[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29606-29645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11149]
[[Page 29605]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 85 and 86
Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Engine Conversions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 29606]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 85 and 86
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299; FRL-9149-9]
RIN 2060-AP64
Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and Engine Conversions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to simplify and streamline the process by
which manufacturers of clean alternative fuel conversion systems may
demonstrate compliance with vehicle and engine emissions requirements.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to revise the regulatory criteria for
gaining an exemption from the Clean Air Act prohibition against
tampering for the conversion of vehicles and engines to operate on a
clean alternative fuel. Under existing EPA regulations, an exemption
from the tampering prohibition may only be granted to vehicles and
engines covered by a certificate of conformity. The proposed revisions
would create additional compliance options beyond certification that
would protect manufacturers of clean alternative fuel conversion
systems against a tampering violation, depending on the age of the
vehicle or engine to be converted. The new options would alleviate some
economic and procedural impediments to clean alternative fuel
conversions while maintaining environmental safeguards to ensure that
acceptable emission levels from converted vehicles are sustained.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2010. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before June 25, 2010.
Public Hearing: EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing
about this proposal for 9 a.m. June 23, 2010. EPA will hold the hearing
only if any party notifies EPA by June 18, 2010 of interest in
presenting oral testimony at the hearing. The hearing will start at 9
a.m. local time and continue until everyone has had a chance to speak.
EPA will cancel the hearing if no one expresses interest by June
18, 2010. EPA will notify the public of a cancellation by publication
in the Federal Register, via its alternative fuel conversion Web site,
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/altfuels.htm and via
Enviroflash.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0299 by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0299. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Public Hearing: The June 23, 2010 hearing will be held at the EPA
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood Drive,
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. The hearing will start at 9 a.m. local time
and continue until everyone has had a chance to speak. See the
Supplementary Information for more information on the public hearing.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0299. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following
location: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bunker, Compliance and Innovative
Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. Telephone: (734) 214-4160.
E-mail Address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Hearing
Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the
public hearing should notify the general contact person (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than five days prior to the day
of the hearing. The contact person should be given an estimate of the
time required for the presentation of testimony and notification of any
need for audio/visual equipment. Testimony will be scheduled on a first
come, first serve basis. A sign-up sheet will be available at the
registration table the morning of the hearing for scheduling those who
have not notified the contact earlier. This testimony will be scheduled
on a first come, first serve basis to follow the previously scheduled
testimony.
[[Page 29607]]
EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or
material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to
the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an
advance copy of any statement or material to be presented at the
hearing at least one week before the scheduled hearing date. This is to
give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before the
hearing. Such advance copies should be submitted to the contact person
listed.
The official record of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days
following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary
testimony. All such submissions should be directed to Docket No EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0299 (see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be conducted
informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. A written
transcript of the hearing will be placed in the above docket. Anyone
desiring to purchase a copy of the transcript should make individual
arrangements with the court reporter recording the proceedings.
Affected Entities
This action will affect companies and persons that manufacture,
sell, or install alternative fuel conversions for light-duty vehicles,
light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and heavy-duty
vehicles and engines. Such entities are categorized as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially regulated
NAICS Codes \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
335312....................... Motor and Generator Manufacturing.
336312....................... Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts
Manufacturing.
336322....................... Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and
Electronic Equipment Manufacturing.
336399....................... All Other Motor Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing.
811198....................... All Other Automotive Repair and
Maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a
guide regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To
determine whether particular activities may be affected by this action,
you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions
regarding the applicability of this action to the contact as noted
above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Authority
A. Vehicle and Engine Standards and Certification
B. Useful Life
C. ``Tampering'' Prohibition
D. Exemption for Conversions
E. Authority for Proposed Clean Alternative Fuel Conversions
Program
III. Program Design Elements Applicable to All Clean Alternative
Fuel Conversions
A. Clean Alternative Fuel Conversions
B. Good Engineering Judgment
C. Vehicle/Engine Groupings and Emission Data Vehicle/Engine
Selection
D. Flex-Fuel (Bi-Fuel) and Dual Fuel Conversions
E. Vehicle and Packaging Labels
F. Marketing
G. Compliance
