Draft Minutes of

First meeting of the Informal Working Group on Global RDE

11th and 12th September 2018
Brussels

Please review and send your comments or track changes to this document to the Secretary of the
group: pablo.mendoza-villafuerte@cnhind.com by 16 November 2018.

Attendance: F. Akmadza (Hyndai), D. Bosteels (AECC), M. Braisher (OICA), J. Bratfish (JAMA), V.

Calzadilla-Garcia (TAA Spain), X. Chen (VW China), B. Coleman (OICA), R. Cuelenaere (TNO), A.
Dijkhuizen (NL), A. Fernandez (EPA), A. Feucht (OICA), P. Greening (OICA), D. Hannah (DFT UK), C.
Hosier (OICA), N. Ichikawa (JASIC), H. Ishii (NISEL), T. Kobayashi (NISEL), Y. Kono (MOTT of Japan
(MIIT?)), M. Lange (German Environment Agency – UBA), N. Ligterink (TNO), P. Maire (OICA), H.
Matsukawa (MOE Japan), P. Mendoza-Vilafuerte (OICA), S. Morita (JASIC), J. Nikeus (OICA), H.
Nuglisch (CLEPA), P. Ohlund (Swedish Transport Agency), A. Rijnders (RDW NL), M. Roy (OICA), J.
Sanchez (EPA), I. Scholz (OICA), C. Sierens (OICA), N. Sonnenberg (BMU Germany), A. Stanciu (OICA),
C. Vallaude (UTAC), G. Von Grootveld (Ministry Infrastructure NL), M. Yamada (JAMA), S. Yoon
(Denso), F. Cuenot (UNECE), A. Giallonardo (Canada Government), C. Davide (OICA), Z. Kregar (DG
Env), P. Bonnel (JRC), R. Bertoa-Suarez (JRC), C. Astorga (JRC), M. Teles-Romao (DG Grow), V. Franco
(DG Env), P. Dilara (DG Grow).

Remote Participants: L. Hill (Horiba), A. Haag (OICA), ICCT

Welcome address

P. Dilara welcomes the participants and briefly describes the background and context of the meeting.

Discussion of decision of AC3.

A. Rinders (chairman of the GRPE), explained the decision on AC.3 on the creation of the IWG RDE.
Document from Geneva, WP29 175-32 AC3 – authorization GTR development - supported by Japan
and South Korea, presented by European Commission.

Review of the draft agenda:

P. Dilara reviewed the draft agenda. No further points were raised, at this stage, for any other
business.

Terms Of Reference (TOR) were discussed and the discussions are reflected in the new version
uploaded in the WIKI after the end of the meeting.

The following officers were proposed and confirmed:

Chair: EU COM – P. Dilara

Vice-Chair: JAPAN – Y. Kono, and KOREA – Y. Park.

Secretaries: OICA – P. Mendoza Villafuerte (Back-up – M. Braisher), Japan (JASIC) – N. Ichikawa

Background information on the development of RDE in Europe (EU COM)

Under Euro 6 Europe designed a regulation to ensure emissions are limited under normal driving
conditions of use. The use of defeat devices are prohibited. The EU COM has the mandate to keep
under review the test procedures. General overview was given of the regulation.

CANADA – clarified that, in US and Canada, all the auxiliary emissions strategies must be disclosed.

Detailed technical explanations of the current method and its development (EU COM – JRC)

JRC explained that a single RDE test is not enough to understand if a vehicle is compliant and
presented detailed explanations on methodology that can be accessed at the presentation on the
Background information. EU also confirmed that the pollutants regulated were NOx and PN.
Compliance need to be shown both for urban and complete trip.

The comments of the different contracting parties were to discuss specific content of the RDE in
Europe, like extended conditions.

EU COM clarified that CO2 will always be measured in an RDE test as it is used in the analysis of the
results but that the CO2 was not to be used as a measure of real life CO2. The CO2 from RDE is not
indicative of real life CO2, which has to be a long term average. This is due to the many trip
parameters that would impact the CO2 of an RDE trip. Furthermore, due to the random nature of
RDE testing, test results are not suitable for the purposes of comparison of vehicle performance
rather for a demonstration of compliance to standards.

RDE boundary conditions: EU RDE structure was briefly discussed, as well as modifications done by
RDE 4. Consolidated file shows the general part and the different appendices. It was also highlighted
that EU COM has published recently a Guidance document for PEMS testing, including best practices.
In EU during the investigations after diesel gate, EU introduced concept of also performing hot start
tests. Further actions were taken to prevent defeat devices.

