54. AEGPL updated the GFV on amendments dealing with safety that were proposed to the GRSG at their April 2011 meeting.( ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2011/14 from the Netherlands and informal paper GRSG-100-02-Rev.1 from Italy that were approved.) But there also were some newly crafted definitions for bi-fuel vehicles that now are not in accordance with existing regulations. (LPG running mode and bi-fuel vehicle: See GFV-13-06). (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2011/15 amending paragraphs 17.11.5 and 17.11.6. related to diesel dual-fuel operation.) The approved amendments are now to be presented for agreement at WP29. Two options: 1) the amendment to WP29 can go forward; or 2) WP29 could be asked to forego approval of the definitions and await the results of any comparison of definitions as proposed by today’s GFV.

55. Mr. Duvielguerbigny summarizes the proposals made from GFV-13-06 reminding the group that Regulation 67 is specific to LPG only.

56. Mr. Rijnders is concerned that this new definition (bi-fuel) becomes confusing since existing definitions have applied to gaseous fuels and not just LPG. So we must now ask WP29 to either remove these definitions or adopt them and amend them in future.

57. Mr. Piccolo: The definition 2.21 in R.67 as adopted is in conflict with existing regulatory definitions. He suggests to eliminate provision 17.11.6. This is an emission-related provision (but not omit 17.11.5 which is about the switchover time from petrol to LPG).

58. Mr. Rijnders believes we are not ready for the upcoming GRPE to make a proposal. It is possible that we could make a formal amendment in September for the November WP29.

59. Mr. Hubert (UNECE GRPE Secretariat) suggests it is best to have a proposal to GRPE for discussion this week. Alternatively, a new proposal could be made again to the October GRSG meeting and then forward this to GRPE their consideration in January 2012.

60. Resolution: Mr. Rijnders suggests that the issue be moved back to the GRSG, taking suggested proposal from the GFV to the GRSG to reconsider for submittal to WP29 in November as a corrigendum to the previous amendments to R.110 from AEGPL/Italy.

40. Mr. Piccolo (AEGPL). They proposed new definitions of bi-mix fuel vehicles would be included in the definition of bi-fuel, including now two types: Type A (traditional bi-fuel) and Type B where gas and petrol can be used simultaneously. Proposal being made to determine the amount of gas used in the system would be to weigh the gas tank before and after the vehicle test. They have attempted to align R.115 and R.83 for this bi-fuel technology that already is being used in vehicles. He asks for comments from the group for the next GFV session.

41. Mr. Rijnders asks to have written comments on these documents, with the idea of having a new, formal document ready for January 2012. The Types A and B also take on a similar framework as the recommended definitions of the dual-fuel engines.

42. Mr. Piccolo indicates their intention that the definition be wider than narrow, to allow simultaneous use with LPG provided that the LPG in energy unit is equal or higher than 80%.

43. Mr. Radzimirski this is an important amendment to R.115 and as soon as possible. He takes issue that according to the Annex 6 the energy is measured and not the mass. This editorial correction should be introduced.

44. Mr. Rijnders believes the energy and mass difference should be aligned. He asks Mr. Radzimirski to provide written clarification and comments for the next GFV meeting.

45. Mr. Martinez (European Commission) asks if it is possible to make a more precise definition of Type 2B, in order to specify the percentage of gas mixture. It should be technically feasible so not to leave loopholes in the regulation.

46. Mr. Duvielguerbigny (AEGPL) says these amendments are due to requests by their members’ desires.

47. Mr.Piccolo didn’t want to make a long definition. They will try to move the 80% concept to the definition to avoid any other conflicts.

48. Mr. Dekker prefers to have a Type C to add to the definitions rather than change the current definition.

49. Mr. Martinez (European Commission) agrees that the 80% should be put in the definition.

50. Mr. Duvielguerbigny says we agree on the principles and its urgency, and that a newly amended formal document would be prepared for passage at the January 2012 GRPE.

51. Mr. Rijnders agrees that the GFV will work on this new proposal with a perspective to prepare the formal document for January.

52. Mr. Castagnini (AEB) reminds the group that they had also submitted another GFV-corrected document prior to the meeting to include natural gas (CNG).

53. Mr. Rijnders asks for written proposals so that a combined formal document can be developed and discussed at the next GFV.

42. AEGPL points out the modifications made to the doc GFV-15-02 with respect of doc GFV-14-02, in line with the two comments received in the previous meeting of the group:

• a. Insertion of 80% energy minimum limit for LPG use in the definition of “bi-fuel type B vehicle” (see point 49 of the minutes GFV-14-06)
• b. Simultaneous extension of both proposals (R 115 and R83) to CNG (see point 53 of the minutes GFV-14-06)

43. NGVAE raises the issue of how to measure the actual gas consumption of such a system. In this definition, if the vehicle runs on less than 80% then the vehicle could not be homologated. In discussion, it is determined that the regulatory language can include flexibility in the methods of measuring the fuel consumption under this vehicle definition.

44. NGVAE raises a concern about the definition of a Bi-Fuel Type B being confused with a dual-fuel. NGV Global indicates that they share this same concern.

45. AEGPL highlights that dual-fuel definitions, as finally proposed, regard only diesel-gas vehicles, while the definitions under discussion relate only to petrol-gas cases, thus remaining in the topic of positive-ignition engines (same driving cycle, same emission limits,etc.);

46. TNO makes several comments and proposals:

• a. Definitions: rephrase the bi-fuel general definition in order to re-include bi-fuel Type A and B in the same “category” of vehicles;
• b. Minimum limit of gas use: convert it into a maximum limit of petrol use, and motivate the value of 80% that seems too low:
• c. Energy ratio calculation:
  • i. gas mass measurement: provide a suitable alternative method to static weighing of gas container – such as mass flow metering – ensuring the same accuracy;
  • ii. gas ratio calculation: provide more details on formula because it appears as a mass ratio rather than an energy ratio

47. In response to TNO comments, AEGPL observes:

• a. Definitions: a common definition of bi-fuel vehicle is agreeable and even better;
• b. Minimum limit of gas use: the choice of a gas limit instead of a petrol limit was due to the fact that petrol consumption is very low and, furthermore, it would be difficult to be measured with simple instruments, in a bench test; data will be collected to promote the value of 80%;
• c. Energy ratio calculation:
  • i. Gas mass measurement: allowing a possible alternative method with the same accuracy is agreeable; with particular reference to mass flow metering, AEGPL points out that the reliability of such type of instrument – on gas – seems not proven yet in transient conditions and, furthermore, its positioning and installation, in a bench test, might raise some problems, likely affecting reproducibility of the measurement method;
  • ii. Gas ratio calculation: it is an energy ratio where the heating value of gas has been deleted at the numerator and denominator; in fact, FC is conservatively determined considering the cycle is driven exclusively on gas;

48. There is an extended discussion about the definitions now specifying a Type A and Type B bi-fuel; the test procedures;; the possible combination of the current provision allowing only 60 seconds running on petrol and the new one setting an energy percentage limit;

49. Consensus: AEGPL will come with a new proposal taking into account the following:

• a. Definition of bi-fuel vehicles will be revised in accordance with TNO proposal;
• b. Minimum limit for gas use: data supporting 80% value will be collected and provided to the group;
• c. Energy ratio calculation:
  • i. Gas mass measurement: a safeguard clause allowing different but equivalent methods will be added;
  • ii. Gas ratio calculation: a detailed demonstration of the formula will be circulated to the group; an analytical explanation of the conservative approach of the formula when using FC calculated on gas only will be sent to the group;
• d. Petrol use in gas mode: a proposal aimed at combining the current time-based limit and the new energy-based cap will be submitted to the group;

50. There is a request (in abstentia) from Mr. Radzimirski about provisions in the scope of the regulation that must be considered, but this will be brought up again in a future meeting.

40. Mr. Piccolo (AEGPL). They proposed new definitions of bi-mix fuel vehicles would be included in the definition of bi-fuel, including now two types: Type A (traditional bi-fuel) and Type B where gas and petrol can be used simultaneously. Proposal being made to determine the amount of gas used in the system would be to weigh the gas tank before and after the vehicle test. They have attempted to align R.115 and R.83 for this bi-fuel technology that already is being used in vehicles. He asks for comments from the group for the next GFV session.

41. Mr. Rijnders asks to have written comments on these documents, with the idea of having a new, formal document ready for January 2012. The Types A and B also take on a similar framework as the recommended definitions of the dual-fuel engines.

42. Mr. Piccolo indicates their intention that the definition be wider than narrow, to allow simultaneous use with LPG provided that the LPG in energy unit is equal or higher than 80%.

43. Mr. Radzimirski this is an important amendment to R.115 and as soon as possible. He takes issue that according to the Annex 6 the energy is measured and not the mass. This editorial correction should be introduced.

44. Mr. Rijnders believes the energy and mass difference should be aligned. He asks Mr. Radzimirski to provide written clarification and comments for the next GFV meeting.

45. Mr. Martinez (European Commission) asks if it is possible to make a more precise definition of Type 2B, in order to specify the percentage of gas mixture. It should be technically feasible so not to leave loopholes in the regulation.

46. Mr. Duvielguerbigny (AEGPL) says these amendments are due to requests by their members’ desires.

47. Mr.Piccolo didn’t want to make a long definition. They will try to move the 80% concept to the definition to avoid any other conflicts.

48. Mr. Dekker prefers to have a Type C to add to the definitions rather than change the current definition.

49. Mr. Martinez (European Commission) agrees that the 80% should be put in the definition.

50. Mr. Duvielguerbigny says we agree on the principles and its urgency, and that a newly amended formal document would be prepared for passage at the January 2012 GRPE.

51. Mr. Rijnders agrees that the GFV will work on this new proposal with a perspective to prepare the formal document for January.

52. Mr. Castagnini (AEB) reminds the group that they had also submitted another GFV-corrected document prior to the meeting to include natural gas (CNG).

53. Mr. Rijnders asks for written proposals so that a combined formal document can be developed and discussed at the next GFV.

4. (Jean François Renaudin, Co-Chairman of the Heavy Duty Dual-Fuel Task Force reports on the results of the series of recent meetings. (Document GFV-14-05)

5. Definitions for dual-fuel engines and dual-fuel vehicles were reviewed on 10th June and clarified.

6. GFV recommends these definitions be included in the core of regulation R49, not in the dual-fuel annexes. The definitions would have to be repeated in the various regulations to ensure they are harmonized. There has been the suggestion to develop a Special Resolution dealing with definitions.