1. Emission Standards
a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicle Gross Vehicle
Weight Classes and Alternative Fuel Exceptions
b. Heavy-Duty Engine Types and Gross Vehicle Weight Classes
c. Dual-Fuel Standards
2. Useful Life
3. On Board Diagnostics
4. Durability Testing
5. Warranty
6. Other Provisions Applicable to Conversion Manufacturers
7. Misapplication
H. Regulatory Procedures for Small Volume Manufacturers and
Small Volume Test Groups
1. Definition of Small Volume Manufacturers, Small Volume Test
Groups, and Small Volume Engine Families
a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
b. Heavy-Duty Engines
2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
3. Changes in Small Volume Manufacturer Status
IV. Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion Program Details
A. New Vehicle and Engine Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion
Certification Program
1. Applicability
a. New Vehicles and Engines
b. Older Vehicles and Engines
2. Test Groups, Engine Families, and Evaporative Families
a. Test Groups for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
b. Engine Families for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
c. Evaporative/Refueling Families
3. Certification Demonstration Requirements
a. Exhaust Emissions
i. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
ii. Heavy-Duty Engines
b. Evaporative/Refueling Emissions
c. Durability Demonstration and Assigned Deterioration Factors
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
d. On-Board Diagnostics
4. Certification Notification Process
a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
b. Heavy-Duty Engines
c. Re-Certification
5. In-Use Compliance
B. Intermediate Age Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program
1. Applicability
a. Intermediate Age Vehicles and Engines
b. Older Vehicles and Engines
2. Test Groups, Engine Families, and Evaporative Families
a. Test Groups for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
iii. Dual-Fuel Vehicle Carry Across
b. Engine Families for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
iii Dual Fuel Engine Carry Across
c. Evaporative/Refueling Families
3. Demonstration Requirements
a. Exhaust Emissions
i. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
ii. Heavy-Duty Engines
b. Evaporative/Refueling Emissions
c. Durability Demonstration and Assigned Deterioration Factors
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
d. On-Board Diagnostics
4. Notification Process
a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles and Heavy-Duty
Engines
b. Vehicles and Engines That Were Previously Certified Under the
Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion Certification Program
5. In-Use Compliance
C. Outside Useful Life Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion
Compliance Program
1. Applicability
a. Outside Useful Life Subcategory Option
2. Test Groups, Engine Families, and Evaporative/Refueling
Families
3. Demonstration Requirements
a. Option 1
b. Option 2
c. Option 3
4. Notification Process
D. Alternate Registration Approach for Newer Outside Useful Life
Vehicles and Engines
[[Page 29608]]
1. NOUL Vehicles and Engines Subcategory
a. Applicability
b. Demonstration Requirements
V. Technical Amendments
A. Exhaust Emission Technical Amendments
B. Evaporative Emission Technical Amendments
VI. Environmental Benefits
VII. Associated Costs for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete
Vehicles
VIII. Associated Costs for Heavy-Duty Engines
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by The Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. Introduction
With the vast majority of vehicles in the United States designed to
operate on gasoline or diesel fuel, there has been a longstanding and
growing interest by the public in aftermarket fuel conversion systems.
These systems allow gasoline or diesel vehicles to operate on
alternative fuels such as natural gas, propane, alcohol, or
electricity. Use of clean alternative fuels opens new fuel supply
choices and can help consumers address concerns about fuel costs,
energy security, and emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is responsible for ensuring that all vehicles and engines
sold in the United States, including aftermarket conversions, meet
emission standards. Today EPA is proposing to simplify and streamline
the process by which manufacturers of clean alternative fuel conversion
systems may demonstrate compliance with these vehicle and engine
emissions requirements. The new options would reduce some economic and
procedural impediments to clean alternative fuel conversions while
maintaining environmental safeguards to ensure that acceptable emission
levels from converted vehicles are sustained.
The conversion of vehicles or engines to operate on fuels other
than those for which they were originally designed may yield certain
benefits, but it also presents several legal and environmental
concerns. These concerns stem from Clean Air Act (CAA, the Act)
provisions intended to ensure that vehicles and engines remain clean
throughout their useful life. To this end, the Act requires EPA to
establish motor vehicle emission standards that apply throughout useful
life, and to verify through issuance of a certificate of conformity
that any vehicle or engine entered into commerce complies with the
established emission standards.\2\ Once certified, the vehicle or
engine generally may not be altered from its certified
configuration.\3\ The CAA prohibition against alteration or
``tampering'' is important because emission standards apply well beyond
a vehicle's or engine's initial entry into commerce. It is extremely
difficult to reconfigure integrated and sophisticated modern automotive
systems, precisely designed to achieve low pollution levels over time,
without negatively affecting their durability or emissions performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See CAA sections 202, 203, and 206.
\3\ CAA section 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has long recognized vehicle alteration for the purpose of clean
alternative fuel conversion as a special case because while improperly
designed or installed conversions can increase emissions, properly
engineered conversions can reduce, or at least not increase, emissions.
Furthermore use of alternative fuels can contribute to achieving other
goals such as diversifying the fuel supply through use of domestic
energy sources. Therefore, EPA has established policies through which
conversion manufacturers can demonstrate that the conversion does not
compromise emissions compliance. It has proven challenging however to
design an appropriate demonstration that ensures long-term compliance
while not imposing overly burdensome testing and administrative
requirements, especially for the small businesses that largely comprise
the conversion industry.
