relevant extension. Also RLD checks needed “feedback approach” see WLTP-DTP-LabProcICE-040. 4.3.2. If the approval authority is not satisfied with the Is a review needed? See above auditing procedure of the manufacturer, points There are no criteria for how many audits the TA 3.3 and 3,4 of Annex X to Directive 2007/46/EC should conduct and there are no criteria for “not shall apply. satisfied”. Annex X will in practice not often (never) be used by the TA. 4.3.3 For the purpose of this section and Appendices 1 See above and 2, the term ‘pollutant’ shall include the regulated pollutants (given in Tables 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007) and the emission of CO2. 4.3.4 The conformity of the vehicle for CO2 emissions Statistic approach up to 32 vehicles see above See above shall be determined in accordance with the procedure described in point 4.2.2. with the following exceptions 4.3.4.1 Three vehicles shall be randomly taken in the See above series and tested as described in Annex XII. 4.3.4.2 However, at the request of the manufacturer, the See above tests may be carried out on vehicles which have completed a maximum of 15 000 km. In this case, the running-in procedure shall be conducted by the manufacturer, who shall undertake not to make any adjustments to these vehicles 4.3.4.3 If the manufacturer wishes to run in the vehicles, See above (‘x’ km, where x 15 000 km), the procedure shall be the following:…… 4.3.4.5 When checking the conformity of vehicle for CO2 Review needed!! See above emissions, as an alternative to the procedure UTAC comment mentioned in Section 4.3.4.3, the vehicle Yes, because the manufacturer use the same coast manufacturer may use a fixed evolution down as for type approval (run in vehicle) coefficient EC of 0,92 and multiply all values of Is this alternative procedure with an evolution factor
relevant extension. Also RLD checks needed “feedback approach” see WLTP-DTP-LabProcICE-040. 4.3.2. If the approval authority is not satisfied with the auditing procedure of the manufacturer, points 3.3 and 3,4 of Annex X to Directive 2007/46/EC shall apply. Is a review needed? There are no criteria for how many audits the TA should conduct and there are no criteria for “not satisfied”. Annex X will in practice not often (never) be used by the TA. See above 4.3.3 For the purpose of this section and Appendices 1 and 2, the term ‘pollutant’ shall include the regulated pollutants (given in Tables 1 and 2 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007) and the emission of CO2. See above 4.3.4 The conformity of the vehicle for CO2 emissions shall be determined in accordance with the procedure described in point 4.2.2. with the following exceptions Statistic approach up to 32 vehicles see above See above 4.3.4.1 Three vehicles shall be randomly taken in the series and tested as described in Annex XII. See above 4.3.4.2 However, at the request of the manufacturer, the tests may be carried out on vehicles which have completed a maximum of 15 000 km. In this case, the running-in procedure shall be conducted by the manufacturer, who shall undertake not to make any adjustments to these vehicles See above 4.3.4.3 If the manufacturer wishes to run in the vehicles, (‘x’ km, where x 15 000 km), the procedure shall be the following:…… See above 4.3.4.5 When checking the conformity of vehicle for CO2 emissions, as an alternative to the procedure mentioned in Section 4.3.4.3, the vehicle manufacturer may use a fixed evolution coefficient EC of 0,92 and multiply all values of Review needed!! UTAC comment Yes, because the manufacturer use the same coast down as for type approval (run in vehicle) Is this alternative procedure with an evolution factor See above
AdminWG-03%20Version%208%20-%20List%20of%20items%20for%20the%20implementation%20of%20the%20WLTP%20into%20the%20EU%20legislation-%20v8.docx