uk delegation to the ueil - ukla · uk delegation to the ueil 10th june 2016 1 . agenda 1. welcome...

the voice of the UK Lubricants Industry

21/05/2014 www.ukla.org.uk 01442 875922

UK Delegation to the UEIL

10th June 2016

1

Agenda

1. Welcome and Anti Trust/Competition Statement 2. Apologies 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of minutes of last meeting

(6th February 2016) 5. UK Delegation President’s report i) Overview Report - David Hopkinson

ii) Lobbying activities Taxation Taskforce – David Hopkinson iii) Committee Reports a. HSE - Caroline Slinn b. Competition – Tim Bates c. Technical – Tim Bates 6. VLS - Andrew Goddard

7. Date and venue of next meeting


21/05/2014 www.ukla.org.uk 01442 875922

1. UKLA ANTI COMPETITIVE STATEMENT It is UKLA policy is to comply fully with all UK &EU competition law and US Anti-trust legislation. All participants in this meeting are advised that there shall be no discussion on agreements or concerted actions that may restrain competition for customers, suppliers and competitors. This prohibition includes the exchange of information concerning; individual prices, profit and customers, credit terms, geographic coverages, market allocations, market practices such as refusal to trade, or any other competitive aspect of an individual company’s operation. Each participant is obligated to speak up immediately for the purpose of preventing any discussion falling outside these bounds.

Agenda






21/05/2014 www.ukla.org.uk 01442 875922

2. Apologies for absence Nigel Bottom Sebastian Crawshaw

Agenda





Feedback to UKLA members regarding UEIL activities

UKLA Delegation President’s Report : June 2016 David Hopkinson

1. UEIL Public Affairs report, including Access to Technical Information (ATI) and working with AFCAR automotive group

2. EMCS (Excise Movement and Control System) and Taxation Campaign

3. Other UEIL Board developments and activities

• ideas on revised voting and fees structure

• Unique Selling Points of UEIL

• Congress plans : • Berlin 2016

• Future conferences (leading candidates are Bologna in 2017 and Budapest in 2018),

• UEIL President election

UEIL Union of the European Lubricants Industry

UEIL Unique Selling Points (USPs) REVISED 30 May 2016

Background

• In September 2015, the UEIL Board of Directors decided to launch a process to identify UEIL’s Unique Selling Points (USPs) on which the association could strengthen its positioning and added-value vis-à-vis its members and stakeholders, in order to differentiate itself more clearly from other lubricant related entities.

• A number of USPs were listed, some of which required direct inputs from UEIL members (e.g. number of companies represented).

• At the end of 2015, a survey was circulated to the UEIL members requesting for data and inputs that would provide the basis for USPs. The results of the survey can be found here.

https://form.jotformeu.com/53473713930355

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_MunbhKBkI-LTFQazhBSzV5amM/view?usp=sharing

Results: 6 USPs

USP 1 UEIL represents the interests of the European Lubricant Industry, in particular SMEs and independent lubricant companies.

USP 2 UEIL is the umbrella association of the national lubricant industry associations in Europe.

USP 3 UEIL members employ more than 70,000 people, in 450 companies in 22 countries.

USP 4 UEIL is the only European lubricants industry Association accredited towards the EU Institutions European Commission, European Parliament, European Council and relevant EU agencies.

USP 5 UEIL represents the whole lubricant value chain, from manufacturing and distribution to recycling.

USP 6 UEIL’s strong areas of expertise include Environment, Health & Safety (including REACH), Labelling & packaging, Circular Economy, Taxation of lubricants, Technical specifications, Competition issues and Industry statistics.

Boilerplate

The proposed Boilerplate (*) below integrates the 6 identified USPs of UEIL and includes clear reference to the end use of lubricants: automotive and industrial sectors (paragraph 1)

Proposal

“UEIL (the Union of the European Lubricant Industry) is the voice of the independent lubricant industry in Europe. We represent the interests of the Lubricants industry in Europe, with a special focus on SMEs and independent companies who make lubricants and metal processing fluids essential for the automotive and industrial sectors.

Through its 22 national member associations, UEIL covers the whole lubricant value chain, from manufacturing and distribution to recycling and represents more than 450 companies and 70,000 employees.

Our members’ collective expertise provides an unrivalled source of information and knowledge on and for the lubricants’ industry, and establishes UEIL as the principal interlocutor of the EU Institutions in areas such as health & safety, environment, recycling, competition, technical specifications, taxation and industry statistics.”

(*) Boilerplate: any text that is or can be reused in new contexts or applications without being greatly changed from the original.

Next steps

• Based on agreed USPs and boilerplate, Secretariat to:

• Update and amend UEIL website and external communications documents. • Look for graphic design options for flyer production and printing. • Add topic to the agenda of the UEIL General Assembly of October 2016.

