Initial working draft for a regulation to provide a framework for approvals of engine conversions (such as in retrofitting an engine for dual-fuel use).
18. Prelude to the OICA documents: two definitions are proposed for retrofits and conversions:
In light of these definitions, OICA assumes that the retrofitting of any dual-fuel system (on either a running vehicle or a running engine) has to be considered as a “conversion” and, therefore, the converter becomes the new engine manufacturer and takes the full responsibility for the engine in-service conformity, while the original engine manufacturer shall not be considered responsible in any manner of the non-compliance of a converted engine system
19. Discussion: it is noted that not all the dual-fuel systems can be considered “conversions”, as defined by OICA. Furthermore it was recognized that the term ‘conversions’ is a new working and definition that could effect more kinds of modifications, like chip tuning. It is a fundamental discussion that will affect other regulations.
20. The GFV participants agreed to keep the historical wording “retrofit” system for our assembly of gas components fitted in after-market equipment in order to avoid any confusion. A sub-classification among HDDF retrofit systems can be taken into account in order to distinguish those systems which “substantially” modify emission and operating strategies from those that do not. In this case, a clarification about “substantially” is also needed. Ideas like intrusive and non-intrusive systems also need clarification.
21. AEGPL asked for further clarifications about which “responsibilities” the retrofit system manufacturers should take in the case its system was considered to be “substantially” modified (original) emission or operating strategies. In other words, excluding commercial responsibilities that are out of R. 49 scope, as well as conformity of the engine production (being the engine is “used” and not produced by the retrofit system manufacturer) which responsibilities related to provisions in R. 49 should be regulated? AEGPL asked to clarify the in-use conformity responsibilities.
22. AECC commented (GFV 29-05rev1): regarding the OICA definitions of “conversions” and “retrofits”, AECC highlighted that installation of an SCR system (to meet Retrofit Class III of the recently-agreed retrofit Reg.) or a combined DPF & de-NOx system (to meet Retrofit Class IV) would fall in the definition of “conversions” with all the legal consequences, i.e. responsibilities related to R 49 and to the Retrofit of Emissions Control (REC) (as proposed by OICA).
23. The Chairman concluded that this is a fundamental discussion and should be discussed again; also with OICA and AECC present.
Discussion focused on fundamentals and principals of HDDF retrofit, grappling with what engines or combination engine/vehicles should be the focus of the retrofit regulation and avoid creating loophole situations to make it easier to certify some engines versus others.
31. Discussion returns to retrofits versus conversion. OICA proposed three sets of requirements:
32. Mr. Piccolo raised the issue of whether the HDDF retrofit engine should be considered as a new type of engine. He showed language from Directives 2007/46, 2005/55, (type approval as a separate technical unit as defined in Article 2 of Directive 70/156/EEC) and Regulation 595/2009, which grants EC type approval or national approval in respect to new types of vehicles or engines. In light of the current definitions, this legislation seems to be applicable only to new engine types for new vehicles, while dual-fuel retrofit engines, even if considered as new types, would be fitted on “running” vehicles. Therefore, from the legal point of view, this instance could be covered by the new (retrofit) regulation.
33. The other participants were doubtful about this interpretation and suggested to further investigate this. One remark was that European Directive 2007/46 it not applicable here because this is not a whole vehicle type approval issue. The other is that the engine (replacement engines) with R49 approvals can be used for “running” vehicles. It is noted that the possibility to certify a retrofitted dual-fuel engine in conformity with the new (retrofit) regulation would create possible confusion in the market, opening a loophole in the OEM legislation.
34. Combinations of systems were discussed, including repowering engines for an older vehicle; purchasing components separately as a chassis and fitting an engine to it; and how certification (or not, in terms of a modification) would work in various cases.
35. Mr. Dekker suggested to focus on the simple things first, on what should be harmonized, and then worry about the combinations later.
36. Mr. Whelan (Clean Air Power) brought up the U.S. categorization of OUL engines — outside of useful life – whereby an older engine is retrofitted on a vehicle beyond a particular age. This [concerns] a small number of applications in the U.S., however, it might be popular in countries outside the US and Europe. Mr. Whittaker (Hardstaff) warned not to focus just on these types of situations because it could possibly drive the OEMs out of developing dual-fuel engines. It also was recognized that the OUL is ‘temporary’ and that a UNECE regulation is a longer-life framework.
37. The Chairman concluded that we start in the task force with the ‘low hanging fruit’ and first focus on the harmonized method for the classification, evaluation and approval of dual-fuel retrofit systems. Retrofitted engines will be further discussed in the GFV in parallel with the activity in the Task Force and should not stop the initial work in the Task Force.
38. The GFV agreed with this approach and confirmed this decision.
39. CLEPA was not present at this meeting of the GFV, however, their comments on (GFV-29-08) ‘Fundamental Issues’ are shown to the participants. The issues they raise have been fundamentally discussed already, relative to certification of NEW vehicles types or components and modification of the vehicle could invalidate Type Approval and Certification.
40. The CLEPA written comments indicate that a ‘converter of a vehicle or engine already in use shall become the OEM-like person or body and shall bear all the liabilities the situation implies.’
41. Discussion in the GFV previously indicates this is not the case and that the converter of an engine is not the OEM-like body. The second element in the CLEPA comment that amendments of Euro IV and V Type Approval Certificates shall be possible is no longer applicable based on the earlier discussion. Access to information remains a competitive issue.