3. There are no additional agenda items requested.

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.

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.

62. Mr. Rijnders: He will inform the GRPE about the 10th May GFV meeting and this GFV today.

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.

1. No comments or changes were made to the minutes of the previous 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.