UEIL Public Affairs Update

Board meeting May 2016

UEIL Public Affairs Update May

2016

Content

Latest policy

developments

• Automotive sector

• Chemicals

• Competition

• Activity Grid

Page

17

W here is the European Automotive Industry Today?

Latest policy

developments

Page

19

Automotive sector

• European Parliament creates Emission Enquiry Committee (45 MEP’s, Cross party ), 17 December 2015, First meeting held 22 March 2016

• High level working Group Gear 2030 (26 January 2016)

• Commission puts forward revised EU type approval Frame work Regulation On 27 January 2016

Latest policy developments

Page

20

Chemicals

Borates:

• REACH Committee discussed the preliminary draft European Commission Regulation amending

Annex XIV to the REACH Regulation. As mentioned previously, this draft does not include borates and a recital explains that they are not proposed to be listed for the time being due to the workload of ECHA and the European Commission (16-17 March)

REACH

• REFIT evaluation in view of the obligation stemming from Article 117(4) of Regulation(EC) No

1907/2006 for the Commission to report by 1 June 2017 on the implementation of REACH. (18/05/2016)

Other Chemical policy:

• Legislative Fitness check on the most relevant chemicals legislation (excluding REACH), as well

as related aspects of legislation applied to downstream industries. (18/05/2016)

a) CLP (classification and labelling and packaging Regulation)

b) EU Eco label Regulation

Latest policy developments

Page

21

Competition

• ATI Campaign Update

• European Commission communication on the Ricardo AEA, RMI study. now expected August 2016. (that is 1 year 9 months after publication)

• UEIL invited to join AFCAR

• NRMM compromise text is up for final adoption in the European Parliament

(July 5 2016)

Activities Grid Jan – May 2016

Intelligence gathering & monitoring

• Issue tracking: REACH, taxation, competition, automotive

• Quarterly newsletter

Outreach • ATI Coalition meeting with DG Growth (19-01-2016)

Advocacy • Ongoing taxation campaign

• ATI campaign

• Eco label submission (via members)

Support • Lube Magazine

• Addressing ad-hoc requests from members, Lubrichem letter

• UEIL USP input

Page

22

Agenda





UEIL Public Affairs Update

Board meeting 16 May 2013

UEIL Public Affairs Update May

2016

UEIL Board Meeting

Taxation Campaign

Table of Content

Page

25

I. Main objective of the UEIL Taxation Campaign.

II. Key activities of the UEIL Taxation Campaign over the last months.

III. Impact of our outreach so far.

IV. Proposed recommendations and actions to the UEIL Board.

I. Main objective

• Inclusion request).

of lubes under ECMS (Polish/Lithuanian

• Tax distortion.

Issues

• No lubes under ECMS (Polish/Lithuanian proposal) and no ‘light’ lubes (viscosity of < 4,5mm²/s by the temperature of 40C°) under EMCS (German proposal).

• Creating a level playing field for lubricants within the EU.

• Clarify/revise current CN Codes.

Goals

Page

26

II. Actions undertaken in last three months

Page

27

Actions undertaken:

We circulated the UEIL letter to the 28 Fiscal Attaches of the EUPRs in March.

We had meetings with the French PR (Patrick Roux), UK PR (Stuart Gregory), NL PR (Hans van Herwijen) and ES PR (Francisco Fernandez) in April and May in Brussels.

Meetings at capital level in Rome (Fabio) and London (David). Contacts with Cevron Lubricants (NL) and Union Francaise des Industries Petrolieres (UFIP - FR).

Received letter of Slovakian Association of Petroleum (SAPPO - Zuzana Oprchalová) supporting our position (important with upcoming Slovakian EU Presidency).

FuelsEurope (Alessandro Bartelloni) also supports our position.

Request for a meeting by Union of European Petroleum (UPEI - Ms. Stausboll).

III. Impact of our outreach is so far

positive Timeline

• EU Member States would like to have more time to assess Italian proposals.

• Expert Working Group meeting for 30 and 31 May cancelled.

• Next Expert Working Group foreseen after the summer (September – date: tbc).

Position EU Member States

• FR: supports our position (no inclusion of lubes under EMCS).

• NL (concerned on lube fraud, but does not want that all lubes are included

under EMCS – important to reach out to VNO-NCW and Dutch Ministry of

Finance.

• UK (concerned on lube fraud, but against inclusion of all lubes under EMCS -

this will displace the issue to other products such as the misclassification of

cooking or vegetable oil).

• ES (concerned on lube fraud but against inclusion of all lubes under EMCS).

For the moment there seems a blocking minority in Council against the Italian

proposal (UK, FR, NL and ES).