7. An engine that can operate or idle solely on diesel fuel cannot be considered as a HDDF Type 1A. It shall be considered as HDDF Type 2A.

8. In case of HDDF Type 1A engines the demonstration test to show that the engine does not operate on Diesel only at idle, shall be agreed with the Approval authority and described in the report.

9. Amendments will be proposed to R.85: To be noted an amendment proposal that does not affect solely Dual-fuel vehicles

10. EURO VI NOx control measures shall apply “mutatis mutandis” to HDDF engines.

11. In-vehicle indictors to alert the driver in what mode the engine is functioning as well when the gas tank is becoming empty. (The value is left to the manufacturer)

12. An operability restriction is activated as soon as a lack of gas supply is detected for whatever reason (tank becoming empty; interruption of the gas supply; etc.)

13. Conditions for the PEMS test are established (Portable Emissions Measurement System).

14. Euro V specific issues for PEMS: The eventual need and content has not yet been addressed by GFV; Issue to be solved before considering any retrofitting rule of HDDF engines.

15. GFV recommends EURO V HDDF Type 2A engines not be subject to certification according to R49 at this stage

16. Euro VI LNG Tanks. A sub-group on LNG is being established following a meeting on 16th May 2011. The work on ISO standards is likely to be completed one year after the D-F certification procedures are completed.

17. The time table for work and completion is presented. The project is on-time for completion so far by 2012, with approval hopefully at WP29 November 2012. But there will be a delay in amending R.115.

18. Mr. Rijnders asks if there are specific points that require GFV guidance or input.

19. Mr. Renaudin asks to agree on the definitions and that an attempt must be made to harmonize the definitions of the various fuel and vehicle alternatives. He recommends that the GFV provide an overview of the specific gaseous fuel definitions used currently. Then we can avoid having other definitions in other regulations or working groups. Input from Japan and the United States would be welcome. Also, Mr. Rijnders asks that the GRPE can take up such an effort to avoid misunderstanding between various regulations. Mr. Rijnders asks if the group supports such an effort.

20. Mr. Coleman supports the effort to consolidate definitions across EC and worldwide groups. He welcomes the GFV initiative. Though there is a delicate balance for the GFV in not exceeding its mandate to other fuels, but the GFV attempt is an excellent one.

21. Mr. Radzimirski refers to GFV-14-03 definition, that is similar but different for the same class/category of vehicles.

22. Mr. Rijnders clarifies that we could look at the existing and developing regulations to ensure good correlation between the various documents.

23. Mr. Piccolo reminds the group that the context of the definitions in newly proposed amendments is for light duty vehicles and makes a distinction between ‘pure’ bi-fuel vehicles and a new type of system that refers to a bi-fuel Type B.

24. Mr. Rijnders indicates that dual-fuel refers more to diesel and gaseous fuels rather than petrol mixtures, and this may cause some confusion. Creating a ‘definitional overview’ will help create workable definitions. He looks to AEGPL and NGV Global (as well as NGVA Europe) to review the definitions at this moment. Also Japan and the US are encouraged to provide their definitions.

25. Mr. Hubert suggests that we take care which regulations this work could ultimately be inserted: Special Resolution 1, the 1958 agreement, or other regulatory documents.

26. Mr. Renaudin asks also for the support from GRPE by creating an informal document.

27. Mr. Crawford (Westport Innovations) thanks Mr. Renaudin for his presentation and asks for clarification about Type 1A D-F and looking at different operating modes and the service mode specifically, that the engine should be continued to operate (i.e. in off-road areas near railways, or in an emergency situation).

28. Mr. Renaudin replies that operation on the diesel mode remains possible, in particular for safety situations, in the case of ‘no gas’ in the system (for whatever reason).

29. Mr. Dekker (TNO) says that the principles of R-85 document might be ready but that a formal document is not ready to be prepared. He asks if future modifications are possible and that any modifications to R.83 should be raised with GRPE due to the complication of R.83.

30. Mr. Renaudin will prepare an informal document for GRPE to make comments to GFV on various definitions from members and contracting parties.

31. Mr. Renaudin: We need GFV guidance on Euro V, Type 2A engines not be subject to certification according to R.49 at this stage (also to understand the OBD requirements). He strongly suggests that only Type 2B engines be used (also in Euro V) since in the diesel mode these engines could be fully compliant. If a new Type 2A engine is developed then we could consider specific amendments suited to these types.

32. Mr. Crawford is interested for Westport to have certification at Euro V with their Type 1A engine, and would like to see it included.

33. Mr. Renaudin indicates that the same type of operating restrictions for Type 1A but that issues associated with Type 2A engines (running low on urea, for example) is difficult to handle.

34. Mr. Dekker says that Type 1A and Type 2B D-F engines could be certified with Euro V.

35. Mr. Renaudin recommends for GRPE we would like to exclude Type 2A, as well as Type 1B. Type 1A should be included and that they still are working on this.

36. Mr. Rijnders agrees to restrict Type 2A but we have to see yet if other types have to be restricted or excluded, depending on R.49 in the Euro V stage. Next GFV Task Force has to discuss this item again.

37. The draft time plan to amend R.49 in the Euro V stage and the current timetable for D-F would or would not conflict with the timetable of the Commission.

38. Commission is working on draft regulations for R.49 Euro VI. He doesn’t think it is a major problem. But the Commission is in close contact with the D-F Task Force and they will attempt to include some of the provisions of Euro VI into R.49.

39. Mr. Rijnders appreciates the support and work of the Commission and is pleased about the cooperation so that the transposition of Euro VI into R.49 will go smoothly.

42. AEGPL points out the modifications made to the doc GFV-15-02 with respect of doc GFV-14-02, in line with the two comments received in the previous meeting of the group:

• a. Insertion of 80% energy minimum limit for LPG use in the definition of “bi-fuel type B vehicle” (see point 49 of the minutes GFV-14-06)
• b. Simultaneous extension of both proposals (R 115 and R83) to CNG (see point 53 of the minutes GFV-14-06)

43. NGVAE raises the issue of how to measure the actual gas consumption of such a system. In this definition, if the vehicle runs on less than 80% then the vehicle could not be homologated. In discussion, it is determined that the regulatory language can include flexibility in the methods of measuring the fuel consumption under this vehicle definition.

44. NGVAE raises a concern about the definition of a Bi-Fuel Type B being confused with a dual-fuel. NGV Global indicates that they share this same concern.

45. AEGPL highlights that dual-fuel definitions, as finally proposed, regard only diesel-gas vehicles, while the definitions under discussion relate only to petrol-gas cases, thus remaining in the topic of positive-ignition engines (same driving cycle, same emission limits,etc.);

46. TNO makes several comments and proposals:

• a. Definitions: rephrase the bi-fuel general definition in order to re-include bi-fuel Type A and B in the same “category” of vehicles;
• b. Minimum limit of gas use: convert it into a maximum limit of petrol use, and motivate the value of 80% that seems too low:
• c. Energy ratio calculation:
  • i. gas mass measurement: provide a suitable alternative method to static weighing of gas container – such as mass flow metering – ensuring the same accuracy;
  • ii. gas ratio calculation: provide more details on formula because it appears as a mass ratio rather than an energy ratio

47. In response to TNO comments, AEGPL observes:

• a. Definitions: a common definition of bi-fuel vehicle is agreeable and even better;
• b. Minimum limit of gas use: the choice of a gas limit instead of a petrol limit was due to the fact that petrol consumption is very low and, furthermore, it would be difficult to be measured with simple instruments, in a bench test; data will be collected to promote the value of 80%;
• c. Energy ratio calculation:
  • i. Gas mass measurement: allowing a possible alternative method with the same accuracy is agreeable; with particular reference to mass flow metering, AEGPL points out that the reliability of such type of instrument – on gas – seems not proven yet in transient conditions and, furthermore, its positioning and installation, in a bench test, might raise some problems, likely affecting reproducibility of the measurement method;
  • ii. Gas ratio calculation: it is an energy ratio where the heating value of gas has been deleted at the numerator and denominator; in fact, FC is conservatively determined considering the cycle is driven exclusively on gas;

48. There is an extended discussion about the definitions now specifying a Type A and Type B bi-fuel; the test procedures;; the possible combination of the current provision allowing only 60 seconds running on petrol and the new one setting an energy percentage limit;

49. Consensus: AEGPL will come with a new proposal taking into account the following:

• a. Definition of bi-fuel vehicles will be revised in accordance with TNO proposal;
• b. Minimum limit for gas use: data supporting 80% value will be collected and provided to the group;
• c. Energy ratio calculation:
  • i. Gas mass measurement: a safeguard clause allowing different but equivalent methods will be added;
  • ii. Gas ratio calculation: a detailed demonstration of the formula will be circulated to the group; an analytical explanation of the conservative approach of the formula when using FC calculated on gas only will be sent to the group;
• d. Petrol use in gas mode: a proposal aimed at combining the current time-based limit and the new energy-based cap will be submitted to the group;

50. There is a request (in abstentia) from Mr. Radzimirski about provisions in the scope of the regulation that must be considered, but this will be brought up again in a future meeting.

42. AEGPL points out the modifications made to the doc GFV-15-02 with respect of doc GFV-14-02, in line with the two comments received in the previous meeting of the group:

• a. Insertion of 80% energy minimum limit for LPG use in the definition of “bi-fuel type B vehicle” (see point 49 of the minutes GFV-14-06)
• b. Simultaneous extension of both proposals (R 115 and R83) to CNG (see point 53 of the minutes GFV-14-06)

43. NGVAE raises the issue of how to measure the actual gas consumption of such a system. In this definition, if the vehicle runs on less than 80% then the vehicle could not be homologated. In discussion, it is determined that the regulatory language can include flexibility in the methods of measuring the fuel consumption under this vehicle definition.

44. NGVAE raises a concern about the definition of a Bi-Fuel Type B being confused with a dual-fuel. NGV Global indicates that they share this same concern.