The existing compliance demonstration required of conversion
manufacturers for a regulatory exemption from tampering involves
obtaining a certificate of conformity. This means that converters must
follow essentially the same rigorous certification process that EPA
requires of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The certification
requirements currently in place for all converters give EPA sufficient
oversight from an emissions perspective but implementation can be
problematic in certain conversion situations. The current regulations
were finalized on September 21, 1994 (59 FR 48472) and are located in
40 CFR part 85, subpart F (``the subpart F regulations''). In the 15
years since these regulations were promulgated, experience has shown
that the OEM-like certification program for aftermarket conversions is
not an optimal mechanism for ensuring compliance with applicable
emission standards, particularly for older vehicles and engines. EPA
has encountered several practical difficulties when using pre-
production certification test procedures on older vehicles and engines.
Similarly, certain aspects of the certification procedure are not well
suited to aftermarket manufacturers. Some small conversion
manufacturers, furthermore, have expressed concerns that the complexity
of the certification process presents a barrier to entry into the
alternative fuel conversions market.
For all these reasons, EPA believes it is reasonable to modify the
current certification requirement for clean alternative fuel converters
seeking exemption from the tampering prohibition. The new program would
expand compliance options to include less burdensome demonstration
requirements that would nonetheless sustain EPA's oversight and
longstanding commitment to the environmental integrity of clean
alternative fuel conversions.
Today, EPA is proposing a new approach that streamlines the
regulatory process and introduces new flexibilities for conversion
manufacturers, while ensuring that converted vehicles and engines
retain acceptable levels of emission control. The revised program would
also address the uncertainty some converters may experience in
determining whether a conversion constitutes tampering that could
result in liability. EPA proposes to amend the regulatory procedures in
40 CFR part 85, subpart F and part 86 to remain consistent with the CAA
yet reflect the concept that it is appropriate to treat conversion
requirements differently based on vehicle or engine age. The new
program would facilitate age-appropriate testing and compliance
procedures by placing alternative fuel conversions into one of three
categories: (1) Conversions of vehicles or engines that are ``new and
relatively-new'' (hereafter referred to as ``new'' solely for the
purpose of this preamble),\4\ (2)
[[Page 29609]]
conversions of vehicles or engines that are no longer new (i.e., no
longer ``new and relatively-new'') but that still fall within EPA's
definition of full useful life, ``intermediate age vehicles'', and (3)
conversions of vehicles or engines that are outside EPA's definition of
useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Section IV.A and proposed Sec. Sec. 85.505 and 85.510.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 85.505(b)(1) and 85.510 apply to ``new and
relatively-new'' vehicles or engines, i.e., where the date of
conversion is in a calendar year that is not more than one year
after the original model year of the vehicle or engine. In this
preamble, we refer to these ``new and relatively-new'' vehicles and
engines as ``new'' only as a shorthand reference to the proposed
category of ``new and relatively-new'' engines or vehicles. This
shorthand use of ``new'' is not intended to mean that these engines
or vehicles are ``new'' under the Act or any EPA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also requesting comment on whether to establish a
subcategory for vehicles and engines that exceed the useful life
threshold in mileage before they reach the threshold in years, with its
own demonstration requirement.
Under our proposal, for the first category, conversions of new
vehicles and engines, EPA believes that a requirement for a certificate
of conformity remains appropriate because those vehicles and engines
were entered into commerce as the subject of a recently issued OEM
certificate of conformity. Such vehicles would typically have the
majority of their useful life remaining and the condition of a
relatively new vehicle or engine is still likely to be representative
of an OEM vehicle or engine used in certification testing. Furthermore,
a certification requirement for new vehicle and engine conversion would
eliminate any perceived incentive that might otherwise exist for OEMs
to circumvent certifying original-configuration alternative fuel
vehicles/engines, by instead converting already-certified traditional
fuel configurations to operate on an alternative fuel. Thus, EPA
proposes to largely retain the current certification requirements for
manufacturers of conversion systems for new vehicles and engines, while
providing some new flexibility in grouping such vehicles for
certification purposes. For the second category, intermediate age
vehicles and engines, we are proposing that manufacturers of conversion
systems demonstrate through testing that the converted vehicle or
engine still meets applicable emission standards promulgated under the
authority of the CAA section 202. For the third category, vehicles and
engines outside their full useful life, there is no longer an
applicable standard to serve as a benchmark. Since it is not possible
to assess compliance by comparing emissions to a standard, EPA is
seeking comment on three options through which manufacturers of
conversion systems for older vehicles and engines could demonstrate
that the conversion is technically viable and will not increase
emissions. The options are described in detail in Section IV.C.
EPA is also offering an alternate approach for comment that would
create two subcategories of outside useful life vehicles. The alternate
approach is described in detail in Section IV.D.
The primary purpose of the new program EPA is proposing today is to
facilitate the compliance process for clean alternative fuel conversion
manufacturers. Consistent with this intent, EPA would require any
conversion to be technically sound, regardless of the vehicle or engine
age category, and would continue to hold the conversion manufacturer
accountable for acceptable emissions performance once the converted
vehicle or engine is in customer service. EPA would employ compliance
tools as appropriate, such as confirmatory testing and in-use vehicle
emissions monitoring to check fleet performance, as it does with OEM
vehicles.