IV. Proposed recommendations to UEIL Board Key priorities for the upcoming months (May/June/July/September)

Keep enough support in Council against the proposal to include all lubes under EMCS.

Provide support to EU Member States on their internal impact assessment and discuss with

aligned EU Member States (UK, FR, NL, ES) a realistic final compromise for all (only

inclusion of ‘light lubes’ under EMCS).

Reach out to those EU Member States with no not official positions yet.

Keep aligned position with UPEI and FuelsEurope

Outreach Outcome

Keep in close contact with aligned EU MS (UK, FR,

NL and ES).

Set up meeting with VNO-NCW and Dutch ministry

of Finance (NL).

Request meetings with upcoming Presidency

(Slovakia).

Request meetings with EU MS with no official

positions yet (e.g. AU, CZ, BE, RO, HU and LU).

Reach out to Commission (DG TAXUD and Cabinet).

Set up meetings with UPEI and UFIP.

Provide material to support Member States internal

assessments.

Best outcome: Secure blocking

minority at Expert Working

Group meeting in September.

Second best outcome: Only

inclusion of ‘light’ lubes under

EMCS (most realistic).

Worst outcome: Inclusion of all

lubes under EMCS.

Any questions?

Continue active outreach campaign for next 3 months to get a positive final result

in September

Agenda





HSE Committee Report

HSE Committee Meetings

10th February 2016 and 24th May 2016

Caroline Slinn – Afton Chemical

[email protected]

Live Projects - Ionic mixtures -Skin / Eye hazard classification

MIPA / MEA with various chain length mono fatty acids. Threshold determination for non-skin irritation properties • Results now published under “position papers” section on the UEIL website

• C14 and above not classified

Threshold determination for non-eye irritation properties • Presently working on a draft to be published under “position papers” section on the UEIL website

• Re-testing showed some inconclusive results – no real conclusive trend • The more testing that is done, the more confusing the results are • Propose to publish the results as they stand, without any specific conclusion

• Propose to close off the project

ILMA have also run a similar project with similar results.

MEA MIPA TEA

C12 Eye irritant Not tested Not tested

C12 br Eye damage Eye damage Not tested

C14 Eye irritant Eye irritant Not tested

C16 Non irritant Eye irritant Eye irritant

C18 Not tested Non irritant Eye irritant

Key Topics – Boric Acid • Boric acid is an SVHC and is on the candidate list. During 2015 it was prioritised for

possible authorisation (Annex XIV).

• When the priority list was discussed by the REACH Committee (the European Commission and the Member States), the Commission decided NOT to include the borates on the next list of substances to be included on Annex XIV.

• There is presently no legal means of being removing substances from SHVC list. • The group considered that the best potential outcome would be for boric acid to

remain on the candidate list and not move to Annex XIV. • Future remains uncertain.

Key Topics – Boric Acid

• Survey by the International Aerospace Environmental Group - Working Group 5 (IAEG

WG5) – Are interested in information on our supply chain in relation to the use of four boron compounds (boric acid; disodium tetraborate, anhydrous; diboron trioxide; and tetraboron disodium heptaoxide, hydrate) in the aerospace industry.

• They would like to understand the likely impacts should the use of these boron compounds require an authorisation, and as such would like to obtain as much information as possible from a wide variety of stakeholders within the supply chain.

• The UEIL responded after discussion between the group – being careful to stress the dependence of the industry on boron based additives and the barriers to change eg. cost and approval processes .

• No feedback to date.

Key Topics – Biocides and formaldehyde

• Article 95 of the BPR is now in place , Blenders are now limited to just a few products and just a few suppliers – single source supply in some cases.

• There are very few biocides on the list that are good for formulating MWFs (PT13), that are

not formaldehyde releasers or highly sensitising isothiazolinones.

• Reclassification of Formaldehyde as carcinogenic 1B and germ cell mutation category 2 under CLP - in effect since 1/1/16.

• end users.

Key Topics – Formaldehyde release Biocides

• Proposal in the next ATP to the CLP regulation to label formaldehyde release biocides in the

same way as formaldehyde itself – Formaldehyde release biocides could therefore potentially be labelled as carcinogenic - Carc 1B – (MBM, MBO, HPT all currently being reviewed by RAC). Effective 18 months from publication.

• MBO is expected to be renamed “Reaction product of paraformaldehyde and 2-hydroxypropylamine (ratio 3:2)” and its mode of action as a biocide described as “formaldehyde from …….”

• The general concentration limit for Carc 1B is 0.1% - it is know yet known whether or not specific concentrate limits will apply. Under the BPR, this classification is sufficiently severe to make MBO a candidate for substitution.

• FABI – lobbying hard against these proposals.