45. AEGPL highlights that dual-fuel definitions, as finally proposed, regard only diesel-gas vehicles, while the definitions under discussion relate only to petrol-gas cases, thus remaining in the topic of positive-ignition engines (same driving cycle, same emission limits,etc.);

46. TNO makes several comments and proposals:

• a. Definitions: rephrase the bi-fuel general definition in order to re-include bi-fuel Type A and B in the same “category” of vehicles;
• b. Minimum limit of gas use: convert it into a maximum limit of petrol use, and motivate the value of 80% that seems too low:
• c. Energy ratio calculation:
  • i. gas mass measurement: provide a suitable alternative method to static weighing of gas container – such as mass flow metering – ensuring the same accuracy;
  • ii. gas ratio calculation: provide more details on formula because it appears as a mass ratio rather than an energy ratio

47. In response to TNO comments, AEGPL observes:

• a. Definitions: a common definition of bi-fuel vehicle is agreeable and even better;
• b. Minimum limit of gas use: the choice of a gas limit instead of a petrol limit was due to the fact that petrol consumption is very low and, furthermore, it would be difficult to be measured with simple instruments, in a bench test; data will be collected to promote the value of 80%;
• c. Energy ratio calculation:
  • i. Gas mass measurement: allowing a possible alternative method with the same accuracy is agreeable; with particular reference to mass flow metering, AEGPL points out that the reliability of such type of instrument – on gas – seems not proven yet in transient conditions and, furthermore, its positioning and installation, in a bench test, might raise some problems, likely affecting reproducibility of the measurement method;
  • ii. Gas ratio calculation: it is an energy ratio where the heating value of gas has been deleted at the numerator and denominator; in fact, FC is conservatively determined considering the cycle is driven exclusively on gas;

48. There is an extended discussion about the definitions now specifying a Type A and Type B bi-fuel; the test procedures;; the possible combination of the current provision allowing only 60 seconds running on petrol and the new one setting an energy percentage limit;

49. Consensus: AEGPL will come with a new proposal taking into account the following:

• a. Definition of bi-fuel vehicles will be revised in accordance with TNO proposal;
• b. Minimum limit for gas use: data supporting 80% value will be collected and provided to the group;
• c. Energy ratio calculation:
  • i. Gas mass measurement: a safeguard clause allowing different but equivalent methods will be added;
  • ii. Gas ratio calculation: a detailed demonstration of the formula will be circulated to the group; an analytical explanation of the conservative approach of the formula when using FC calculated on gas only will be sent to the group;
• d. Petrol use in gas mode: a proposal aimed at combining the current time-based limit and the new energy-based cap will be submitted to the group;

50. There is a request (in abstentia) from Mr. Radzimirski about provisions in the scope of the regulation that must be considered, but this will be brought up again in a future meeting.

21. The expert from Germany introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2011/26 proposing to clarify the provisions of Regulation No. 67. The expert from AEGPL agreed on the principles proposed and underlined the need for additional amendments as reflected in GRSG-101-22. GRSG welcomed the comments received and agreed to reconsider this issue at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by Germany.

Mr Rijnders indicated that the documents GRPE 63-5 (R.83) and 63-06 (R.115) are informal documents for this GRPE.

Mr. Piccolo indicated that the group decided to look at a re-definition of bi-fuel vehicles to include new technologies making a more intensive use of gasoline in gaseous fuel vehicles, instead of providing ad-hoc provisions for gas systems intended to be fitted on direct injection petrol engines, in retrofit or new applications.

A common requirement for all types of systems has been defined: the use of petrol simultaneously with gas during the Type I test cycle is permitted provided that the energy consumption of the gaseous fuel is higher than 80% of the total amount of energy consumed during the test.

A gas energy ratio has been preferred to a petrol one since gas consumption measurement has been considered easier and more accurate.

Mr. Rijnders indicated that the proposals were agreed in the last GFV meeting but ask again if there are additional comments. Mr. Tappe (CLEPA/Bosch) notes that the present paragraph 3.2.5. of Annex 12 permits, within the maximum time frame of 60secs, the use of petrol during the entire test, while the proposed amendments would allow the use of pure petrol exclusively in the start-up phase;

Mr. Tappe pointed out that there are systems using the 60 seconds of petrol split over the cycle and not necessarily only in the starting phase.

He proposes to re-extend this possibility also to the rest of the driving cycle, adding the wording “only or” in the paragraph 3.2.5 of Annex 12 just after the first part of the sentence: “Without prejudice to paragraph 6.4.1.3. of Annex 4a, during the Type I test it is permissible to use petrol….”.

TUV remarks that recalculation of dilution factors might be needed because they do not take into consideration the use of different fuels.

Mr. Rijnders indicated that presently recalculation the use of petrol up to 60 seconds is not considered because the effect is negligible. Only for simultaneous use of the fuels is a recalculation is introduced. The dilution factors as well as fuel density of gas only are used in the calculations of the final emissions in gram/km, since these represent the “worst case” conditions. This basic assumption generates emission values (g/km) higher than those that would be generated by weighted factors and a mean density.

Mr. Piccolo brings forth document GFV-16-02, where there are detailed explanations on why the present calculation procedures of emissions, based only on gas parameters are not affected by the proposed amendments and do not need to be adapted.

Oliver Eberhardt (BMU, Germany) asked why extend the possibility to increase the use of petrol.

Mr. Rijnders explained the technical reason: in the gas mode, petrol injectors placed directly in the combustion chamber (direct injection) could be over-heated if not cooled by the passage of some petrol.

Mr. Erario asked if there will be an amendment from CLEPA because he is concerned there already is a document on the table for GRPE.

Mr. Rijnders indicates that if this point should be agreed here, it can be included in the informal document as proposed by GFV. Otherwise it would have to be included as an amendment from CLEPA.

It is decided that CLEPA and AEGPL will work together to create amended language that will be included in the GRPE document as a GFV ‘amendment’.

The proposal of AEGPL aims to introduce modifications to bi-fuel vehicle definitions in order to permit the simultaneous use of gas and petrol in the gas mode:

• • To avoid over-use of petrol, provisions are provided to limit its use in duration (60 seconds maximum in starting-up) and/or amount (minimum limit to gas energy ratio);
• • A calculation method for gas energy ratio is provided basing on the conservative assumption that only gas is burned during the driving cycle (see GFV-16-02 for technical details); this assumption is in line with the present requirements for fuel consumption (FC) as well as for pollutant emissions, even if a certain use of petrol is already allowed (max 60 seconds over the cycle);
• • As for pollutants, no adaptation of correction factors are needed just in force of the conservative hypothesis that the test cycle is driven only on gas; the errors committed are also negligible (see GFV-16-02 for technical details).

TNO believes that the combined application of a maximum timeframe for starting-up the engine and a minimum limit to the gas energy ratio over the cycle is clearer and more stringent, closing the loopholes that the present regulations offers when setting only a time limit.

During the discussion it is highlighted that, according to the proposals, the requirement on the gas energy ratio would be applied to all the system types, so even to those that do notneed to use petrol beyond the start-up phase: the addition of a safeclause derogating such systems is evaluated;

With regard to the involvement of NG vehicles in the proposed adaptation of the two regulations, it is noted that also NG bi-fuel vehicles – factory built or retrofit – basically equipped with a direct injection petrol engine requires the use of a gas system capable to keep the petrol injectors cool, as with the LPG systems. The result can be achieved either by NG direct injection with the same petrol injectors (LNG direct injection is under development) or managing a limited use of petrol in the gas mode under certain circumstances, i.e. the solution in question;

Question for GFV: Do we have a positive feeling about the proposal to make it an informal document for the next GRPE or as a second option, to make it a formal document for the GRPE in June.

After discussion about the procedural aspects of introducing this new approach advocated by AEGPL and having been considered in-depth by the GFV, it is decided that the document will be presented as a GFV informal document in the next GRPE. It is intended, therefore, to involve more input from others not participating in the GFV directly and attempt to explain the new approaches to achieve support for it. The informal document should be provided to the GFV in the next weeks for final approval; Mr. Rijnders will send it to the GRPE secretariat to submit to the GRPE January meeting.

The proposal of AEGPL aims to introduce modifications to bi-fuel vehicle definitions in order to permit the simultaneous use of gas and petrol in the gas mode:

• • To avoid over-use of petrol, provisions are provided to limit its use in duration (60 seconds maximum in starting-up) and/or amount (minimum limit to gas energy ratio);
• • A calculation method for gas energy ratio is provided basing on the conservative assumption that only gas is burned during the driving cycle (see GFV-16-02 for technical details); this assumption is in line with the present requirements for fuel consumption (FC) as well as for pollutant emissions, even if a certain use of petrol is already allowed (max 60 seconds over the cycle);
• • As for pollutants, no adaptation of correction factors are needed just in force of the conservative hypothesis that the test cycle is driven only on gas; the errors committed are also negligible (see GFV-16-02 for technical details).

TNO believes that the combined application of a maximum timeframe for starting-up the engine and a minimum limit to the gas energy ratio over the cycle is clearer and more stringent, closing the loopholes that the present regulations offers when setting only a time limit.

During the discussion it is highlighted that, according to the proposals, the requirement on the gas energy ratio would be applied to all the system types, so even to those that do notneed to use petrol beyond the start-up phase: the addition of a safeclause derogating such systems is evaluated;

With regard to the involvement of NG vehicles in the proposed adaptation of the two regulations, it is noted that also NG bi-fuel vehicles – factory built or retrofit – basically equipped with a direct injection petrol engine requires the use of a gas system capable to keep the petrol injectors cool, as with the LPG systems. The result can be achieved either by NG direct injection with the same petrol injectors (LNG direct injection is under development) or managing a limited use of petrol in the gas mode under certain circumstances, i.e. the solution in question;

Question for GFV: Do we have a positive feeling about the proposal to make it an informal document for the next GRPE or as a second option, to make it a formal document for the GRPE in June.

After discussion about the procedural aspects of introducing this new approach advocated by AEGPL and having been considered in-depth by the GFV, it is decided that the document will be presented as a GFV informal document in the next GRPE. It is intended, therefore, to involve more input from others not participating in the GFV directly and attempt to explain the new approaches to achieve support for it. The informal document should be provided to the GFV in the next weeks for final approval; Mr. Rijnders will send it to the GRPE secretariat to submit to the GRPE January meeting.