II. Authority
A. Vehicle and Engine Standards and Certification
The CAA grants EPA authority to establish, administer, and enforce
emission standards for motor vehicles and engines. The CAA states that
a new vehicle or engine may not be introduced into commerce unless it
has been issued a certificate of conformity (``certificate'') by
EPA.\5\ A certificate is issued when a manufacturer has demonstrated to
EPA through a regulatory testing and data submission process that the
vehicle or engine will conform for its useful life to the standards
promulgated by EPA.\6\ Each certificate is valid for up to one model
year.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CAA section 203(a)(1).
\6\ CAA sections 202 and 206.
\7\ 40 CFR 86.1848-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Useful Life
The CAA directs EPA to promulgate emission standards that are
applicable for a vehicle or engine's ``useful life,'' and to establish
the useful life period through regulation.\8\ The full useful life
varies among pollutant standards and among vehicle or engine
categories.\9\ For example, recent model year light-duty vehicles (cars
and small trucks) have a useful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles,
whichever comes first.\10\ Recent model year heavy-duty complete
vehicles and medium-duty passenger vehicles have a useful life of 11
years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first.\11\ For current Otto-
cycle heavy-duty engines, the useful life is 110,000 miles or 10 years,
whichever first occurs.\12\ For current diesel heavy-duty engines (also
referred to as ``compression-ignition'' or ``diesel cycle''), there are
different useful life definitions based on gross vehicle weight,
pollutant being controlled, and test procedure, ranging from 10 years
or 110,000 miles, whichever first occurs, to 10 years or 435,000 miles
or 22,000 hours of engine operation, whichever first occurs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ CAA section 202.
\9\ Regulations may also include optional standards such as in
40 CFR 86.1805-04(b) and (e).
\10\ 40 CFR 86.1805-04.
\11\ 40 CFR 86.1805-04.
\12\ 40 CFR 86.004-2.
\13\ 40 CFR 86.004-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. ``Tampering'' Prohibition
Under CAA section 203(a)(3), it is prohibited:
(A) For any person to remove or render inoperative any device or
element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this subchapter
prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser, or for any
person knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such device or
element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate
purchaser; or
(B) For any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or
install, any part or component intended for use with, or as part of,
any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, where a principal effect
of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative
any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle
or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this
subchapter, and where the person knows or should know that such part
or component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or
put to such use.
The CAA prohibition against tampering applies to vehicles
regardless of age or mileage accumulation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Any alteration of a motor vehicle or engine, its fueling
system, or the integration of these systems, which may be classified
as ``tampering'' under section 203(a) and which does not satisfy the
proposed exemptions would be a violation of the CAA for which
section 205 authorizes EPA to assess penalties, currently set at up
to $37,500 per vehicle or engine. See 40 CFR part 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Exemption for Conversions
The CAA provides for several statutory exemptions to the
prohibition on tampering. One of these exemptions is for actions which
are ``for the purpose of a conversion of a motor vehicle for use of a
clean alternative fuel (as defined in this subchapter) and if such
vehicle complies with the applicable standard under section 202 when
operating on such fuel.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ CAA section 203(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29610]]
E. Authority for Proposed Clean Alternative Fuel Conversions Program
The regulatory issue posed by vehicle and engine clean alternative
fuel conversions is how to design a program that allows manufacturers
to demonstrate that their conversion system warrants an exemption from
the prohibition against tampering. The 1994 rulemaking that created the
subpart F regulations stated, ``It has always been the Agency's policy
that an aftermarket conversion not degrade the emissions performance of
the original vehicle as a condition of being exempt from prosecution
for tampering violations.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 59 FR 48478 (Sep. 21, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's proposal is based on EPA's interpretation that section
203(a) provides a tampering exemption for clean alternative fuel
conversions. The section 203(a) exemption from tampering applies when
the otherwise prohibited act is for ``the purpose of a conversion of a
motor vehicle for use of a clean alternative fuel (as defined in this
subchapter) and if such vehicle complies with the applicable standard
under section 202 when operating on such fuel.'' Thus, the threshold
qualification for the exemption is the proper purpose (i.e.
``conversion * * * for use of a clean alternative fuel''). The second
criterion for the exemption is compliance with the applicable standard.
EPA is proposing a program that requires a demonstration to satisfy
both of these criteria for vehicles and engines that are still within
their useful life. For vehicles and engines that are outside their
useful life, even though a standard under CAA Section 202 is no longer
applicable, EPA believes it is important to provide a legal path under
which outside useful life vehicles and engines can be converted to use
alternative fuels. Only clean alternative fuel conversion systems that
comply with the proposed regulations would qualify for the CAA section
203(a) exemption from the tampering prohibition for application to
outside useful life vehicles and engines. Thus, EPA is proposing a
program that requires the conversion manufacturer to demonstrate that
the threshold criterion is met (i.e. ``conversion * * * for use of a
clean alternative fuel''). To meet the threshold criterion, the
conversion manufacturer would be required to demonstrate that emissions
have not degraded as a result of the clean alternative fuel conversion.
