1. OIL #27 Number of tests Status report April 2015 JAPAN WLTP-10-30-rev1e

2. Status report After Geneva meeting, there are two task force web meetings. The criterion to use declared value is a still controversial issue. As EU and Japan have a difference view/pricy, we decided for both EU and Japan to bring the proposed number as the criterion to find the landing point. Which selectable mode should be use for criteria pollutant testing, either predominate mode or emission worst mode is still open issue. We also have other issues, criterion for EVs (range criterion included) and averaging method for final value determination. We are expecting finalizing all these issues by #12 IWG as planed, having TF web meeting in between each IWG.

3. Discussion points for CO2/FC #Points EU proposal at Geneva Japan proposalNote 1CO2 /FC criteria for acceptance of declared value for ICE. Test value < “Declared value- dCO2” Test result has to be better than the declared value. Test value < “Declared value + 1.8 %” Worse side has tolerance. 2aRe-declare when the test result was “worse” than the declared value. Re-declare allowed. Declared CO2 value is not necessarily declared before testing. Can be declared during process. Re-declare allowed. Worst case value should be always allowed to take in order to avoid retest. Ex) If, Declared = 100g criteria = 0g Test result = 101g then Re-declare = 101g 2bRe-declare when the test result was “better” than the declared value. Re-declare NOT allowed. Ex) If, Declared = 100g criteria = 0g Test result = 99g then Re-declare = 99g

4. Discussion points for CO2/FC #Points EU proposal at Geneva Japan proposalNote 3When test result exceeded regulation standard. All results must comply with the criteria pollutant emissions standards. Agreed. 4CO2 /FC Tolerance for acceptance of declared value for Electrified vehicle. To be discussed after ICE discussion. 5Averaging method for phase specific and whole cycle value. To be discussed

5. Discussion points for Criteria pollutant #Points EU proposal at Geneva Japan proposalNote 6Criteria value for ICE. (i.e. dp or x%) dp1 dp2 R1 < 0.9 x Limit R2 < Limit 7predominant mode or emission worst mode for criteria pollutants testing No. Emission test with predominant only. Yes. Emission test with worst selectable mode. Manufacturer must comply with emission standard with emission worst case regardless. Still open issue.

6. Discussion points for CO2 # Purpose PointsApr.May.Jun.Jul.Sep. IWG#10TFIWG#11TFIWG#12 1 CO2/FC Criteria value for ICE. (i.e. dco2 or x%) 2 CO2/FC Re-declare allowed or not. 3 Criteria pollutants Criteria value for ICE. (i.e. dp or x%) 4 Criteria pollutants Which Selectable mode should be used. 5 CO2/FC/Rang e Criteria value for EVs. (i.e. dco2 or x%) 6 CO2/FC/Rang e, Criteria pollutants Averaging method for phase specific and whole cycle value. Discuss after criteria concept agreed

7. Japan proposal at Pune

8. First test* R1 ＜（ Declared – dp1) (R1+R2)/2 ＜（ Declared – dp2) (R1+R2+R3)/3 ＜ L Second test* Third test* (R1+R2+R3)/3 Declared value accepted Rejected (R1+R2+R3)/3 value accepted yes no Pollutants no CO2 CO2 test result (or averaged results) has to be better than declared value. No tolerance at worse side. EU proposal at Geneva *All results must comply with the criteria pollutant emissions standards.

9. EUJAPAN 1st R1 - dCO2 1 %+1.8% (2 sigma) 2nd (R1+R2)/2 - dCO2 2 %+1.8% (2 sigma) 3rd Average of three Re-declareNo re-declare allowed at better case. Criteria value for ICE(CO2/FC) Use declared value dco2_i Declared CO2 Use declared value. + 1.8 % Declared CO2

10. Criteria value for ICE (CO2/FC)

11. EUJAPAN 1st R1 - dp 1 %10% ( i.e. R1< 0.9 x L) 2nd R2 - dp 2 %0% (i.e. R2 < L) 3rd Average of threeN/A Final value Average of R1 and R2(if applicable) Remark All test must comply with the criteria pollutant emission standard Criteria value for ICE (Pollutants) Use declared value dp i Declared criteria pollutant

12. Slides for discussion

13. Predominant or emission worst case mode? Emission Limit Emission worst Predominant Japan is concerning like this case. According to current GTR......Next page For criteria pollutant testing,

14. Predominant or emission worst case mode? Current GTR 1.2.6.5.2.Automatic shift transmission 1.2.6.5.2.1 Vehicles equipped with automatic shift transmissions shall be tested in the predominant drive mode. The accelerator control shall be used in such a way as to accurately follow the speed trace. 1.2.6.5.2.2. Vehicles equipped with automatic shift transmissions with driver-selectable modes shall fulfill the limits of criteria emissions in all automatic shift modes used for forward driving. The manufacturer shall give appropriate respective evidence to the responsible authority. Provided the manufacturer can give technical evidence with the agreement of the responsible authority, the dedicated driver-selectable modes for very special limited purposes shall not be considered (e.g. maintenance mode, crawler mode). 1.2.6.5.2.3. The manufacturer shall give evidence to the responsible authority of the existence of a predominant mode that fulfils the requirements of 3.5.10. in section B of this gtr. With the agreement of the responsible authority, the predominant mode may be used as the only mode for the determination of criteria emissions, CO 2 emissions, and fuel consumption. Notwithstanding the existence of a predominant mode, the criteria emission limits shall be fulfilled in all considered automatic shift modes used for forward driving as described in paragraph 1.2.6.5.2.2. What is the appropriate respective evidence? Test result? Technical report?

15. Predominant? Worst case? Number of tests If Emission worst mode and predominant mode are same. Emission worst test will be conducted with CO 2 ( or FC ) test at the same time. Emission （ worst) CO 2, FC (predominant) TVH Min : 1 Max : 2 Min : 1 Max : 3 TVL Min : 1 Max : 3

16. EU proposal for CO2Japan proposal for CO2 1st 84% fail, 16% pass = 84% of vehicles need two or three tests. 2% fail, 98% pass 2nd 64% fail (=76%x84%), 36% pass (=24%x84%+16%) = 64% of vehicles need three tests. 0% fail, 100% pass, including first test 3rd Average of three. EU and Japan proposal Use declared value Declared - 0.9%(σ) 16% - 0.45%(σ/2) 24% [%] + 1.8%(2σ) 1st test (dCO2_1)2nd test (dCO2_2)1st and 2nd test

17. expected number of tests Assumptions for calculation; Average (µ) = 0 Standard deviation (σ) = 0.9 % Judgment for second test is based on the average value of first and second tests. (i.e. σ for second test = 0.9/root (2) %) JPN proposal dCO2_1 dCO2_2 EU proposal Expected Number of tests

18. END