The proposal of AEGPL aims to introduce modifications to bi-fuel vehicle definitions in order to permit the simultaneous use of gas and petrol in the gas mode:

• • To avoid over-use of petrol, provisions are provided to limit its use in duration (60 seconds maximum in starting-up) and/or amount (minimum limit to gas energy ratio);
• • A calculation method for gas energy ratio is provided basing on the conservative assumption that only gas is burned during the driving cycle (see GFV-16-02 for technical details); this assumption is in line with the present requirements for fuel consumption (FC) as well as for pollutant emissions, even if a certain use of petrol is already allowed (max 60 seconds over the cycle);
• • As for pollutants, no adaptation of correction factors are needed just in force of the conservative hypothesis that the test cycle is driven only on gas; the errors committed are also negligible (see GFV-16-02 for technical details).

TNO believes that the combined application of a maximum timeframe for starting-up the engine and a minimum limit to the gas energy ratio over the cycle is clearer and more stringent, closing the loopholes that the present regulations offers when setting only a time limit.

During the discussion it is highlighted that, according to the proposals, the requirement on the gas energy ratio would be applied to all the system types, so even to those that do notneed to use petrol beyond the start-up phase: the addition of a safeclause derogating such systems is evaluated;

With regard to the involvement of NG vehicles in the proposed adaptation of the two regulations, it is noted that also NG bi-fuel vehicles – factory built or retrofit – basically equipped with a direct injection petrol engine requires the use of a gas system capable to keep the petrol injectors cool, as with the LPG systems. The result can be achieved either by NG direct injection with the same petrol injectors (LNG direct injection is under development) or managing a limited use of petrol in the gas mode under certain circumstances, i.e. the solution in question;

Question for GFV: Do we have a positive feeling about the proposal to make it an informal document for the next GRPE or as a second option, to make it a formal document for the GRPE in June.

After discussion about the procedural aspects of introducing this new approach advocated by AEGPL and having been considered in-depth by the GFV, it is decided that the document will be presented as a GFV informal document in the next GRPE. It is intended, therefore, to involve more input from others not participating in the GFV directly and attempt to explain the new approaches to achieve support for it. The informal document should be provided to the GFV in the next weeks for final approval; Mr. Rijnders will send it to the GRPE secretariat to submit to the GRPE January meeting.

Submission from AEGPL to correct the proposal from the Netherlands to amend UN R67 that would permit approval of higher pressure LPG direct injection components like the fuel pump, the fuel rail, the injectors and a safety valve leading back fuel from the high pressure parts to the fuel tank.

22. The expert from Germany proposed to clarify the provisions of UN Regulation No. 67 and introduced GRSG-102-20 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2011/26. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-102-33 and GRSG-102-13 containing additional amendments to the Regulation. The proposals received a number of comments. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSG-102-13, GRSG-102-20 and GRSG-102-33 with official symbols.

AEGPL concerns regarding the proposal (document GRSG-102-20) to revise type approval provisions related to hoses and hose assemblies under UN R67.

22. The expert from Germany proposed to clarify the provisions of UN Regulation No. 67 and introduced GRSG-102-20 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2011/26. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-102-33 and GRSG-102-13 containing additional amendments to the Regulation. The proposals received a number of comments. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session and requested the secretariat to distribute GRSG-102-13, GRSG-102-20 and GRSG-102-33 with official symbols.

Proposal from the European Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association (AEGPL) to add values for the aerostatic pressure to be reached during the external leakage test of Class 0 components, in line with the provisions of paragraph 5.3.

20. The Chair recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/17 (tabled by AEGPL) clarifying the provisions on the aerostatic pressure during the external leakage test of Class 0 components. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-103-24 to amend and correct the current text of UN Regulation No. 67. GRSG adopted both documents, as reproduced in Annex II to this report, and requested the secretariat to submit the amendments to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 12 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67.

21. The expert from Germany presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/18 clarifying the provisions of UN Regulation No. 67 with respect to hose assemblies. The expert from AEGPL supplemented the proposal with additional amendments as listed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/19. GRSG noted some concerns and decided on the need to further clarify the responsibility and conformity of production procedures. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by Germany. GRSG recommended keeping ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/18 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/19 on the agenda as reference documents.

22. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/24 proposing new requirements for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) fuel selection systems. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-103-06 amending the proposed paragraphs. GRSG noted general support and some comments. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by AEGPL/CLEPA, taking into the comments received.

Proposal from AEGPL to revise the text proposed by Germany (GRSG/2012/18) (to clarify approvals of hoses and couplings) in order to preserve the possibility to type-approve flexible hoses separately and prior to hose assembly approval.

20. The Chair recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/17 (tabled by AEGPL) clarifying the provisions on the aerostatic pressure during the external leakage test of Class 0 components. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-103-24 to amend and correct the current text of UN Regulation No. 67. GRSG adopted both documents, as reproduced in Annex II to this report, and requested the secretariat to submit the amendments to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 12 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67.

21. The expert from Germany presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/18 clarifying the provisions of UN Regulation No. 67 with respect to hose assemblies. The expert from AEGPL supplemented the proposal with additional amendments as listed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/19. GRSG noted some concerns and decided on the need to further clarify the responsibility and conformity of production procedures. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by Germany. GRSG recommended keeping ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/18 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/19 on the agenda as reference documents.

22. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/24 proposing new requirements for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) fuel selection systems. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-103-06 amending the proposed paragraphs. GRSG noted general support and some comments. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by AEGPL/CLEPA, taking into the comments received.

AEGPL revisions to the CLEPA proposal (GRSG/2012/24) to introduce type-approval requirements for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) fuel selection systems.

20. The Chair recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/17 (tabled by AEGPL) clarifying the provisions on the aerostatic pressure during the external leakage test of Class 0 components. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-103-24 to amend and correct the current text of UN Regulation No. 67. GRSG adopted both documents, as reproduced in Annex II to this report, and requested the secretariat to submit the amendments to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration at their March 2013 sessions as draft Supplement 12 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67.

21. The expert from Germany presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/18 clarifying the provisions of UN Regulation No. 67 with respect to hose assemblies. The expert from AEGPL supplemented the proposal with additional amendments as listed in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/19. GRSG noted some concerns and decided on the need to further clarify the responsibility and conformity of production procedures. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by Germany. GRSG recommended keeping ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/18 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/19 on the agenda as reference documents.

22. The expert from CLEPA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2012/24 proposing new requirements for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) fuel selection systems. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-103-06 amending the proposed paragraphs. GRSG noted general support and some comments. GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by AEGPL/CLEPA, taking into the comments received.

AEGPL comments on the proposed amendments to UN R67 and UN R110 with regard to the gas ECU type-approval and start & stop systems.

29. This represents a correction in the formula in Annex 6A and 6B (see Document ECE/TRANS/WP 29/2012/109), respectively for the calculation of Glpg and Gcng refer to fuel consumption (FC) mean as defined in paragraphs 6.1.2.4.3.2 (LPG) and 6.2.2.4.3.2 (CNG)

30. Mr. Dekker stated that this is something new (he recalls that FCnorm is not defined in the Regulation 101). This would correct the problem that the ‘mean’ relates to the average on all the test vehicles while ‘norm’ refers to the specific parent vehicle .

31. Mr. Rijnders suggested that GFV have an informal document for the June GRPE session. This gives GFV time to consider the change and if there are no comments the informal document amending the WP29 document ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2012/109 would be adopted in WP29 158th session.

32. Mr. Castagnini introduced a proposal to create a new UNECE regulation for the provision of HDDF retrofit systems type approval. The task would be to draft a new regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of specific LPG (liquefied petroleum gases) or NG (compressed natural gas/bio-methane/liquefied natural gas) dual fuel retrofit systems to be installed in heavy duty vehicles equipped with compression ignition engines. The new regulation might also apply to HDDF retrofit systems for agricultural and forestry tractors and non-road mobile machinery equipped with compression ignition engines.

33. Scope applies to heavy duty dual-fuel retrofit systems for use of natural gas or LPG in compression ignition engines of vehicles of categories M2, M3, and N approved according to R49. Euro III and older engines are excluded. Mr. Castagnini asked the group to agree to extend the scope of the regulation to dual-fuel retrofit systems intended to be fitted on CI engines having a power rating higher than 18 kW but not more than 560 kW installed in non-road mobile machinery (variable, fixed speed or installed on category T vehicles).

34. Definitions are provided for ‘Specific LPG (NG) Heavy Duty Dual-fuel (HDDF) retrofit system of an approved type; ‘dual-fuel retrofit system type; and dual-fuel engine.

35. Main dual-fuel definitions are taken from OEM dual fuel R49 definitions. Other definitions: ‘original engine,’’ ‘the engine family’, parent engine and ‘application range.’ (see document GFV 25-04) refer to specific retrofit system issues. Only D-F retrofit system types 1-B, 2-B and 3-B would be allowed.

36. The HDDF retrofit system shall be tested on the parent engine and the type approval refers to all engines belonging to the engine family. The application range can be extended to other engines using simplified procedures (for example PEMS test).

37. Regarding parent engine exhaust emissions, the test consists in the same cycles as in original R49 type approval, performed in both diesel and dual-fuel mode
38. Durability and OBD requirements are defined.

39. Instruction manuals must include an installation manual and a user/s manual.

Comments on Mr. Castagnini’s presentation

40. Mr. Whelan (CAP): Developing a competent retrofit system is a very expensive process (in the range of a million dollars). The retrofit will not perform to the same degree as an OEM system. Thus, if all the requirements are to be fulfilled, the retrofit systems could be too expensive to get into the market.

41. Mr. Rijnders clarified that a completely new regulation is recommended as opposed to amending R.115.

42. Mr. Del Alamo raises the issue that a new Stakeholder Consultation at the European Commission (comments due 8 April 2013) on the revision of Directive 97/68/EC on Non-Road Mobile Machinery includes dual-fuel engines. He clarifies that that this would apply to new, OEM vehicles and not to retrofits.

43. Mr. Renaudin supported the idea of creating a new and separate retrofit regulation but first for road vehicles and at a later time to include non-road machinery. He suggested to write the new regulation in a modular structure, so there could be common dual-fuel principles and different annexes for different applications. For example, a separate annex for non-road vehicles (if it is accepted) should be developed at a later time without affecting other parts of the regulation.