• UEIL to prepare a position paper – for end users.

Key Topics – Triethanolamine

• Occupational health insurers (INRS) in France produced a paper recommending not to use TEA. In it they suggest TEA can form DEA, but provide no reaction conditions or rationale.

• Benedicte Biron of FUCHS has had some contact with INRS. They raised concerns about nitrosamines etc. and presented her with some very old papers. She has contacted them again on behalf of the group and explained about the precautions industry has in place to reduce the risk of nitrosamines forming eg. TRGS 611, high purity grades of TEA used in MWFs etc. Also that an advantage of TEA in MWFs is that it is unlabelled.

• Meeting with INRS in Oct 2015 - listened and agreed in principle with the argument but will not modify the recommendation – Latest information is that it was TEA-85 they refer to, but still they will not modify their recommendation.

Key Topic – Extended Safety Data Sheets

• ATIEL have recently updated the website with GHS and new hazard classifications.

• New GES process flowchart available on ATIEL website.

• Not all companies are using the GES approach – varying degrees of competency.

• Some software developers may be working on including this into their software – (this is unconfirmed).

Key Topic – Availability of chemicals • General reduction in the availability / future availability of a number of

chemicals.

• Test houses are at capacity until 2018 trying to cope with the demands.

• Reminder that producers need to consider the end application – eg. Will the material be registered for spraying ?

• Producers need to stay on top of their raw material inventory.

Key Topic – Poison Centres

• UEIL HSE committee statement to the commission supporting the proposal to harmonise the work of poison centres (Article 45 CLP) and encouraging the commission to adopt this harmonised approach. Also supports recommendations for disclosing ranges of components in formulations and some generic style formulations in order to protect confidentiality.

• The present system is confusing with different local requirements.

• Some countries also require information on physical hazards – is this relevant for medical assistance after an exposure?

Key Topic – CLP Labelling – Folded Labels

• Folded labels including all 27 languages are being used by some

members.

• This is the best solution recommended by the committee and accepted by authorities as a compromise.

• The German authorities recognise the issue and are working with Caracal group to find a suitable solution.

Key Topic – Component Information Form • ATIEL initiative – UEIL Endorsed

• For use by additive suppliers intended to have all the health, safety,

environmental and regulatory information that customers may require in one place. • General Company Details • Chemical composition • Restricted Substances • Global Inventory listings • Country specific • REACH • Compatibility • Safe Handling • etc.

• Additive only has one form to fill in instead of filling it in for each

separate customer.

• At present each customer has a different system.

Key Topics – Disclosing formulations

• Attempts by end users to obtain detailed formulation information

• ACEA WG Materials and Substances proposed the idea of a harmonized list for an automotive process chemicals like GADSL for parts - CLEPA Materials Regulations Event, 22nd April 2015.

• GLAPS – Global list of automotive process substances • GLAPS has a strong analogy with GADSL (Global Automotive Declaration Substance List) • Automotive Industry want details of everything in the process (including cutting fluids)

• Human Health • Continuity of Supply

• The GHS Style data sheet was designed to give end users all the required information

required for risk assessment in a standard format, why do they want more ?

• Committee to monitor the situation.

Additional Topics

• Waste framework directive

• Polycycloaromatics in base oils • additional testing requirements • particular problem in France

• Waste metal chips in Germany – contaminated with emulsion

• Position paper on mwf producers providing SDSs for emulsions

• Nano particles • Chlorinated paraffins in the USA – MCCPs and LCCPs (prohibited from summer 2017)

tending to be replaced with VLCCPs

• Lubricants for unintended food contact

www.ueil.org Rue du Luxembourg, 22-24, B-1000 Brussels

e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +32 2 761 66 85

Agenda





UEIL Union of the European

Lubricants Industry

UEIL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

OEM UPDATE

25th MAY 2016

OEM BULLETINS

• Since the meeting on 27 January 2016 the Technical Committee (TC) & Competition Committee (CC) have jointly released 2 bulletins:

• BMW Long-life Engine Oils Approval Process May 2016

• Cease-and-Desist issued by a well-known OEM May 2016

MEETINGS WITH OEMS

• Since the meeting on 27 January 2016 the TC & CC has not met with any OEMs

• The invitation from Liebherr Germany is still outstanding but the CC does not believe that this should be accepted until we have more information from the OEM

ALLISON TES 295 (p1)

• Following the meeting on 27 January 2016, a letter was sent to the OEM on 9 February asking 4 questions.