Trip evaluation changes and updates. RDE 4 – Appendix 6 – RDE evaluation factor set to 1 in case (if
RDE CO2 emissions do not exceed by 25%), if they exceed you have a gradual correction. EU COM
explained the bass for this decision, in this point US questioned which technologies needed to catch
up?. Can the EU COM elaborate on method for calculating final emissions values? EU COM – noted
that the relationship between CO2 and NOx is uncorrelated up to a certain level of CO2. As
aftertreatment systems improve, then the evaluation factor will be revised with the ultimate goal of
no CO2 normalisation.

Supporting elements available:

- Guidance document: applies to RDE and PEMS test, best practices are contained in the
document.
- EMROAD: Data evaluation tool, available for download.
- Measurement uncertainty for RDE report: showing how uncertainty was calculated.
o In continuous update and evolution
- PEMS standard in development at CEN in EU.

Discussion:

US – requested further explanation on driving dynamics v*a and RPA, and why one was selected as
an upper-bound and one as a lower-bound. JRC – explained the background behind the selection of
the two indicators. RPA was found to be the best indicator for absence of dynamics whilst v*a was
found to be best indicator for excess of dynamics. JRC will be sending further details to the group.
Further details will also be shared by TNO.

US – why the hybrid must be different to the conventional (e.g. for defining test-start and test-end,
analysis etc)? EU COM – This was introduced in order to ensure fair treatment of hybrids, based on
an average percentage of use of the ICE. US will review material to be uploaded to wikipage
explaining some of the background.

OICA – Has EU given any thought where to include the LDV guidance document on the UNECE GTR?
EU replied that so far they don’t know where it could be included.

EU described the basis of the regulation in Europe, describing also some of the decisions taken: US –
requested clarification on the definition of key on or key off? US has defined with that wording some
of the boundaries of their testing. JRC explained the test start and test end definitions for
conventional and hybrid vehicles. Clarified that for hybrids, test start is “first move”.

EU COM presented a slide showing that warm-start tests can result in higher emissions (with
reference to the conversation this morning). Guidance on AES/BES and defeat devices – EU COM
reviewed the four categories for testing for defeat devices. EU COM – not concerned about any
variations in emissions control (AES) as long as RDE NTE limits are met during RDE testing. AES was in
principle developed for covering emissions outside test conditions. Further testing outside of RDE
boundaries can be used to screen for defeat devices.

US – requested an explanation of MAW method. JRC explained the weighting factor approach
behind MAW

Japan RDE methodology

Japan explained the differences between their methodology and the European RDE, clarifying the
Diesel vehicles <=3.5t, passenger cars with 9 or fewer people scope. Intention is to detect whether
chassis dyno test result of a vehicle reflects real-world driving. It was approved in 2018 and will apply
from October 2022 and all types 2024. Details of the methodology can be found in the background
presentation.

Main differences rely on the WLTP 3 phases instead of 4 phase European WLTP. Traffic conditions
tend to be slower in Japan therefore some boundary conditions will need to be adapted. Weather
conditions -2 to 34C. Weather is generally hotter in Japan than in Europe.

Discussion:

The OICA has different questions regarding the methodology: Is there a maximum idling time?
Minimum distance requirement? Japan – combined minimum 32km for the urban/rural, then for the
motorway 16km.

The different contract parties also had some questions: Canada - CO2 has to be regulated on the
certification values? Japan – CO2 is just measured to analyse data. Other CF as the European one?
Japan - CF=2.0, US – how RDE deals with frequent regen? Europe/Japan: if it happens OEM can
repeat RDE test, if it happens on second then it counts as valid RDE test. OEM have possibility to
finalize regen.

US – The American approach to regeneration emissions - quantifing emission before and after, and
does not count regen emissions during testing. Corrects for regen emissions after emissions testing
(as per Europe with Ki).
OICA explained that in Europe a pragmatic approach was taken to handling regeneration events
during RDE, due to challenges with definitions of periodically regenerating devices during WLTP
development. Also noted the challenge of detecting regeneration events.

Netherlands: Any air quality issue with PN in US? Any trend on increasing or decreasing PN levels? US
– Not yet PN regulation on chassis dyno, not test on PN. Therefore currently there is no limit.
However, they have PM limits for Diesel and Gasoline Direct injection.