44. Mr. Piccolo preferred that the dual-fuel retrofit regulatory work begins in parallel to the current dual-fuel regulatory work.

45. Mr. Rijnders expressed interest in supporting additional dual-fuel work but stated that the non-road machinery is not within the mandate of GFV. Mr. Dekker agreed that dealing with non-road machinery is completely different than over-the-road vehicles.

46. Mr. Renaudin suggested that the scope also could include the approval of a retrofit system for a single engine separate from the vehicle. Mr. Castagnini observed that currently there is no request from the industry for this solution, but it can be taken into account if it doesn’t delay other parts.

47. After many views were aired and discussed, Mr. Rijnders suggested that the debate be continued later in the GFV meeting (the second meeting day) so that the HDDF discussion can proceed since the work on the amendment to R.49 is on a very tight deadline and that GFV approval of the HDDF work is required, as a priority.

Presentation on the aims of the proposal, to be considered at the June 2013 GRPE session, for a new UN Regulation concerning LPG (liquefied petroleum gases) or NG (compressed natural gas/bio‐methane/liquefied natural gas) dual fuel retrofit systems to be installed in heavy duty diesel applications.

13. In earlier discussions it was decided that the heavy duty D-F retrofit regulation would be created as an entirely new regulation and not part of an existing one (for example, R.115). Also discussed was the idea to expand the regulation to apply to off-road and agricultural vehicles.

14. Alberto Castagnini (AEB) made a revised PowerPoint presentation on behalf of AEGPL, based on the originally circulated presentation from GFV 26, which was not made due to lack of time (based on GFV 26-07, retrofit heavy duty dual-fuel systems). The revised version now includes agricultural and forestry tractors as well as non-road mobile machinery in the title.

15. Mr. Rijnders commented that we will have to take into consideration at first only the HD road vehicles, with other non-road vehicles in the regulation’s title to be considered at a later time. Other regulations covering these vehicles (or their engines) must be reviewed to see if they are impacted. Also we have to bring forth a suggested change that R.115 applies only to light-duty vehicles.

16. Mr. Renaudin agreed with this approach. He indicated that the new regulation should address the type approval of retrofitted engines rather than of retrofit systems because a gas retrofit system introduces several modifications to the original engine system, for instance , in comparison with Retrofit Emissions Control (REC) systems. Furthermore, there must be details and solid principals that apply to the other non-road vehicles and these may originate from the first round of retrofit regulations that will be created.

17. Mr Piccolo noted that also RECs -other than very simple passive filters- introduce relevant modifications to the engine system. Just for this reason, REC regulation provides proper requirements on that aspect as well as R 115 does in the case of gas retrofits. Retrofit-system-type-approval approach is applied in both regulations, and modifications to the original vehicle/engine are taken into account and properly validated. Mr. Piccolo added that a retrofitted engine would be considered as a new engine, i.e. a “new type”. Hence, at least in EU, the “new engine type” will have to comply with the latest emission stage, even if the base diesel engine conforms to previous stages, which he indicated could impede de facto the retrofitting.

18. As for the inclusion of non-road vehicles, Mr. Cagnoloti proposed to include them in the first instance due to the fact that the engines and operational principles are the same.

Draft new Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of specific LPG (liquefied petroleum gases) or NG (compressed natural gas/bio-methane/liquefied natural gas) dual fuel retrofit systems to be installed in heavy duty applications equipped with Compression Ignition engines.

Proposal to introduce new provisions into Regulation No. 67 for preventing the flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa in order to address a potential safety risk in bi-fuel or dual-fuel vehicles.

36. The expert from AEGPL introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2013/29 introducing new provisions for preventing a flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa. The expert from Germany preferred to insert more detailed test provisions to limit possible interpretations. GRSG noted a presentation by Italy on LPG direct injection technologies (GRSG-105-07) and a proposal for amendments to UN Regulation No. 67. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to resume consideration on this matter at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal jointly prepared by the experts from Germany and AEGPL.

30. Recalling the discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2013/29 at the previous session of GRSG, the expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-106-12 supplementing his proposal to insert into UN Regulation No. 67 new provisions for preventing a flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa. GRSG noted some comments. The expert from Germany raised a study reservation and preferred to organize, if necessary, a meeting with interested experts to further discuss this subject. GRSG agreed to resume consideration on this matter at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal jointly prepared by the experts from Germany and AEGPL.

Draft new Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of specific LPG (liquefied petroleum gases) or NG (compressed natural gas/bio-methane/liquefied natural gas) dual fuel retrofit systems to be installed in heavy duty vehicles, agricultural and forestry tractors and non road mobile machinery equipped with Compression Ignition engines

Overview and update on the proposed new regulation on retrofit dual-fuel systems for heavy-duty vehicles.

5. Mr. Castagnini began his presentation of document GFV 28-02 (PowerPoint format). He outlined the state of play of the current regulatory situation of the R.49 amendments for Euro V and Euro VI. The regulations apply to both CNG and LPG

6. Mr. Renaudin indicated that he is unable to discuss the substance of the materials being presented because they were put on the website only the night before the meeting. He also indicated that he cannot speak on substantive elements of the proposal. He can give personal comments on the text but nothing official from ACEA/OICA. He said that there are sensitive political issues that need to be resolved in principle before technical concepts and details can be discussed or resolved. He also indicated there are some good elements in the existing text that he has reviewed preliminarily, however, his sponsoring organizations have not been able to provide feedback or instructions to him but certainly we can brainstorm about the content of Mr. Castagnini’s proposal. Mr. Renaudin expected to be able to craft a first text together with other stakeholders and then start the real drafting work. He felt at this late stage elements of text presented today create a precedent to which ACEA has to react. Mr. Renaudin indicated formally that [neither] he (nor OICA) want to be in a negative position reacting to a text but really want to contribute to a text from the very beginning. Mr. Renaudin will not discuss the substance of text now.

7. Mr. Castagnini responded that the text is a work in progress and represents only a preliminary view of the proposed amendments and includes the agreed principles discussed since 25th GFV – Rome, March 2013.

8. Mr. Rijnders recognized the situation and the late timing of the documents on the website. Mr. Rijnders felt it was fair to have a free and open discussion of the important issues listed in the presentation from AEGPL in this GFV session today.

9. There was a general discussion among the participants about Mr. Renaudin’s concerns, whether a text can be discussed or only principles can be discussed. Mr. Martinez (European Commission) suggested that some of the principles already have been discussed and it is reasonable to discuss aspects of the text. Mr. Del Alamo (NGVA Europe) said that the text was produced in order to speed up the process. Mr. Seisler (NGV Global) supported this comment indicating that the text is a (English term) ‘straw man’ text for discussion only. Mr. Piccolo (AEGPL) added that there was no intention to by-pass any of the stakeholders by preparing a preliminary text. He indicated that the text is an opportunity to look at what is in the presentation of AEGPL/Mr. Castagnini. He said that the current drafting effort was an exercise to support brainstorming. (GAR note: a “straw man” is a proposal intended by its authors to stimulate discussion towards the development of a better proposal.)

10. Mr. Rijnders concluded that: 1) there still are some principles to be discussed, for example if the regulation would apply to non-road vehicles; and 2) there is a draft text and that the group should look at what can be used that will contribute to a common view and asked Mr. Castagini to continue his presentation.

11. Mr. Castagnini continued his presentation. He clarified that the text is a brainstorming exercise that represents a lot of work in order to get the drafting process started. It was agreed in the last GFV meeting to have the structure of a text for a new regulation. Many elements not presented also can be added in subsequent meetings of stakeholders. Mr. Castagnini recognized that they would want to consider approving a retrofit system installed on an existing vehicle as well as a retrofit of an engine that has been prepared and approved as a ‘retrofitted dual fuel engine’.

12. Further general discussion: Mr. Renaudin asked (Slide 3 of the presentation) if there are changes in the OEM engine that are included in the dual-fuel system. He referred in the presentation to the point 1) approval of a HDDF retrofit system versus point 2) approval of a retrofitted HDDF engine as a separate technical unit (as requested by OICA). There is a discussion amongst participants. Mr. Dekker suggested that there might be two levels of changes; one might be a change of components versus operational changes. Mr Piccolo proposed to focus only on changes (either material or operational) that can have an impact on diesel-mode, that can be regulated via performance tests aimed at ensuring that emissions in diesel mode remains compliant with the original emission stage. Mr. Renaudin made a distinction between the retrofit of an engine approved for dual-fuel operation versus an engine that is not been prepared (or type approved) for dual-fuel operation. Changes in the injection system, for example, might have dramatic consequences on the diesel operation. He felt that the type approval possibilities must be clarified and then we could look at the retrofit applications available to comply with the approval procedure and how the retrofit system will be added to the existing engine.

13. Mr. Martinez indicated that care must be taken that a retrofit engine/vehicle is not used to circumvent existing regulations (i.e. R.67) on a ‘new’ engine/vehicle, which is in agreement with comments of Mr. Renaudin. Mr. Seisler added that, in principle, the regulations must not be constructed so that the dual-fuel system suppliers are confronted with barriers so high that they cannot remain in business, still assuming that the converted vehicles are in full compliance with the emissions and other regulations. A principle is discussed (questioned) if the retrofitter becomes responsible for in-service conformity once the vehicle has been converted.

14. Mr. Castagnini (slide 4) said that two annexes to the regulation are planned: one for the retrofit system itself (currently drafted text) and one for the retrofitted engine (to be drafted later).

15. There is further discussion of a legal framework as to which company is required to be responsible for the vehicle once the engine is converted. Mr. Renaudin is concerned that the rules at the Euro VI level must be discussed. But it may make sense to develop the rules and legal requirements for Euro IV and V first, and then progress to Euro VI. There is agreement on this principle. Mr. Martinez suggested that the D-F retrofit topic be raised at an upcoming Motor Vehicle Emissions Group (MVEG) meeting. Given that the exclusion of vehicles from in- use conformity vehicle sampling refers to any type of major modifications, Mr. Piccolo asked to deal with this issue for any type of after-market modifications, thus, with all the representatives of this industry in the Motor Vehicle Emissions Group (MVEG) within the European Commission.

16. Issue of what D-F engine type would the retrofits be applicable. After discussion the general feeling is that the D-F retrofit would be applicable to Type B engines (not specifying categories 1,2 or 3).