• No reply was received and therefore a reminder was sent on 9 March

• The OEM replied on 15 March to which UEIL replied on 21 April:

1. What is the anticipated date of release? “Our current plan is to have something formal to release at some point in 2016. At this moment we do not know the exact time frame of the release. Once everything is finalised, I can send notification directly to you” Whilst we are disappointed with the time lag between the issue of the Warranty Information in 2015 & when our members will be able to obtain a formal approval if they so wish, we request that UEIL receive the information as soon as it is released


2. When it is released to “interested parties”, please could you confirm that it will be openly available and not just available to the current Companies who have an approval? “We will have discussions with any company that is interested in becoming TES 295 approved, once the specification is released. However all current and future TES 295 approved manufacturers are required to sign an Allison royalty agreement”. We would request that a copy of the Allison Royalty Agreement is sent to UEIL

3. Will it be released to all interested parties at the same time? “All information will be available at the same time”. We look forward to receiving the information

4. Will all testing equipment be available for any interested parties? “No tests will be conducted through Allison Transmission. The specification has certain tests that must be tested through Southwest Research or Intech. There are some additional dyno and or road tests that are required for validation with the updated specification. At this time, I do not have the specific details”


We look forward to receiving this information as part of the specification and would request that full contact details of the person responsible at Southwest Research and Intech are provided

• THB wrote again on 19 May requesting a copy of the Allison Royalty Agreement

• Action: All TC members to monitor developments and advise UEIL

ASTON MARTIN

2 letters were sent to Mr. J Scott, Managing Director of European Operations and Regional General Manager of Europe, the 2nd of which was returned “No longer at this address”

2 letters were then sent to Dr A Palmer, Chief Executive Officer, without any reply being received; the date of this week’s meetings was also highlighted in the second letter

• Action: If no reply received by today’s meeting, the Folder will be transferred to the CC

BOSCH REXROTH

FLUID RATING (RDE 90235)

• Question to the TC: Have there been any developments since the January Meeting?

CNH INDUSTRIAL

SPECIFICATION MAT 3525

• Following correspondence between UEIL and the OEM on 11 February, 22 February, 30 March and 22 April, we now have a contact: Gary Kassen, PE, Engineering Director, EHSA – Hydraulics & Pneumatics, who is based in the USA

• He has asked “Can you tell me what information you need and what is the purpose?”

• Action: The TC needs to agree a response today

DOOSAN INFRACORE

• 2 letters were sent to the UK Company on 15 February and 14 March without any response

• Therefore on 21 April a letter was sent to their Korean headquarters without any response

• A 2nd letter was been sent on 19 May to the OEM

• Question: What action should be taken if a reply is still not received?

FERRARI S.p.A.

• In response to our letter of 11 April they sent another draft of modifications for their website whilst totally ignoring the requests re the 2 Shell gear oils

• On 11 May UEIL wrote requesting the information that was missing

• On 20 May a response was received and added to the TC/CC; as yet it has not been studied

• Action: THB to study the information & respond

• Also on 11 May we wrote to Fiat regarding the specification 95550-SA1 and Getrag regarding their model 7DCL750 transmission

• Despite writing to Lubrizol on 30 March & 29 April no reply has been received; the date of this week’s meetings was also highlighted in the second letter

• Action : THB to write a third letter to express our disappointment

FORD

WSS-M2C950-A SAE 0W-30

• Infineum have a formulation which meets both the Ford specification and ACEA C2-12

• UEIL understands that the Formal Approval Process has now been put on hold whilst further talks take place between Infineum and Ford; therefore the formulation is not being actively promoted currently

GENERAL MOTORS

DEXOS SECOND GENERATION

• Chevron Oronite have previously announce OLOA 55516 for Dexos® 1

• Lubrizol have recently announced that LZ PV1205 has been approved for use in Dexos® 1 @ 5W-30 and 0W-20

HITACHI HYDRAULIC OIL

• After UEIL’s letter of 16 February, the OEM contacted their Head Office regarding our request for information

• On 16 March UEIL wrote regarding how the matter was progressing

• The OEM replied on 17 March advising “As soon as we receive the reply from Japan, we’ll revert to you”

• On 19 April UEIL wrote again, this time highlighting today’s meeting & on 20 May a reply was received (which in my opinion contained some inaccuracies)

• Question: Do we have a Technical Specification from similar OEM?