Such a demonstration would serve to maintain air quality, consistent
with the congressional intent in creating the exemption.
III. Program Design Elements Applicable to All Clean Alternative Fuel
Conversions
The clean alternative fuel conversion program EPA is proposing is
designed to increase flexibility for conversion manufacturers while
ensuring that converted vehicles retain acceptable emission levels.
Certain aspects of the program design depend on the age of the vehicle
or engine being converted, while other program elements are common to
all conversions. This section describes those program elements which
are applicable to all clean alternative fuel conversions, regardless of
vehicle or engine age.
In general there are three types of typical alternative fuel
conversions: (1) Those that result in dedicated alternative fueled
vehicles or engines; (2) those that result in dual-fueled vehicles or
engines; and (3) those that result in flex-fueled (also known as bi-
fueled) vehicles or engines.\17\ The first type, dedicated alternative
fueled vehicles or engines, are only capable of operating on one type
of fuel. Dual-fueled vehicles or engines, the second type, can operate
on two types of fuel, either the fuel they were originally designed for
or on a new alternative fuel. The third type, flex-fueled or bi-fueled
vehicles or engines, are able to operate on either the original fuel or
the alternative fuel, or on a mix of the two fuels. For example, an
ethanol flex-fueled vehicle operates on 100% gasoline or on any
combination of gasoline and ethanol, up to an 85% mixture of ethanol
(known as ``E85'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Note that other Federal agencies may define the terms dual-
fuel and bi-fuel differently than EPA definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA currently regulates all types of alternative fuel conversions
pursuant to the regulations specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart F and
certification provisions in 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065. EPA would
continue to regulate the typical types of conversions under today's
proposal, along with newer or innovative types of fuel conversions that
do not fit neatly into one of the general categories listed above.
These include conversions of conventional gasoline or diesel vehicles
to hybrid-electric vehicles, and conversions from hybrid-electric
vehicles to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Since alternative fuel
conversion activity often acts as a laboratory for new fuels and new
technology, it is not possible to present an exhaustive list of covered
categories or special cases. Each special case may require unique test
procedures that are appropriate to new and developing technologies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 40 CFR 86.1840-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Clean Alternative Fuel Conversions
Under today's proposal, only clean alternative fuel conversions
that are designed in accordance with EPA requirements, and for which
the manufacturer has complied with the proposed regulations would
qualify for the CAA section 203(a) exemption from the tampering
prohibition. EPA proposes clean alternative fuel conversion (also
referred to as ``fuel conversion'' or ``conversion system'') to be any
alteration of a motor vehicle or engine, its fueling system, or the
integration of these systems, that allows the vehicle or engine to
operate on a fuel or power source different from the fuel or power
source for which the vehicle or engine was originally certified; and
that is designed, constructed, and applied consistent with good
engineering judgment and in accordance with all applicable regulations.
A clean alternative fuel conversion also includes the components,
design and instructions to perform this alteration. A clean alternative
fuel conversion manufacturer (also referred to as ``conversion
manufacturer'' or ``converter'') is a company or individual that
manufactures, assembles, sells, imports, or installs a motor vehicle or
engine fuel conversion for the purpose of use of a clean alternative
fuel. To demonstrate clean alternative fuel conversion compliance,
conversion manufacturers would be required to submit data and/or other
information to EPA. For purposes of this proposal we will refer to the
appropriate submission as a ``demonstration'' and to the process of
submitting the demonstration as ``notification.'' The specifics of the
demonstration would depend on the age of vehicles or engines being
converted, but the general demonstration and notification requirements
would apply to all conversion systems. Section IV contains a detailed
description of the age-specific demonstration and notification
requirements. EPA will maintain lists of conversion systems that have
satisfied the age-appropriate demonstration requirements through the
EPA notification process and will make this information publicly
available.
Any requirement in the existing subpart F regulations, testing or
otherwise that is not specifically addressed in this proposal would
remain in place. EPA seeks comment about whether there are aspects of
40 CFR part 86 or part 1065
[[Page 29611]]
implementation that have direct implications for clean alternative fuel
conversions and that should be updated to reflect the proposed changes
in requirements for clean alternative fuels conversion.