17. Engine family: emissions tests shall be carried out on one or more engines (parent engine) of an engine family sharing pre-determined criteria. There is a broad discussion about type approval and being able to find an engine that already complies with the emission limits. But the converter will have to ensure that the converted vehicle is type approved. This may be a problem particularly for an older or out-of-date engine. This is a difficult issue to resolve at this time; and one that could continue to plague conversion system suppliers. The issue is left open for future consideration.

18. How to proceed with the development of the new regulation? Should the document structure be proposed first and then move to develop the text, or can they be done in parallel, in the first instance? The first concept is that the text will be in alignment to the UNECE regulatory style (as opposed to considering at first the European regulations). Mr. Rijnders suggested to Mr. Renaudin that he propose a structure, giving consideration to the work already provided by AEGPL (GFV-28-03). Mr. Castagnini added that the text they prepared reflects the content of his presentation today. It would be desirable to use or consider which text might be appropriate for future use. But the forward progress will rely on a first draft of a structure, considering some of the basic principles already discussed (and for future discussion), with ACEA/OICA suggesting appropriate text that also might take advantage of some of the AEGPL work that already has been done. At the next meeting of the HDDF TF we will start the writing of the new document, possibly considering useful elements of what already has been produced.

Initial draft version of the new Regulation on “uniform provisions concerning the approval of specific LPG (liquefied petroleum gases) or NG (compressed natural gas/bio-methane/liquefied natural gas) dual fuel retrofit systems and dual fuel retrofitted engines to be installed in heavy duty applications”.

5. Mr. Castagnini began his presentation of document GFV 28-02 (PowerPoint format). He outlined the state of play of the current regulatory situation of the R.49 amendments for Euro V and Euro VI. The regulations apply to both CNG and LPG

6. Mr. Renaudin indicated that he is unable to discuss the substance of the materials being presented because they were put on the website only the night before the meeting. He also indicated that he cannot speak on substantive elements of the proposal. He can give personal comments on the text but nothing official from ACEA/OICA. He said that there are sensitive political issues that need to be resolved in principle before technical concepts and details can be discussed or resolved. He also indicated there are some good elements in the existing text that he has reviewed preliminarily, however, his sponsoring organizations have not been able to provide feedback or instructions to him but certainly we can brainstorm about the content of Mr. Castagnini’s proposal. Mr. Renaudin expected to be able to craft a first text together with other stakeholders and then start the real drafting work. He felt at this late stage elements of text presented today create a precedent to which ACEA has to react. Mr. Renaudin indicated formally that [neither] he (nor OICA) want to be in a negative position reacting to a text but really want to contribute to a text from the very beginning. Mr. Renaudin will not discuss the substance of text now.

7. Mr. Castagnini responded that the text is a work in progress and represents only a preliminary view of the proposed amendments and includes the agreed principles discussed since 25th GFV – Rome, March 2013.

8. Mr. Rijnders recognized the situation and the late timing of the documents on the website. Mr. Rijnders felt it was fair to have a free and open discussion of the important issues listed in the presentation from AEGPL in this GFV session today.

9. There was a general discussion among the participants about Mr. Renaudin’s concerns, whether a text can be discussed or only principles can be discussed. Mr. Martinez (European Commission) suggested that some of the principles already have been discussed and it is reasonable to discuss aspects of the text. Mr. Del Alamo (NGVA Europe) said that the text was produced in order to speed up the process. Mr. Seisler (NGV Global) supported this comment indicating that the text is a (English term) ‘straw man’ text for discussion only. Mr. Piccolo (AEGPL) added that there was no intention to by-pass any of the stakeholders by preparing a preliminary text. He indicated that the text is an opportunity to look at what is in the presentation of AEGPL/Mr. Castagnini. He said that the current drafting effort was an exercise to support brainstorming. (GAR note: a “straw man” is a proposal intended by its authors to stimulate discussion towards the development of a better proposal.)

10. Mr. Rijnders concluded that: 1) there still are some principles to be discussed, for example if the regulation would apply to non-road vehicles; and 2) there is a draft text and that the group should look at what can be used that will contribute to a common view and asked Mr. Castagini to continue his presentation.

11. Mr. Castagnini continued his presentation. He clarified that the text is a brainstorming exercise that represents a lot of work in order to get the drafting process started. It was agreed in the last GFV meeting to have the structure of a text for a new regulation. Many elements not presented also can be added in subsequent meetings of stakeholders. Mr. Castagnini recognized that they would want to consider approving a retrofit system installed on an existing vehicle as well as a retrofit of an engine that has been prepared and approved as a ‘retrofitted dual fuel engine’.

12. Further general discussion: Mr. Renaudin asked (Slide 3 of the presentation) if there are changes in the OEM engine that are included in the dual-fuel system. He referred in the presentation to the point 1) approval of a HDDF retrofit system versus point 2) approval of a retrofitted HDDF engine as a separate technical unit (as requested by OICA). There is a discussion amongst participants. Mr. Dekker suggested that there might be two levels of changes; one might be a change of components versus operational changes. Mr Piccolo proposed to focus only on changes (either material or operational) that can have an impact on diesel-mode, that can be regulated via performance tests aimed at ensuring that emissions in diesel mode remains compliant with the original emission stage. Mr. Renaudin made a distinction between the retrofit of an engine approved for dual-fuel operation versus an engine that is not been prepared (or type approved) for dual-fuel operation. Changes in the injection system, for example, might have dramatic consequences on the diesel operation. He felt that the type approval possibilities must be clarified and then we could look at the retrofit applications available to comply with the approval procedure and how the retrofit system will be added to the existing engine.

13. Mr. Martinez indicated that care must be taken that a retrofit engine/vehicle is not used to circumvent existing regulations (i.e. R.67) on a ‘new’ engine/vehicle, which is in agreement with comments of Mr. Renaudin. Mr. Seisler added that, in principle, the regulations must not be constructed so that the dual-fuel system suppliers are confronted with barriers so high that they cannot remain in business, still assuming that the converted vehicles are in full compliance with the emissions and other regulations. A principle is discussed (questioned) if the retrofitter becomes responsible for in-service conformity once the vehicle has been converted.

14. Mr. Castagnini (slide 4) said that two annexes to the regulation are planned: one for the retrofit system itself (currently drafted text) and one for the retrofitted engine (to be drafted later).

15. There is further discussion of a legal framework as to which company is required to be responsible for the vehicle once the engine is converted. Mr. Renaudin is concerned that the rules at the Euro VI level must be discussed. But it may make sense to develop the rules and legal requirements for Euro IV and V first, and then progress to Euro VI. There is agreement on this principle. Mr. Martinez suggested that the D-F retrofit topic be raised at an upcoming Motor Vehicle Emissions Group (MVEG) meeting. Given that the exclusion of vehicles from in- use conformity vehicle sampling refers to any type of major modifications, Mr. Piccolo asked to deal with this issue for any type of after-market modifications, thus, with all the representatives of this industry in the Motor Vehicle Emissions Group (MVEG) within the European Commission.

16. Issue of what D-F engine type would the retrofits be applicable. After discussion the general feeling is that the D-F retrofit would be applicable to Type B engines (not specifying categories 1,2 or 3).

17. Engine family: emissions tests shall be carried out on one or more engines (parent engine) of an engine family sharing pre-determined criteria. There is a broad discussion about type approval and being able to find an engine that already complies with the emission limits. But the converter will have to ensure that the converted vehicle is type approved. This may be a problem particularly for an older or out-of-date engine. This is a difficult issue to resolve at this time; and one that could continue to plague conversion system suppliers. The issue is left open for future consideration.

18. How to proceed with the development of the new regulation? Should the document structure be proposed first and then move to develop the text, or can they be done in parallel, in the first instance? The first concept is that the text will be in alignment to the UNECE regulatory style (as opposed to considering at first the European regulations). Mr. Rijnders suggested to Mr. Renaudin that he propose a structure, giving consideration to the work already provided by AEGPL (GFV-28-03). Mr. Castagnini added that the text they prepared reflects the content of his presentation today. It would be desirable to use or consider which text might be appropriate for future use. But the forward progress will rely on a first draft of a structure, considering some of the basic principles already discussed (and for future discussion), with ACEA/OICA suggesting appropriate text that also might take advantage of some of the AEGPL work that already has been done. At the next meeting of the HDDF TF we will start the writing of the new document, possibly considering useful elements of what already has been produced.

Draft new Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of specific LPG (liquefied petroleum gases) or NG (compressed natural gas/bio-methane/liquefied natural gas) dual fuel retrofit systems and dual fuel retrofitted engines to be installed in heavy duty applications

54. As was discussed in the first part of the meeting on the previous day, the modular structure of the draft has been suggested, providing three different type of approvals:
1) approval of a HDDF retrofit system;
2) approval of a HDDF retrofitted engine; and
3) approval of a HDDF retrofit vehicle regarding the installation of a retrofit HDDF engine.

The main text includes scope, general provisions and general definitions. All specific topics regarding the three different (above mentioned) approvals have been moved to the appropriate Annexes in the first draft text produced by AEGPL.

55. The group expressed concerns about possible loopholes with respect to R49 when approving a HDDF retrofitted engine and HDDF retrofit vehicle with a retrofitted HDDF engine. Since the most important part is related to HDDF retrofit systems, the group decided to delete Annex 2 and Annex 3 from AEGPL proposal and to develop Annex 1. Future meetings will focus on and complete the discussion on HDDF retrofit systems. The group agrees to take the AEGPL text as starting point for further development.

56. The Annex 1 (HDDF Retrofit systems) of AEGPL proposal was presented. Mr. Castagnini explained the difference between updated text and previous versions.

57. Specific retrofit systems definitions (definitions applicable only to HDDF retrofit systems) were moved from the main text to Annex 1, in order to avoid confusion with other type approvals. The requirements to allow parent engines not meeting the baseline emissions would be enforced. OBD data should be monitored and no detected malfunction shall be active. The group recognized the difficulties of finding an existing engine that meets the emission limits, especially if the engine was certified to a previous emission level than the current Euro level. But the importance of having the engine fulfill the baseline emission limit is clearly recognized. The group agrees to find a solution to this challenging problem.