JCB

• Following the meeting on 27 January 2016, a letter was sent to the OEM on 22 February

• The OEM replied on 24 March and whilst not answering the various points raised, it did give us a contact name

• We therefore wrote on 22 April asking some very specific questions and for a copy of the Technical Specification; the date of this week’s meetings was also highlighted

• Needless to say no response has been received

• Action: A second letter to be sent to the OEM

JAGUAR LAND ROVER

STJLR.03.5007

• Infineum have a 0W-30 C2 formulation that is currently being verified by the OEM, a process that from start to finish takes 7 weeks

• Therefore, depending upon the analytical data generated during this period, it is going to be at least another month before approval is given

PSA B71 2710 (LHM FLUID)

• Despite correspondence and discussions with the member involved, UEIL have been unable to get a commitment to proceed with this issue

• Action: The Folder is to be transferred to the Archive section

MAZDA DENMARK

• As yet no Folder has been opened on the TC/CC

• An e-mail was sent to the TC on 28 April asking if any members had experience of Mazda insisting that they must use the Original Mazda Engine Oil in SKYACTIV engines

• To date no-one has advised that this is being experienced elsewhere

• Action :To discuss with the CC today

PORSCHE

• After the meeting on 27 January a letter was sent to the OEM on 8 February

• There then followed the normal reminders etc.; however a detailed response was received on 28 April, including details of their website etc.

• A further letter was sent to the OEM on 11 May advising that the website would be followed up and also asking them “Does this mean that Porsche Transmissions are filled for life and never require draining or topping up?”

• A response was received the same day advising that there would be a delay in responding as it was the start of the Pentecost holidays in Germany

• Question: Are there Procedure details & a Technical Specification on their website?

VOLCO CE

L60H, L70H & L90H

• UEIL wrote to the OEM on 7 April because a UK member had been advised that “Volvo no longer give out service data to outside parties”.

• UEIL asked if this was now official policy of Volvo, and if it was, how could our members obtain such information?

• The OEM responded on 11 April advising that it was not official policy of Volvo and gave advice as to how best to proceed

• UEIL wrote to the OEM on 18 April to thank them for their assistance

• Question: Is this enough to merit an OEM Bulletin or not? (My personal opinion is that it is not)

VOLVO CARS

• At the UNITI Conference in Stuttgart a Blender approached THB regarding an e-mail that had been received from a Volvo Authorised Distributor stating that “I just can tell you, that Volvo has only approved their own engine oils for us dealers”

• A new Folder has been opened on the TC/CC & a redacted version of the e-mail added

• After reviewing the Folder with the CC, THB has contacted the Blender and advised that we need written proof

ZF (CLAAS)

• Following the meeting on 27 January a letter was sent on 8 February concerning the information not detailed. As I expected, my original wording was “watered down” after consulting Jos and Francois, but the agreed final paragraph was stronger than normal

• As no response was received UEIL wrote on 8 March advising that if no response was received by 8 April “we will have no alternative but to refer the issue to the Competition Committee, a step that is not in the interest of either party.”

• The OEM’s reply on 13 April was negative, unpleasant and inaccurate

• UEIL responded on 2 May in a letter that was not “watered down” by Jos & Francois

• Action: It is my recommendation to the TC that this Folder is passed to the BoD

CUMMINS

• The ownership is with the Competition Committee

• UEIL wrote on 15 April to the OEM seeking clarification as it has been reported that their service provider, TEI, had stated that product labels for all oils that are not submitted to TEI for registration cannot make the claim that the oil meets Cummins specifications

• As no reply was received, another letter was sent on 17 May; the opportunity was also taken to advise them of today’s meeting

JOHN DEERE JDQ-78X


• Since the 27 January TC meeting there have been letters from UEIL to the OEM dated 15 February, 3 March and 23 March whilst from the OEM to UEIL dated 15 February, 3 March and 7 April

• The OEM’s letter of 7 April is being discussed today by the CC

KUBOTA


• It is my understanding that Kubota are currently working to amend its manuals for all products in order to comply with competition law

• The CC continues to monitor the progress on this Folder in order that it can be transferred to the Archive

LIEBHERR


• UEIL wrote to the OEM on 29 February

• As no reply was received, a reminder was sent on 4 May

MASERATI


• Recently there have been instances of both letters & e-mails from various OEMs which they say were sent, did not reach UEIL. One such instance was Maserati & their letter dated 14 December 2015

• UEIL decided that the most important issue to resolve was the “illegal” statements being made by the OEM & therefore concentrated on this in their letter of 29 April

• The OEM responded on 9 May and advised that the Levante documentation will corrected in week 20, and then followed by the rectified manuals for Model Year 2017 vehicles

• The CC will continue to monitor the OEM to ensure that the work is completed

MERCEDES BENZ


• UEIL wrote on 15 April to the OEM seeking clarification as it has been reported that a lubricant manufacturer can only use Mercedes Benz specification terminology if their product has been fully approved by Mercedes Benz and registered on their BEAM system

• As no reply was received, another letter was sent on 17 May; the opportunity was also taken to advise them of today’s meeting

SCHAFFER AXLE FLUID SB


• A detailed reply, including some attachments, was received from the OEM’s Lawyer on 1 March

• The attachments were then analyzed in great detail by the member company who originally raised the complaint

