Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains
Automotive and Mobility Industries
Brussels, 09 December 2015
GROW.C.4/KS
Real driving emission (RDE) legislation: next steps
Until now two regulatory RDE packages have been voted by TCMV:
1)1st regulatory RDE package covering the basic technical test procedure, but without quantitative requirements. It was voted by the TCMV on 18 May 2015 and is currently under scrutiny by the European Parliament (EP).
2)2nd regulatory RDE package adding the not-to-exceed (NTE) emission limits applicable to RDE testing, i.e. the emissions of each valid individual RDE test must be below the respective NTE emission limit. In addition complementary boundary conditions for valid RDE trips have been defined. It was voted by the TCMV on 28 October 2015 and is currently under scrutiny by the European Parliament EP.
In the following the next steps for implementing the RDE legislation are outlined, assuming that the 2nd regulatory RDE package is adopted by the EP during its scrutiny period.
3)3rd regulatory RDE package. It should comprise the following elements:
a)Particle number (PN) PEMS testing
During the last two years the JRC has managed a task force assessing the performance of various PN PEMS test devices in order to assess the technical feasibility of PN PEMS testing. The conclusion was positive, i.e. PN PEMS testing seems to be possible, albeit with somewhat higher uncertainties than the NOx PEMS testing. The following time table for the development and drafting of a legal text is suggested:
(i)End of December 2015: conclusion of the experimental activities
(ii)Second half of January 2016: At a RDE-LDV meeting the following elements should be presented:
- the final report on the experimental activities performed at JRC (Stage II)
- preliminary results and conclusions of the interlab comparison exercise
(iii) End of February 2016 a proposal for PN conformity factors (CF) for should be presented on the basis of a measurement uncertainty analysis of the JRC
(iv) March 2016: presentation of a first draft of the PN PEMS test procedure at TCMV
b)Coverage of the vehicle cold start
(i)Second half of January 2016: first presentation of concepts on how the issue could be addressed (based on previous discussions at RDE-LDV and further analysis by the JRC). Agreement on a specific task force.
(ii)Until May 2016: Development of the vehicle cold start test procedure including applicable emission limits, for a first presentation at TCMV.
c)Special RDE testing conditions for hybrids[1]
.
(i)Second half of January 2016: first presentation of an analysis by the JRC on the elements of the existing RDE test procedure to be revised for the approval of hybrid vehicles.
(ii)March 2016: Development of the necessary revisions and first presentation at the TCMV.
d)Requirement to indicate the CFs applicable to an individual vehicle in its certificate of conformity (CoC). This measure does not require any technical preparatory work and is first of all a political decision. It should be presented to the TCMV in March 2016.
In summary a vote on the 3rd regulatory RDE package can be envisaged for June 2016.
4)4th regulatory RDE package. It should deal with the definition of in-use-conformity RDE testing and is probably the most complex and politically controversial part of the remaining work. Basically it has to cover two elements:
a)In-use-conformity testing to be done by the manufacturer and the authority responsible for issuing the emission type approval, which is first of all intended to assess the durability of emission control systems over a certain period of use. This work can largely follow the existing principles for the type 1 (lab test cycle) in-use-conformity testing, even though the participation of the type approval authority must be strengthened and the specific statistical conditions of the PEMS testing must be taken into account.
b)Surveillance testing that may be done by a “third party”, i.e. an authority not involved in the initial type approval process or independent parties like NGOs or the manufacturers’ peers. The possibility of such independent surveillance testing is particularly important, if not decisive, for the effectiveness of the RDE test procedures, since the latter contain random elements and are based on the legal requirement that NTE emission limits are not exceeded for a whole variety of different PEMS trips. Obviously at type approval this requirement can only be demonstrated, but not proven, with a quite limited number of PEMS tests (which are in addition to some extent under the control of the manufacturer, even if they are performed by a technical service). Only the possibility, not to say potential “threat”, of independent PEMS testing forces the manufacturer to fulfil the legal requirement in a comprehensive manner[2].
For this purpose the whole chain of action has to be defined:
(i)What evidence is necessary that a first, plausible claim of RDE non-compliance can be made by a third party (e.g. a single, technically valid PEMS test showing a certain exceedance of the applicable NTE emission limits)?
(ii)What is the sequence of actions derived from (i) for assessing the RDE compliance with respect to the legal requirements?
.
(iii) Criteria for finally establishing the RDE compliance or non-compliance
(iv) Consequences if RDE non-compliance is established
It should be noted that the steps (i) – (iii) are first of all of a technical nature since they must be based on a statistical analysis of RDE tests, taking into account vehicle-to-vehicle (to some point inevitable) and test-to-test variations. Step (iv) is mainly of administrative nature, but it is pretty clear that an established RDE non-compliance must lead to serious consequences, such as fines and/or the withdrawal of the type approval.
The implementation of these steps in the current and revised type approval framework would however be different:
In the current type approval framework, without a clear legal basis for market surveillance the step (i) would be entirely voluntary. The Commission could however ensure some co-ordination and voluntary collaboration e.g. on the level of the respective TAAEG task force. Steps (ii) to (iv) would be in the competence of the authority responsible for issuing the emission type approval, possibly with some supervision by the Commission (via the requirement to inform the Commission about suspicious cases resulting from step (i)). Contrary to the current practice it is however intended to make the “if” and “how” of this follow-up mandatory. Any financial penalties under point (iv) would be based on national legislation.
In the future type approval framework, with a clear legal basis for market surveillance, Member States would be obliged to do some kind of market surveillance of vehicles placed on the market on their territory, regardless of whether they are responsible for the underlying type approvals or not. Step (i) would therefore be mandatory to some extent. Steps (ii) to (iv) would not be in the sole competence of the authority responsible for issuing the emission type approval, they may also be performed by the MemberState launching the market surveillance procedure (corresponding to a “safeguard clause” in the New Approach legislation). Financial penalties under point (iv) may also be issued by the Commission.
As a consequence the steps (i) – (iv) can be developed by the RDE experts largely independently from the applicable type approval framework. Since the 4th regulatory RDE package normally should be applied earlier (as from September 2017/18) than the revised type approval framework legislation, the resulting technical elements should first be drafted for the current type approval framework but could be easily carried over into the administrative structure of the revised one.
The following procedural steps are suggested for the development of the 4th regulatory RDE package:
January/February 2016: Kick-off meeting with potential “third parties”, which may do independent PEMS testing in the future, such as type approval authorities, technical services and NGOs for brainstorming and collecting information on how independent surveillance testing may be performed. For the further follow up of the process one should also establish a permanent network of this stakeholder group.
February 2016: “RDE surveillance task force” composed only by Member State representatives and their delegates (but normally no industry) for developing the concepts lined out above. Other stakeholders may of course be consulted on a case-by-case basis but should not regularly participate in this group.
September 2016: The concepts developed by the “RDE surveillance task force” should be presented and discussed in the RDE-LDV group, which comprises all stakeholders (including industry).
October/November 2016: First presentation of a legal proposal to the TCMV
End 2016/early 2017: possible vote in TCMV
1
[1] Hybrid vehicles per se are not of a particular concern for the air quality. This means that at the current stage there is no need to gear PEMS test procedures specifically for hybrid vehicles. However, hybrid vehicles must be "certifiable", i.e. the RDE test procedures must not constitute a serious hurdle for their approval.
[2]For lab tests these independent testing has a somewhat lesser importance because the test conditions are largely fixed and there is no “cloud” of different test conditions for which the legal requirements have to be fulfilled.