58. A general discussion took place about the ability to find a diesel engine in compliance with the emissions limits and the impacts of performing a conversion to dual-fuel, as well as how to include this in regulatory language (if possible). System suppliers spend a great deal of money and energy trying to find compliant engines that can be converted if they are going to improve the emissions over diesel. There are a variety of solutions possible but in this forum there was general brainstorming solutions proposed. For example, Mr. Bleuler (TUV) proposed to allow wider engine family definitions in order to reduce the difficulties of finding parent engines that are in compliance with baseline emission limits.

59. AEGPL: If it is agreed that the original emission limits must be maintained (or improved) in the dual-fuel mode even when the parent engine is not compliant in the diesel mode, AEGPL asked to evaluate the possibility, in these cases, to allow for some tolerance of the limits in line with those accepted during COP or ISC (to be investigated). In addition, creating a less stringent engine family definition would ease the practical problems faced by retrofit system manufacturers when searching for compliant diesel engines.

60. Annex 1: OBD requirements have been defined. Since there is no communication between the ECU and dual-fuel ECE, a switch back to diesel mode is prescribed in case of any detected malfunction.

61. Annex 1: Extension of the application range requires a simplified test sequence that can be performed either on a representative engine equipped with the HDDF retrofit system or on a vehicle equipped with the representative engine and the HDDF retrofit system (to be defined).

62. Annex 1: Installation manual shall consist of two parts: 1) describing the HDDF retrofit system and a list of components; and 2) installation instructions for the specific vehicle. This installation of the manual for the parent vehicle must be
supplied to the regulatory authority

63. Annex 1: End user manual informs the end-user about the characteristics and safety features of the installed HDDF retrofit system.

64. Other Annexes will be defined over time after the completion of Annex 1.

65. Written remarks received from AECC, John May. Annex 1, 3.1 were discussed (AECC was not able to be present at the meeting). “If the parent engine is not equipped with one or more devices listed above, engines with these devices are
allowed.” "In this case they should not be allowed to be part of the same engine family.” Mr. Dekker indicates that, in the light of their experience, sometimes a retrofitted engine in dual-fuel mode performs worse in the presence of EGR than in
absence, for instance. More discussion on the family definition is required.

66. Furthermore AECC mentioned in their written comments that they agree with the possibility to consider CH4 as a GHG contributor.

67. Annex 1: 6.3.2 Limit values and relevant pollutants for ESC and ETC cycles: that this needs to be clearer that this applies to the emissions both before and after retrofitting; that the manufacturer cannot be allowed to choose whether or not to include deterioration; and durability of the retrofitted system should have to be demonstrated, rather than simply taking assigned deterioration factors (DFs). There was a broad and general discussion of this issue.

68. AEGPL explained its proposal: The application of DF’s and the testing with deteriorated components (aged after a durability test as in REC) have to be an alternative in order to avoid a double durability burden. This is based on the consideration that R. 49 DF’s (05 and 06 series of amendments) in the dual-fuel mode have been confirmed to be identical to those applied in diesel mode. In other words, the language for the OEMs allows them to choose to include deterioration factors, so why not the retrofitters as well?

69. Discussion: if the concern regards the guarantee that the retrofit system is generically durable, the respect of endurance testing and requirements set out in R67/01 and R 110 could be already satisfactory. As for environmental aspects, that observation offers also an alternative solution to the application of DF’s: engine emission tests could be carried out fitting gas components aged in accordance with R67/01 or R 110 endurance tests. But this requires further discussion. There are concerns about the complication and the cost of the testing protocols that would be imposed on retrofit suppliers.

70. Mr. Rijnders indicated that the AECC remarks are valid and further discussion will be required.

AEGPL was invited to present its document (see GFV-31-2) on major pending issues: dual-fuel types (possible exclusion of Type 3), non-compliant diesel engine and engine family definition and durability.

AEGPL proposes to have one common Type B dual-fuel engine, with no distinction in relation to Gas Energy Ratio (GER).

Other experts propose to exclude GER less than 10% in order to prevent possible loopholes in the certification of the engines. The manufacturer may choose to homologate its system as Type 3 (equivalent to diesel), while in-use the system could work with a much higher GER. No definitive decision is taken on this issue.

Regarding non-compliant diesel engines, AEGPL stresses the practical necessity to set a less stringent engine family definition if non-compliant diesel engines are required to meet emission limits in the D-F mode, in order to ease the manufacturer having to search for complaint (or quasi compliant) parent engines to convert.

Mr Dekker confirmed that compliance with emission limits will be required, also in case of originally non-compliant diesel engines.

Mr Renaudin proposed to adopt the R49 engine family definition to ensure that the
retrofit system performs well on any engine models.

AEGPL pointed out that the combination of these two approaches would make the new regulation practically inapplicable as the engine performances in diesel mode impact heavily on the D-F mode.

Regarding durability, the group agreed on the following approach:

• Emission tests have to be carried out with emission-related gas components deteriorated in accordance with R 67 or R 110 endurance test and, in addition, DF have to be applied;
• D-F may be adapted in counter-proportion with the actual mileage of the parent engine since it is an old engine.

AEGPL, although agreeing with these principles, noted that D-F already includes deterioration of emission-related gas components and, thus, the use of deteriorated components during the tests and the contemporary application of D-F would add an additional burden for retrofit systems in respect to R 49 provisions.

Draft text of the proposed regulation on heavy-duty vehicle dual-fuel retrofit systems (version 7.0 as prepared by the AEGPL).

In document GRSG/2013/29, the AEGPL proposed to introduce new provisions into Regulation No. 67 for preventing the flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa in order to address a potential safety risk in bi-fuel or dual-fuel vehicles. At the 105th GRSG session, Germany requested a more detailed test procedure. Therefore, this proposal responds to the German request, improves certain descriptions of requirements, and provides comments to justify the various provisions.

30. Recalling the discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2013/29 at the previous session of GRSG, the expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-106-12 supplementing his proposal to insert into UN Regulation No. 67 new provisions for preventing a flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa. GRSG noted some comments. The expert from Germany raised a study reservation and preferred to organize, if necessary, a meeting with interested experts to further discuss this subject. GRSG agreed to resume consideration on this matter at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal jointly prepared by the experts from Germany and AEGPL.

Version 7 of the working draft regulation for HDDF retrofit systems under the custodianship of the AEGPL as revised during the 32nd GFV/HDDF group sessions.

Proposal to limit reporting requirements to the tested (or parent) vehicles in the type approval communication form by deleting the requirement to communicate CO2 emissions and power figures for each specific vehicle0. For vehicle types where the retrofit system is qualified (i.e. other than parent vehicles), the current model requires the communication of a calculated CO2 factor as well as of the specific CO2 emissions in natural gas mode. Since the specific CO2 emissions in gas mode are calculated by applying the CO2 factor to the emissions in petrol mode, communication of only the CO2 factor is sufficient to establish the CO2 emissions in gas mode of any vehicle type, when required.

4. GFV 40-02 has been proposed and discussed at the last GFV. The proposed amendment is aimed at simplifying the communication model of approval for LPG vehicles. As regards vehicle types for which the retrofit system is qualified (i.e. other than parent vehicles), the current model requires the communication of a calculated CO2 factor as well as of the specific CO2 emissions in the gas mode.

The proposal received approval from the GFV to move forward to the full GRPE meeting in June 2015.

Proposal to amend UN R67 to allow for limited flows of petrol into the LPG tank of dual fuel vehicles.

27. The expert from AEGPL gave a presentation (GRSG-109-15) justifying the insertion into UN Regulation No. 67 of new provisions to prevent a flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35). The expert from Spain raised concerns on the possible interpretation of the new provisions and preferred clear test requirements. The experts from France and Sweden endorsed that position. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-109-12 proposing some improved text to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35. He raised concerns on the possible leakage of the different fuel types and questioned the need to install redundant valves.

28. Following the discussion, the expert from AEGPL introduced GRSG-109-21 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35. The experts from France and Spain raised a study reservation. Thus, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by AEGPL, taking into account the comments received.

25. The expert from AEGPL introduced GRSG-110-13, superseding his proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35 and proposing new provisions to prevent a flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa. GRSG noted general support on the updated proposal. Following a study reservation by the expert from France, GRSG decided to have a final review of the proposal at its next session in October 2016 and requested the secretariat to circulate GRSG-110-13 with an official symbol.

Presentation on the proposal to allow for limited flows of petrol into the LPG tank of dual fuel vehicles.

27. The expert from AEGPL gave a presentation (GRSG-109-15) justifying the insertion into UN Regulation No. 67 of new provisions to prevent a flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35). The expert from Spain raised concerns on the possible interpretation of the new provisions and preferred clear test requirements. The experts from France and Sweden endorsed that position. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-109-12 proposing some improved text to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35. He raised concerns on the possible leakage of the different fuel types and questioned the need to install redundant valves.

28. Following the discussion, the expert from AEGPL introduced GRSG-109-21 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35. The experts from France and Spain raised a study reservation. Thus, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by AEGPL, taking into account the comments received.

Proposal to amend UN R67 to allow for limited flows of petrol into the LPG tank of dual fuel vehicles, taking into account comments received during the 109th GRSG session.

27. The expert from AEGPL gave a presentation (GRSG-109-15) justifying the insertion into UN Regulation No. 67 of new provisions to prevent a flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35). The expert from Spain raised concerns on the possible interpretation of the new provisions and preferred clear test requirements. The experts from France and Sweden endorsed that position. The expert from Germany introduced GRSG-109-12 proposing some improved text to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35. He raised concerns on the possible leakage of the different fuel types and questioned the need to install redundant valves.

28. Following the discussion, the expert from AEGPL introduced GRSG-109-21 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35. The experts from France and Spain raised a study reservation. Thus, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session on the basis of a revised proposal by AEGPL, taking into account the comments received.

Proposal to insert new safety provisions with regard to LPG systems having hydraulic interconnections with the petrol or diesel fueling system through which inter-flows of fuels may occur.

25. The expert from AEGPL introduced GRSG-110-13, superseding his proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2015/35 and proposing new provisions to prevent a flow of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into the petrol or diesel tank, and vice versa. GRSG noted general support on the updated proposal. Following a study reservation by the expert from France, GRSG decided to have a final review of the proposal at its next session in October 2016 and requested the secretariat to circulate GRSG-110-13 with an official symbol.