• Following clarification on a legal issue raised by the OEM. The TC will be drafting a letter, based on the analysis for the CC

SCANIA


• UEIL wrote on 15 April to the OEM seeking clarification as it has been reported that the OEM urged a member to remove the references to the Scania LDF-3 specification in a 5W-30 viscosity grade as Scania has so far not approved any oils for this specification

• The OEM replied on 11 May to confirm that “After having looked into the matter, the situation is already rectified”

TOYOTA


• UEIL wrote to the OEM on 25 April because it had been reported that they had specific technical requirements for the engine oil for 1WW/2WW engines

• The Toyota Technical Specification was requested as the owner’s manuals do not detail the international specifications such as API & ACEA

• Also as some members may wish to obtain Formal Approval, full details of their Approval Procedure were requested

VOLVO COOLANT

VCS STANDARD 418-0001


• The CC wrote a very detailed letter to the OEM on 29 February

• The OEM acknowledged the letter & replied, again in great detail, on 15 April

• The CC have been forewarned to review this response in great detail this afternoon

VOLVO HYBRID BUSES


• After the folder was transferred to the CC their initial letter was sent on 29 February but as no response was received, 2 further letters have since been sent on 19 April & 4 May, again with out any response. The letter of 4 May also highlighted the date of this week’s meetings

• The TC will recall that the OEM had advised that it was & would remain a low volume special product . However at this year’s UNITI Conference Anderson Roj who is Volvo’s Co-ordinater Fuels & Lubricants stated in his presentation “Automotive Fuels – present challenges and opportunities for the future” that although they had so far only sold 2,500 hybrid buses that they saw it as an area of great potential which they are going to fully exploit

www.ueil.org Rue du Luxembourg, 22-24, B-1000 Brussels

e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +32 2 761 66 85

Agenda





VLS Update UK Delegation to the UEIL

Andrew Goddard

Chairman of the VLS Supervisory Board

June 2016

VLS update

• VLS Case update

– Archiving cases

• VLS policy issues

– Marketing claims

– Repeatability and reproducibility

– VLS Brand guidelines

• ATIEL guidelines on combined claims

VLS Case Update

As at 19th May 2016

Case Outcomes

45 Total Cases

10 Cases Compliant

25 Cases Archived

10 Products Under Investigation

75.56%

15.56%

2.22% 2.22% 4.44%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

1

VLS Case Summary October 2013 to May 2016 Cases by product type

Automotive Engine

Automotive Gear Oil

Automotive ATF

Automotive Hydraulic Fluid

Industrial

27%

62%

9% 2%

VLS Case Summary October 2013 to May 2016 Issues by case type

Low temperature properties

Non-compliance with ACEA specifications

Conflicting or unevidenced OEM approvals

Non-compliance with industry standards (Non-ACEA)

Why archive cases?

Cases that are resolved are published to the website for two months then archived.

This allows people following cases decisions to read the final case publication.

Products that were initially non-compliant that become complaint due to the application of the VLS process, are treated as compliant.

Following legal advice, cases are published at the end of the process for a limited period.

VLS aims to encourage compliance in the sector and not to penalise non-compliance.

Marketing Claims

• The use of marketing claims is both commonplace and widely accepted practice in the sector.

• But the application of marketing claims lacks consistency across different marketers within the sector which adds complexity and could be confusing for end users.

• Purpose of VLS review was to provide guidance for the sector in the terms applied to marketing claims and their use.

Marketing Claims

Three types of marketing claim • Approved. The product has been registered with an approval

authority and a reblend approval sought and obtained.

• ‘Recommended for use’, ‘Suitable for use’ or ‘Meets the requirements of’, The marketer is making an informed, professional judgement based on supporting technical evidence that a lubricant is suitable for a stated application.

• Not suitable for use. In practice this would normally be indicated simply by the omission to claim one of the above classifications for the product.

Marketing Claims When would a marketer recommend that a product ‘meets the

requirements of’, or is ‘suitable for use’? • an approval exists on the formulation being used but the marketer has not

pursued a formal reblend approval for the product.

• an approval is not technically possible e.g. claims which are self-certified and there is no body to grant approval (e.g. ACEA sequences).

• the specification is technically obsolete or one or more tests are currently unavailable but, on the basis of a technical judgement the product would fully meet all the requirements of the specification.

• the lubricant marketer or technology provider has sufficient robust and relevant supporting data for the recommended application. This does not mean that all aspects of the chemical and physical specification associated with the application are met.

Marketing Claims Process

• Products claiming formal approvals will be checked with reference to an approval authority, such as an OEM’s web-site.

• If this is not possible the Named Party will be asked to provide documentary evidence that a valid and current approval exists.

• If the product is recommended for a given application, the marketer will be asked to provide details of the technical assessment that underpins the marketing claim, such as a letter from their technology provider .