B. Good Engineering Judgment
A clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturer would be eligible
for the exemption from the CAA tampering prohibition only if the
conversion system is designed, constructed, and applied using good
engineering judgment. EPA understands that in the context of exempting
clean alternative fuel conversions from the CAA tampering prohibition,
certain aspects of good engineering judgment may vary as a function of
clean alternative fuel type, OEM technology, and other factors. In
general, good engineering judgment would mean that the conversion
manufacturer has provided sufficient technical documentation for EPA to
ascertain that the converted vehicle or engine will continue to satisfy
emissions requirements, such as meeting standards within useful life or
maintaining emissions performance after conversion. Such documentation
would need to be submitted to EPA in writing before any conversion kit
is distributed or installed. EPA would evaluate several factors in
assessing whether a conversion system represents good engineering
judgment. These factors may include the following: whether the system
employs technology that is at least equivalent and equally effective in
design, materials and overall sophistication to that of the OEM system;
uses components that are sized to match the engine power requirements;
uses instantaneous feedback control; and maintains proper On-Board
Diagnostic (OBD) system function. Documentation provided to support a
claim of good engineering judgment may include emissions test data or
other engineering analysis to demonstrate that the conversion
technology will sustain acceptable emissions performance in the
intended vehicles or engines. Good engineering judgment also dictates
that any testing or data used to satisfy demonstration requirements
must be generated at a quality laboratory that is capable of performing
emission tests that comply with EPA regulations and that exercise good
laboratory practices.
C. Vehicle/Engine Groupings and Emission Data Vehicle Selection
The unit of vehicle certification and compliance under the CAA and
under EPA's implementing regulations is a group of vehicles that share
similar technologies, design features, and emission control
characteristics. Thus each OEM certificate of conformity can and
usually does cover several vehicle models that have in common a unique
combination of exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, and on-board
diagnostic (OBD) system features. The common exhaust emission system
characteristics are represented by a grouping called a ``test group.''
The common evaporative emission system characteristics are represented
by an ``evaporative/refueling family.'' The OBD system features are
represented by an ``OBD group.'' Light-duty vehicles and Otto-cycle
complete heavy-duty vehicles receive a single certificate covering a
unique combination of test group, evaporative/refueling family, and OBD
group.
The unit of certification is slightly different for heavy-duty
engines. Instead of receiving a single certificate that covers both
exhaust and evaporative emission control characteristics, heavy-duty
engines are issued separate certificates by ``engine family'' for
engines having common exhaust characteristics, and by evaporative/
refueling families, if applicable.\19\ Even though heavy-duty engine
certificates are based on a different unit, the concept behind
allowable groupings remains consistent between light-duty vehicle and
heavy-duty engine certification and compliance. Groupings share similar
technologies, design features, and emission control characteristics. In
this proposal, EPA is proposing to expand the grouping flexibility for
conversion manufacturers by permitting somewhat broader grouping
criteria for both light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines than those
available for OEM certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Certain fuels such as diesel fuel do not have heavy-duty
evaporative emissions standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general concept behind groupings for the conversion program
would apply to all vehicle and engine age categories, although the
specific criteria for designating conversion groups would vary somewhat
among the new, intermediate age, and outside useful life programs (see
Section IV). Conversion manufacturers would use the applicable criteria
to designate a conversion group, and would select a ``worst case''
emissions data vehicle (EDV) or emission data engine (EDE) to represent
the group for demonstration and notification purposes. Consistent with
current requirements, the conversion EDV/EDE would be expected to
represent the most challenging emissions compliance technology of all
the models it represents. Use of a worst-case emission data vehicle or
engine gives EPA confidence that all models covered by a certificate in
the case of OEM certification, or by EPA's acceptance of the conversion
group demonstration in the case of conversion, comply with all
applicable emission requirements. These may include exhaust emission
standards, evaporative emission standards, OBD compliance requirements,
and other criteria. Therefore conversion manufacturers may need to
submit data from more than one EDV or EDE to represent the worst case
condition for each of the applicable requirements.