Amendments to the proposal as presented in document GRPE/2016/12.

Proposal for new safety provisions with regard to LPG systems having hydraulic interconnections with the petrol or diesel fueling system through which inter-flows of fuels may occur.

25. The expert from AEGPL introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2016/15 which proposes to insert new safety provisions into UN Regulation No. 67 on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) systems having hydraulic interconnections with the petrol or diesel fuelling system through which inter-flows of fuels might occur. The expert from Germany objected to the adoption of the proposal as safety risks (overfill of tank) still remain, particularly, since a small amount of flow of petrol into the LPG tank was still possible. The expert from the United Kingdom underlined the need to cross-check all references of paragraphs in the proposal. GRSG agreed to have a final review of the proposal at its next session in April 2017 on the basis of a revised document to be submitted by AEGPL.

20. Referring to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2016/15, the expert from AEGPL recalled the purpose of his proposal to insert new safety provisions into UN Regulation No. 67 on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) systems having hydraulic interconnections with the petrol or diesel fuelling system through which inter-flows of fuels might occur. He confirmed that he had received in the meantime valuable feedback from a number of GRSG experts. He volunteered to prepare a revised proposal for consideration at the next session.

Proposal to restrict the application of CO2 specific emission limits only to NMHC and CO emissions (back-to-back comparison of NOx and PM to apply under the regulation in any case). The proposal also aligns the text where applicable with the intent of paragraph 2.3.15.: “R49 original emission limits” means the emission limits as defined in Regulation No. 49 to which the original engine system was approved."

Proposal to allow for the approval of systems using non-seamless double and single wall tubes subject to testing for high pressure and high resistance to pressure pulses. The proposal would also add general test requirements for LPG fuel lines and couplings based on ISO Standard 15500 for compressed natural gas equipment.

21. The expert from the Netherlands presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/3 amending the provisions of UN Regulation No. 67 to use non-seamless gas tubes in LPG vehicles. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-112-19 inserting some improvements to the proposed provisions. GRSG noted general support and a number of comments. The expert from Germany raised a study reservation. Following the discussion, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in October 2017. In this respect, GRSG invited the experts from the Netherlands and AEGPL to prepare a combined document (see para. 20 above), taking into account the comments received and to submit it, in due time, to the secretariat for consideration and final review at the next GRSG session in October 2017.

In GRSG/2017/10, Poland proposes requirements for the LPG tank and its accessories. AEGPL notes that UN R67 requires a specific bonfire test of the container equipped with specific configurations of accessories which includes markings to indicate the extension number of each accessory corresponding to each configuration. In order to ensure that the user knows whether an accessory can be fitted with a specific container, AEGPL proposes to require marking the extension number on the accessories relevant to the bonfire test (multivalve, pressure relief valve and pressure relief device) in order to prevent/forbid the fitting of any accessory not approved for use in each container configuration. This alternative proposal to that in GRSG/2017/10 would imply a new marking requirement for accessories, but would avoid the proliferation of accessory type-approval numbers and increase in paperwork.

22. The expert from Poland gave a presentation (GRSG-112-37) justifying his proposal ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/10 to clarify the provisions for type approved accessories fitted to LPG containers. The proposal received some support. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-112-20 proposing, as an alternative, the additional marking of the accessories with the number of type approval extension. Following a controversial discussion, the expert from Poland proposed to set up either a task force or a new informal working group on gaseous fuelled vehicles to work on the best solution. His proposal to establish an IWG did not receive full support. Finally, GRSG agreed to resume consideration of this subject at its next session in October 2017 on the basis of a new proposal jointly prepared by Poland and AEGPL. Thus, GRSG invited all interested experts to send them, in due time, their written comments.

Proposal to introduce tolerances for dish, bayonet, and acme filling units in order to reduce risks of misuse in connecting these filling units with nozzles.

23. The expert from AEGPL presented GRSG-112-21 introducing tolerances for the dimensions of some filling units. A number of experts preferred to insert the corresponding specifications into the text of the UN Regulation instead of a reference to standard EN 22768-1. GRSG invited the expert from AEGPL to submit, in due time, an updated proposal for consideration at the next session of GRSG in October 2017.

Proposal for new safety provisions with regard to LPG systems having hydraulic interconnections with the petrol or diesel fueling system through which inter-flows of fuels may occur.

31. The expert from AEGPL presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/26 proposing to insert new safety provisions into UN Regulation No. 67 on LPG systems that have hydraulic interconnections with the petrol or diesel fuelling system through which inter-flows of fuels may occur. GRSG adopted the proposal, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 15 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67 for consideration at their March 2018 sessions.

New paragraph 2.22., replace “Interconnected LPG-system” by “Interconnected LPG-system (ICS)”.

Proposal to establish procedures for the approval of non-seamless gas tube(s), gas tube(s) made of materials other than copper, stainless steel, and steel with corrosion-resistant coating, and their couplings in Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) vehicles provided they can withstand the applicable tests according to Annex 15.

32. Referring to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/27, the expert from AEGPL recalled the purpose of his proposal to clarify the provisions in UN Regulation No. 67 on the use of non-seamless gas tubes in LPG vehicles. GRSG adopted the document, as amended below, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 as part (see para. 31 above) of draft Supplement 15 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67 for consideration at their March 2018 sessions.

Paragraph 2.2., subparagraph (s), amend to read:

“(s) Non-seamless and seamless gas tubes and their couplings;”

New paragraph 17.7.1.2., amend to read:

Annex 15, paragraph 5., replace “Only longitudinal welding” by “Only straight longitudinal welding”.

Proposal presented as an alternative to the previous proposal from Poland (GRSG/2017/10) to require manufacturers to mark the approval extension number on any accessories relevant to the bonfire test (multivalve or, when approved separately, pressure relief valve (discharge valve) and pressure relief device) so that the fitting of any accessory not on the list of approved configurations (Table 3 in the appendix of Annex 2B) will be prevented/forbidden. This solution would imply a new requirement in Annex 2A for the marking of the accessories fitted to the containers.

33. Recalling the discussion on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/10 at the previous GRSG session, the expert from AEGPL presented ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/30 to further clarify the provisions for type approved accessories fitted to LPG containers and to insert an additional indication mark. The expert from Poland raised a study reservation and introduced the obligation to mark the products with the designation of the version, variant and the extension number of the type-approval certificate (GRSG-113-09). Both proposals received a number of comments.

34. Finally, GRSG considered a revised proposal (GRSG-113-36) and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/30 as amended below.

Part I, paragraph 4.2., amend to read:

35. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 as part (see paras. 31 and 32 above) of draft Supplement 15 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67 for consideration at their March 2018 sessions.

1. Document GRSG/2017/22 proposed by Turkey raised concerns regarding the location on the vehicle of the filling unit and a limitation of the service life of LPG containers
2. In order to prevent a proliferation of different service-life specifications, AEGPL proposes a fixed mandatory service live of 10 years.

30. The expert from Turkey introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/22 proposing to insert new provisions on the location on the vehicle of the filling unit and a limitation of the service life of LPG containers. The expert from OICA introduced a counter proposal for transitional provisions (GRSG-113-19). The expert from AEGPL raised concerns on the location of filling unit on the vehicle and the limitation of the service life of LPG containers. He proposed to amend the provisions on the location of the filling unit and to insert a limitation of the service life as reflected in GRSG-113-32. GRSG noted a number of comments and study reservations. Following the discussion, the expert from Turkey volunteered to prepare a revised proposal for consideration at the next GRSG session, taking into account the comments received.

Proposal to require marking of extension numbers on accessories relevant to the UN R67 bonfire test (e.g., multivalve, pressure relief valve, pressure relief device) in order to prevent/prohibit the misuse (in container configurations) of these accessories. The proposal includes provisions for components where such marking is impractical based upon text drawn from UN R46.

34. Finally, GRSG considered a revised proposal (GRSG-113-36) and adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2017/30 as amended below.

Part I, paragraph 4.2., amend to read:

35. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1 as part (see paras. 31 and 32 above) of draft Supplement 15 to the 01 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67 for consideration at their March 2018 sessions.

In the absence of complete harmonization with ISO 11439, this proposal recommends that Table 6.4 of UN R110 should be amended by the following for CNG-1 designs:

1. Delete A.17, A.25, and A.7 since they do not match the tests specified in paragraph 7.5 on Cylinder design qualification tests
2. Add A.15 and A.6 since they do match the tests specified in paragraph 7.5 on Cylinder design qualification tests
3. Add A.24 because paragraph 6.9 on Fire protection requires all PRDs on all cylinder types to comply with A.24.

32. The expert from NGV Global introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/3 that proposed to correct Table 6.4 on the cylinder design qualification tests. GRSG adopted the proposal and requested the secretariat to submit the proposal to WP.29 and AC.1, for consideration at their November 2018 sessions, as Corrigendum 1 to Revision 3 of UN Regulation No. 110.

AEGPL views on the proposal to align Regulation No.115 to the new WLTC test cycle, defined in the GTR 15 and in the Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151 and later modifications.

39. The expert from Italy introduced GRPE-77-09 on the need to update UN Regulation No. 115 and the need to introduce a reference to WLTP instead of emission tests performed on the basis of the former test cycle (New European Driving Cycle (NEDC)). He proposed to host a meeting with all interested parties in order to develop a working document that would be presented at the January 2019 session of GRPE. He mentioned the letter from the expert of AEGPL showed support to the idea and interest to participate in the activities (GRPE-77-23). He stated that the difficulty for this work was that WLTC was not yet included in a UN Regulation but in a UN GTR.

Proposal to insert type (item 1.1.) and pressure classification (item 1.2.) in the communication form (Annex 2B).

36. The expert from Poland recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/8 to adapt the Regulation to technical progress, specifically for the definition of a type of container and Annex 2B. The expert from LG Europe introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/20 as a counterproposal. A number of experts welcomed the amendments to Annex 2B, but could not support the amendments to the definition of “Type of container”. After discussion, GRSG adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2018/20 except the amendments to paragraph 2.4. The secretariat was requested to submit the proposal as amended to WP.29 and AC.1 as draft Supplement 16 to the 01 series of amendments and as draft Supplement 1 to the 02 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 67 for consideration at their March 2019 sessions.