1. WLTP Transposition – ‘new’ option for discussion
The following slides introduce another potential option for the transposition of WLTP into UNR
It is based on having an 08 series for UNR 83 and not UNR 999
For discussion at Transposition Task Force audio- web 30th May :30 – 11:00 CET.
R.Gardner. TRL Ltd.

2. Proposed Transposition Route – April 2017
The current working assumption of the Transposition Task Force is for the WLTP transposition to be through a new UNR WLTP (with regional levels and a top level) and a new UNR 999.
UNR 999 would be used by Europe, but not Japan, and would cover all the EU requirements that are not included in GTR15 and the EVAP GTR (i.e. Type 2, 3, 5 & tests, OBD, ISC, ATCT, RDE etc. RMI?)
Concerns relating to the UNR 999 element of this route are:
When UNR WLTP comes into force the EU would have to leave UNR 83 which would mean that manufacturer’s would not be able to gain approvals for export to non-EU countries that do not require WLTP
UNR 999 would eventually ‘die’, as its contents would eventually be covered by UNR WLTP – through Phase 2b work. Why develop a new short-lived regulation?
As UNR 999 loses elements to UNR WLTP it will become less stringent. The latest series of a UNR needs to be more stringent than earlier series in order for mutual recognition under the 1958 agreement to work.

3. Alternative Transposition Route
Instead of UNR 999 introduce a new 08 series to UNR No. 83
To be a ‘copy and paste’ of EU-WLTP (with Type 2, 3, 5 & 6 tests, ISC, OBD, ATCT, RDE etc. – but not RMI?)
Either cross reference to UNR WLTP for the Type 1 and Type 4 test details or repeat the tests in UNR
Same principle as Step 1 in WLTP-16-12e (rejected by Japan) – but with a difference that overcomes the concerns
Introduce at same time as UNR WLTP to overcome the issue raised by Japan – that including WLTP in UNR No. 83 may reduce the motivation to develop new UNR for WLTP
Would enable EU to remain as a Contracting Party to UNR No. 83
EU would be a CP to UNR No. 83 and UNR WLTP
Japan would be a CP to UNR WLTP

4. A ‘No UNR 999’ Option New ‘Regulation WLTP’ Regulation 83 08 series
Level 2
Regional Level 1b
New ‘Regulation WLTP’
Regulation series
Type 1 test – x-ref to UNR WLTP (Level 2 or Level 1a?*)
Type II test (Carbon monoxide emission test at idling speed)
Type III test (Verifying emissions of crankcase gases)
Type IV test – x-ref to UNR WLTP (Level 2 or Level 1a?*)
Type V test (Durability of pollution control devices)
Type VI test (Cold start at low ambient temperature)
Annex XI – OBD
ISC, ATCT and RDE?
Type 1 test (GTR15)
Type IV test Evap GTR
Regulation WLTP
Regional Level 1a
Etc.
When GTR15 and UNR WLTP add new tests (e.g. Durability) ‘UNR series’ will ‘shrink’ in volume but not in content. NEDC based tests will be replaced by x-refs to the more stringent WLTP equivalents. The 08 series will therefore remain as the most stringent series of amendments.
* Would Level 1a be needed if it isn’t supplemented by a UNR 999 which includes all the other EU requirements? Would any OEM seek approvals to Level 1a of Regulation WLTP if it wouldn’t enable them to sell a vehicle not approved to the other tests?

5. Schematic UNR 83 08 series UNR WLTP Type I test Type 1 test
Type II test – modified for ‘WLTP world’*
Type IV test
Type III test – modified for ‘WLTP world’ *
Type IV test
Type V test – modified for ‘WLTP world’ *
* Where other tests refer to the Type I test (NEDC) it will be necessary to say (where appropriate) that this should be seen to be the WLTP Type 1 test (over a certain transition period in some cases)
Type VI test – modified for ‘WLTP world’ *
OBD*, ISC, ATCT, RDE?

6. The need for regional levels of UNR WLTP
An alternative to having a EU regional level for UNR WLTP could be for UNR to provide a x-ref to the top level of UNR WLTP (Level 2) and provide the regional amendments in the relevant UNR annex, i.e. a similar principle to how EU xxx/2017 currently amends UNR OBD requirements (for example).
If this principle is followed would Japan need a regional level, or could they also use the top level and amend in their national regulation?
All for discussion