• If the marketer can provide information to show that an approval has been granted or the technology provider can validate their claims, this would be sufficient to conclude that the complaint is not justified.

• If the Named Party cannot or does not provide such supporting information then this would be reported on the web site when details of the complaint are made public.

Repeatability and Reproducibility

• ASTM dispute procedures (ASTM D3244) introduce the concept of “critical” and “non critical” parameters. Almost all the specifications in the SAE standards are deemed “critical”.

• Critical specifications require that the receiver has a high degree of assurance that the true value of the product property meets or exceeds the specification limit value. – the supplier has to ensure that 95% of the time anyone carrying out the test

properly on a batch of material should obtain a pass.

– to achieve this blends can be targeted and released some distance within the specification limit.

Brookfield - a critical parameter

Brookfield Viscosity at -40 deg C (cP) 100,000 150,000 200,000

Let’s make a batch of 75W-90 gear oil which has a Brookfield viscosity of 149,999 cP. We know our lab results are accurate so, being less than 150,000 cP, we release the batch.

Brookfield – a critical parameter


A customer buys some of the product and decides to test it. They also know that their lab results are accurate so what chance do they have of obtaining a pass?

Our batch result, 149999 cP

About half! Although the labs are both accurate there will always be some imprecision (variability) in their results and as the batch was released right on the limit when it is tested by the customer sometimes it will pass and sometimes fail.

This is not good enough as Brookfield is a critical parameter and the customer deserves “a high degree of assurance that the true value of the product property meets or exceeds ... the specification limit value.”



So how much imprecision should we expect?


The maximum difference (19 times out of 20) between two results from different laboratories on the same material is is defined as the Reproducibility. The method (ASTM D2983) states this should not exceed 18.14% of their mean.

So what does this look like on our chart?



18.14% of the specification limit of 150,000 cP is 27,210 cP.


So if both the blending plant lab and that used by the customer are both accurate (i.e. exhibit no bias) then, if the producer wants to be 95% certain that the customer will get a pass, he should adopt a release limit of 150,000 – 27,210 or 122,790 cP. In reality this is a little too severe and puts all the burden on the producer. However, ASTM D3244 has a more realistic approach.

27,210 cP 27,210 cP



D3244 introduces the concept of the Acceptance Limit (AL). This is defined as the numerical value between acceptable and unacceptable quality.

The Acceptance Limit is generally determined using results from more than one laboratory but a single result can be used to give an indicative value. In this case, AL = 133,840 cP.

I would suggest that this is the figure that blenders could use as a target rather than 150,000 cP.

133,840 cP Acceptance Limit


Handling Brookfield results in VLS

Example 1:

Result from SGS comes back as 160,000 cP.

VLS response to NP : FAIL.



Test Result = 160,000 cP


Example 2:


VLS response to NP : PASS.





Example 3:


VLS response to NP : PASS.




In the absence of any other information this has to be a PASS. ASTM D3244 deals with how to reconcile differing results when one passes and the other fails. We have no failing result here.


Example 4:


VLS response to NP : FAIL.




NP states that they obtained a result of 138,000 cP which was a pass as is the mean of the two results.

At this point we can explain that Brookfield is a Critical Parameter and as such more tolerance should have been allowed on the blend release limit.

VLS Brand Guidelines

• Launched in May 2016

• Confirms the terms and conditions under which member companies use the VLS brand in association with their business.

• Does not indicate that products are fit for purpose or suitable for an application

• Brings consistency in the use of the logo between member companies.

ATIEL Product Policing Policy

• Due for launch in third/fourth quarter 2016

• Based on a rolling programme of 20 member products per month, replacing periodic single survey of 250 member products.

• Policy requires amendments to ATIEL constitution.

• Policy being drafted April/May.

• Draft policy legally reviewed in May/June.

• Policy agreed by ATIEL Executive Committee in June 2016.

• Policy agreed by ATIEL General Assembly in June 2016.

VLS Update

Thank you &

any questions?

Agenda






21/05/2014 www.ukla.org.uk 01442 875922

5. UEIL USPs and Positioning 1. The Union of the European Lubricant Industry (UEIL) is the umbrella association of the

European Lubricants Industry, representing their members and, in particular, the interests of SMEs and independent lubricant companies.

2. All our members have a strong European focus, as almost all are headquartered in Europe.

3. We are the umbrella association for the national lubricant industry associations in Europe.

4. We represent also the European re-refining industry with their competence in oil recycling.

5. UEIL is an accredited representative of the interests of the European lubricants’ industry in the EU.

uk delegation to the ueil - ukla · uk delegation to the ueil 10th june 2016 1 . agenda 1. welcome...

Documents