D. Flex-Fuel (Bi-Fuel) and Dual-Fuel Conversions
EPA regulations require flex-fueled and dual-fueled vehicles and
engines to comply with all requirements established for each fuel or
blend of fuels on which the system is capable of operating.\20\ These
requirements would continue to apply to flex- and dual-fuel
conversions. Certain demonstration requirements could potentially be
waived for clean alternative fuel conversions if the conversion
manufacturer has not altered the OEM configuration of the vehicle or
engine when operating on its original fuel. However, if the conversion
of the vehicle or engine to dual-fuel or flex-fuel operation alters the
OEM certified configuration in any way while operating on the original
fuel, then EPA would require the conversion manufacturer to demonstrate
compliance for each fuel with all applicable exhaust emissions,
evaporative/refueling emissions, and OBD demonstration and notification
requirements, appropriate for the age of the vehicle as described in
Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 86.1810-01, 40 CFR 86.1811-04, 40 CFR
86.1812-01, 40 CFR 86.1813-01, 40 CFR 86.1814-01, 40 CFR 86.1814-02,
40 CFR 86.1815-01, 40 CFR 86.1815-02, 40 CFR 86.1816-05, 40 CFR
86.1816-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to continue to allow a statement of compliance in lieu
of test data for operation on the original fuel if the conversion
manufacturer can attest that the conversion retains all the OEM fuel
system, engine calibration, and emission control system functionality
when operating on the fuel with which the vehicle was originally
certified and the conversion retains all the functionality of the OEM
OBD system (if so equipped) when operating on the fuel with which the
vehicle was originally certified. The conversion manufacturer would
still be required to submit data demonstrating compliance with the
applicable requirements when the
[[Page 29612]]
vehicle is operating on the new alternative fuel.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Compliance testing and data submission requirements will
vary by vehicle age and mileage. See Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a flex-fuel vehicle or engine operates on a fuel mixture,
with the fuels combusted together at a variety of fuel ratios, EPA
would generally require a flex fuel vehicle or engine conversion
manufacturer to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements for
each fuel. The conversion manufacturer may need to conduct testing on
multiple fuel ratios to adequately represent worst case emission
scenarios.\22\ Conversion manufacturers should work with EPA to make
good engineering judgment decisions about the worst case emission data
vehicle or engine requirements for flex-fuel vehicles and engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Compliance testing and data submission requirements will
vary by vehicle age and mileage. See Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has specific concerns about canister purge in dual-fuel
conversions because of potential for uncontrolled evaporative emissions
when the converted vehicle or engine is operating on the new
alternative fuel. Although much of the OEM functionality is likely to
remain fully operational on the original fuel after conversion to dual-
fuel, OEM canister purge may have been designed to depend on the
frequency and duration of engine operation on the original fuel.
Therefore, for dual-fuel conversions, EPA proposes to require the
conversion manufacturer either to test canister purge and submit data,
or to provide a separate attestation for evaporative emission canister
purge. For vehicles and engines converted to dual-fuel operation, the
attestation would include statements that the evaporative emissions
canister purge continues to operate as originally designed while
operating on each fuel. EPA would expect the clean alternative fuel
conversion manufacturer to supply a description of the canister purge
operation while the vehicle or engine is operating on the alternative
fuel. EPA would expect that the canister purge while operating on the
alternative fuel is identical to the OEM canister purge operation.
E. Vehicle and Packaging Labels
Vehicle and engine labeling requirements for clean alternative fuel
conversions are currently set forth in 40 CFR 85.505. These regulations
list the information that must be included on the label and require the
label to be permanently affixed adjacent to the OEM vehicle emissions
control information (VECI) label. EPA proposes to maintain these
labeling requirements for clean alternative fuel converted vehicles and
engines. We also propose to require some additional content on the
vehicle conversion label. The newly required content would include the
conversion manufacturer's evaporative/refueling family and test group
or engine family and a statement specifying the minimum age and/or
mileage requirements, OEM model year of vehicles, and the specific OEM
test groups or engine families to which the conversion system is
applicable. Conversion manufacturers would be required to submit the
vehicle label information to EPA as part of the notification process.
Failure to supply or install compliant labels would leave conversion
manufacturers and installers subject to prosecution for tampering.
It has been suggested that conversion manufacturers be required to
submit to EPA Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) information for all
converted vehicles, in addition to vehicle label information. The
reason for VIN tracking would be to assist automotive dealers or repair
facilities, State Inspection and Maintenance program personnel, and
others who might need to know whether a vehicle or engine has been
altered from its OEM configuration. EPA requests comment as to whether
converters should submit VIN tracking information to EPA and whether
EPA should make such information publicly available.
EPA proposes that any packaging label information must be
consistent with the conversion manufacturer's demonstration and
notification to EPA. This would include the minimum vehicle or engine
age requirements and OEM manufacturer, model year, carline (model) and
vehicle test groups or engine families to which the clean alternative
fuel conversion may be applied.
EPA seeks comment on whether the proposed information content of
the vehicle and packaging labels is appropriate for vehicles and
engines that have been converted to operate on a clean alternative
fuel.
F. Marketing
EPA would continue to expect that any marketing material associated
with any aftermarket fuel conversion product would be consistent with
and not contravene the information required on the vehicle or packaging
labels. For instance, the marketing of the applicability of the product
must be consistent with the label information to ensure the product
would not be misapplied to other vehicles or engines.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ If any marketing material implies or states that the
installation of the conversion system is legal or appropriate for
vehicles/engines not listed in the documentation provided to EPA,
EPA would deem the marketing material to be evidence that the
marketer caused a customer to install an inappropriate conversion
system and thus tampered with the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Compliance
Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers would continue to
be subject to all certification requirements and warranty, defect, and
recall requirements applicable to new vehicle and engine manufacturers
in 40 CFR parts 85 and 86.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 40 CFR 85.503 and 85.504 and 59 FR 48478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA plans to audit conversion manufacturers and enforce against
violations.