General principles discussion on how to proceed:

- EU COM opened the discussion and acknowledged that the European way is not necessarily
the most appropriate solution for other contracting parties. For some items, a ‘fresh eyes’
approach may be needed. EU – Boundary conditions: U/R/MW – applicable to EU, as Japan
has only 2 U-R/MW. For GTR, EU highlighted the need for widest way to describe these
boundaries.
- US – EPA focused on dyno procedures, idea is to check on design as opposed to design to the
test. As emissions standards go down, this concept guided decisions in the past. EPA wants
low emissions in the field. Compliance division uses PEMS measurement as screening tool,
not in-service requirements. 7 routes complete the on-road test. EPA looks at continuous
data and general overall performance. Their engineers look at emission behaviour as
opposed to having a strict pass/fail criterion. If emissions are lower, ok, if higher they look
why. The testing may happen before or after certifications, if required they ask OEM to
explain why high emissions are found. US EPA acknowledge that using PEMS as a screening
tool has served them well so far, but struggle with the idea bringing RDE into certification
requirements.
- US on AECDs – OEMs are required to disclose all AECDs, but there are no defined measures
on what to do when OEMs disclose AECDs. At the moment, it is at the discretion of EPA staff
as to whether the emissions are ‘reasonable’ but PEMS testing/RDE could help with those
deliberations. Whilst the routes are defined, EPA have deliberately not disclosed the details
of the testing to keep an element of uncertainty. US is more focused on gasoline, on road
testing program needs to keep unpredictable, to prevent design for purpose from the OEM
side. US were sceptical over the use of specific factors (e.g. 1.6) to define ‘acceptable’
emissions under certain conditions..
- CANADA – using similar tool and procedures than US. Colder climate, specific cold conditions
are relevant, and dedicated consideration on those conditions rather than others.
Statistically no data to support if driving patterns at -20C are different. Performance similar.
- US/CANADA on PN – US has PM based regulation not PN, EPA taking measurements
occasionally, but not typically. PN is not their focus, particularly on diesel, they think the trap
works fine. On gasoline side PM limits have been lowered under the Tier 3 programme, but
EPA are not particularly interested on adopting PN limits at this time. Hydrocarbons and NOx
are likely to remain the two pollutants of most interest.
- EU COM: The goal is the same – to ensure emissions are well-controlled during real-world
driving. ISC is also very important to continue overseeing the performance of vehicle, and
now any accredited laboratory can conduct ISC testing. EU COM takes in consideration
uncertainty of the equipment, therefore needs a conformity factor (margin). US does not
take into consideration these differences on the equipment. PN was imposed to force
vehicles to comply (eventually forcing Particle filter technology in the market) as gasoline
direct injection vehicles were producing high levels of particulate.
 - GRPE Chair: Discussion has set a good description on where we want to go with the RDE GTR,
the scope is not to find defeat devices, the scope is to keep vehicles below the emissions
limit during real-world driving. The GTR must be technology neutral, and it needs to apply to
all technologies. The group needs to understand the normal conditions of use for
accommodating different regions - wider boundaries may be an option as this is a global
discussion. Methodology must also be discussed as it is a part of the task of this group.
- US – expressed a concern about defining RDE standards if it would effectively allow a worse
behaviour than their current standards. EPA does not want to allow warm emissions to creep
up if they only have one threshold for the whole trip. Multiplier does not make sense if warm
emissions are already contained. Creation of a standard that could allow these emissions to
go higher is not what they are looking for.

Review of consolidated document and discussion

EU COM discussed and reviewed with all the contract parties each of the components of the
European RDE in order to find common ground and general comments on the different parts of the
regulation to be able to have an understanding on how to move forward, comments can be found on
the revised consolidated document.

Conclusions on first meeting:

- UNECE to Contact India and China to see if they are still interested in contributing to this
IWG.
- All parties can contribute with documentation that could help the discussions.
- JRC – keeps collecting data, in use data may be shared also from the JRC side.
o OICA – Chase car data, trying to react to the vehicle in front
- JRC – To share RDE data, and vehicle usage data, to fine tune some of the elements.
- Other contracting parties, like USA and Canada to reflect what would constitute normal
driving in their countries

Next meeting:

- Meeting to be held in Europe

o 27/28 November 2018, place TBC.

Tour de table:

OICA – Small volume manufacturers issue shall also be discussed and see how this GTR RDE may
impact them

END OF DAY 2