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 from WP.29 and AC.3. GRPE also asked Japan to discuss with India and IMMA the concerns expressed and to submit an updated version of GRPE-64-05, so that the secretariat can distribute it as an official document for consideration at the next GRPE session, in January 2013, subject to the consent of WP.29 and AC.3 on a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2.

53. The expert from the EC introduced documents GRPE-64-02 and GRPE-64-09. He explained the European process of revising type approval procedures for L-category vehicles, introduced a proposal containing the terms of reference for the establishment of an Informal Working Group on International L-category vehicle approval in the area of Environmental Performance and Propulsion Requirements (IEPPR), confirmed the invitation to GRPE participants to attend a stakeholder consultation workshop on the topic, and briefly outlined its content. He announced that the documents GRPE-64-10, GRPE-64-12 and GRPE-64-22 were to be introduced during the stakeholder consultation workshop.

54. The expert from Switzerland asked whether there would also be other working groups in other Working Parties subsidiary to WP.29. The expert from the EC clarified that the main focus is on environmental issues and that this is not foreseen at the moment, also stating that he would be open to such a development, if needed.

55. The expert from the EC introduced GRPE-64-11, containing draft Terms-of-Reference (ToR) for the IEPRR informal working group. The expert from the UK introduced GRPE-64-26, elaborating on the draft ToR of GRPE-64-11 with the aim to align them with the overall objectives of regulatory harmonization, technology neutrality and real-world representativeness in order to clarify the aims of the group. He explained that GRPE-64-26 also contains the addition of procedural issues such as project plans, document submission deadlines, meeting arrangements. He noted that the candidates as of Chair and Secretary should also be specified once they have been identified.

56. The expert from Japan supported the initiatives of the EC and the UK and expressed interest in the activity. The expert from IMMA thanked the EC and the UK for presenting the draft ToR and for considering items that help its effectiveness. He underlined the notion that the informal group should at least maintain, and ideally increase, current levels of harmonisation, he supported the idea of real world representativeness of the tests considered in this activity, and announced that IMMA is willing to discuss engagement in the informal group after a clarification of its scope and its ToR.

57. GRPE expressed the intention to agree, in principle, to ask for a mandate for the setup of an informal working group as soon as some remaining issues, such as the identification of an informal group Chair and Secretary, will be addressed. The GRPE Chair asked Japan, the UK, the EC, IMMA and other interested Parties to work on this, so that a formal request for a WP.29 mandate can be finalized at the next GRPE session, in January 2013. He also suggested that the work should be set up in a two-step approach, first focusing on the development of a roadmap and then concentrating on the development of the draft Regulation(s).

50. The expert from Japan introduced a proposal for corrigendum to UN GTR No. 2 (GRPE-64-05), to correct some equations in accordance with the units used, as well as a figure on the gear use during acceleration phases.

51. The experts from India and IMMA requested more time to analyze this document in detail.

52. Taking the new criteria for corrigenda into account, GRPE considered the proposal from Japan as an amendment rather than a corrigendum and requested the expert from Japan to ask for a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2 from WP.29 and AC.3. GRPE also asked Japan to discuss with India and IMMA the concerns expressed and to submit an updated version of GRPE-64-05, so that the secretariat can distribute it as an official document for consideration at the next GRPE session, in January 2013, subject to the consent of WP.29 and AC.3 on a mandate to amend UN GTR No. 2.

53. The expert from the EC introduced documents GRPE-64-02 and GRPE-64-09. He explained the European process of revising type approval procedures for L-category vehicles, introduced a proposal containing the terms of reference for the establishment of an Informal Working Group on International L-category vehicle approval in the area of Environmental Performance and Propulsion Requirements (IEPPR), confirmed the invitation to GRPE participants to attend a stakeholder consultation workshop on the topic, and briefly outlined its content. He announced that the documents GRPE-64-10, GRPE-64-12 and GRPE-64-22 were to be introduced during the stakeholder consultation workshop.

54. The expert from Switzerland asked whether there would also be other working groups in other Working Parties subsidiary to WP.29. The expert from the EC clarified that the main focus is on environmental issues and that this is not foreseen at the moment, also stating that he would be open to such a development, if needed.

55. The expert from the EC introduced GRPE-64-11, containing draft Terms-of-Reference (ToR) for the IEPRR informal working group. The expert from the UK introduced GRPE-64-26, elaborating on the draft ToR of GRPE-64-11 with the aim to align them with the overall objectives of regulatory harmonization, technology neutrality and real-world representativeness in order to clarify the aims of the group. He explained that GRPE-64-26 also contains the addition of procedural issues such as project plans, document submission deadlines, meeting arrangements. He noted that the candidates as of Chair and Secretary should also be specified once they have been identified.

56. The expert from Japan supported the initiatives of the EC and the UK and expressed interest in the activity. The expert from IMMA thanked the EC and the UK for presenting the draft ToR and for considering items that help its effectiveness. He underlined the notion that the informal group should at least maintain, and ideally increase, current levels of harmonisation, he supported the idea of real world representativeness of the tests considered in this activity, and announced that IMMA is willing to discuss engagement in the informal group after a clarification of its scope and its ToR.

57. GRPE expressed the intention to agree, in principle, to ask for a mandate for the setup of an informal working group as soon as some remaining issues, such as the identification of an informal group Chair and Secretary, will be addressed. The GRPE Chair asked Japan, the UK, the EC, IMMA and other interested Parties to work on this, so that a formal request for a WP.29 mandate can be finalized at the next GRPE session, in January 2013. He also suggested that the work should be set up in a two-step approach, first focusing on the development of a roadmap and then concentrating on the development of the draft Regulation(s).

49. The expert from the EC introduced GRPE-63-10, proposing international environmental and propulsion performance requirements for L-category vehicles. He expressed his intention to proceed according to the following actions: (a) a proposal for an EU Regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles; (b) three EU Regulations on Environmental and Propulsion Performance Requirements (REPPR), vehicle functional safety, and vehicle construction; and © an EU Regulation on administrative requirements. He informed GRPE that the adoption of the first EU Regulation is expected by the end of 2012 and the applicability of the whole package by the beginning of 2014.

50. The expectations of the expert from the EC are: (a) to upgrade the current environmental requirements in terms of emission limits of gaseous pollutant emissions (Euro 3 by 2014, Euro 4 by 2017 and Euro 5 by 2020); (b) to include a measurement procedure for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption; and © to use of the World Motorcycle Testing Cycle (WMTC) as single emission laboratory test for all L-category vehicle categories, as of 2020. Referring to the expected REPPR, he underlined the EU goal to make reference to UN Regulations. He presented GRPE-63-11, containing a roadmap to upgrade the environmental and propulsion performance requirements for L-category vehicles through the upgrade of UN Regulations, and he announced that a two-year study to investigate how to accomplish this goal had been initiated.

51. The expert from Japan expressed his interest in the EC activities. The expert from IMMA welcomed the EC proposal. The expert from the EC clarified that the first steps are expected to concern EU legislation, while work on UN GTR No. 2 and UN Regulations Nos. 40 and 47 would follow. The expert from IMMA expressed a preference to move forward with global harmonization first.

52. The GRPE Chair invited the experts from the EC, IMMA and other interested Contracting Parties to develop jointly a detailed roadmap for consideration at the next GRPE session, in June 2012.