1. Emission Standards
EPA has previously determined that it is appropriate to require
vehicle and engine fuel conversions to meet the same emission standard
as required for the originally certified OEM vehicle or engine.\25\ OEM
standards would continue to apply for the required test cycles,
including intermediate useful life standards and full useful life
standards where applicable.\26\ If a converter designates a conversion
group that combines multiple OEM test groups/engine families, the most
stringent OEM standards represented within that group would become the
applicable standards for the conversion group. For example, if a
converter establishes a conversion test group that includes OEM test
groups originally certified to Tier 2, Bin 4 and Bin 5 standards, all
the vehicles in the combined conversion test group would be subject to
more stringent Tier 2, Bin 4 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 59 FR 48488.
\26\ In almost all cases the standards in place for an OEM
vehicle or engine will continue to apply to the converted vehicle or
engine. The only exceptions involve fuel specific standards (or
exemptions from standards) that were not applicable to the OEM
configuration but are applicable to the converted configuration, or
vice versa. In those cases the converted vehicle/engine will be held
to the fuel-specific standard that would have been in place for an
OEM vehicle/engine certified to operate on that fuel. For example,
diesel-fueled vehicles are currently exempt from evaporative
emission standards but vehicles fueled with most other fuels are
not. If a diesel fuel vehicle is converted to run on an alternative
fuel, the converted vehicle would be held to the evaporative
emission standards that would have applied to an OEM vehicle
certified operating on that fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicle Gross Vehicle Weight
Classes and Alternative Fuel Exceptions
Emission standards for light-duty passenger cars, light-duty
trucks,
[[Page 29613]]
medium-duty passenger vehicles, and Otto-cycle heavy-duty complete
vehicles less than 14,000 pound gross vehicle weight are codified in 40
CFR part 86, subpart S.\27\ Standards are specific to vehicle type and
gross vehicle weight ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For purposes of this NPRM, this group of vehicles will be
described as light-duty and heavy-duty complete vehicles from this
point forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light-duty vehicles, both OEM vehicles and conversions, are
currently exempt from Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP)
standards and cold carbon monoxide (CO) standards when certified on
alternative fuels.\28\ However, for dual-fuel and flex-fuel (bi-fuel)
light-duty vehicles, SFTP and cold CO standards do apply while the
vehicle is operating on gasoline or diesel fuel.\29\ At this time, EPA
is not proposing any changes to the regulations in 40 CFR 86.1810-
01(i)(4). However, EPA is requesting comment on whether SFTP standards
and testing are appropriate for alternative fueled light-duty vehicles;
both OEM vehicles and clean alternative fuel conversions (see Section
IV.A.3.a).\30\ In the future, if SFTP standards are amended to apply to
vehicles operated on alternative fuels, these standards and test
procedures would also be applicable to fuel conversions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ All medium-duty passenger vehicles are also currently
exempt from SFTP standards, regardless of fuel type. 40 CFR 85.1811-
04(f)(1). Medium duty passenger vehicles, operating on gasoline, do
have a cold CO standard (40 CFR 86.1811-04(g)).
\29\ 40 CFR 86.1810-01(i)(4) and 40 CFR 86.1811-04(g).
\30\ 40 CFR 86.1811-04(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Heavy-Duty Engine Types and Gross Vehicle Weight Classes
Heavy-duty engine standards are categorized in several ways. There
are divisions by engine type, either compression ignition or spark
ignition, and there are divisions by application gross vehicle weight.
Standards for heavy-duty engines are described in 40 CFR part 86,
subpart A. Generally, heavy-duty engine standards apply to engines
installed in vehicles with a gross vehicle rating (GVWR) greater than
8,500 pounds. As noted in Section III.G.1, Otto-cycle complete vehicles
must be certified using standards and procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 85, subpart F. In addition, Otto-cycle incomplete vehicles with
GVWR up to 14,000 pounds which were optionally certified by the OEM
using the provisions found in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, would also
follow these provisions for conversion to a clean alternative fuel.\31\
OEM manufacturers of compression ignition engines in complete heavy-
duty vehicles between 8,500 and 14,000 pounds may optionally chassis
certify using the provisions in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. The clean
alternative fuel conversion manufacturer would use the same
certification provisions (engine or chassis-certification provisions)
that the OEM used at the time of the original certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ As described in Section III.G.1.a of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Dual-Fuel Standards
EPA as a matter of policy requires dual fuel vehicles and engines
to certify operation on both fuel types to the same emission standards.
A dual-fuel natural gas-gasoline vehicle, for example, would need to
certify to the same Tier 2 bin level for both natural gas and gasoline.
The same policy applies to evaporative/refueling standards and family
emission levels (FELs) for engines. Therefore, conversion manufacturers
of systems that convert single-fuel OEM systems to dual-fuel systems
must certify to the OEM standard, even if test data demonstrate that
the converted vehicle or engine is able to meet a lower standard while
operating on the alternative fuel. If a conversion manufacturer wishes
to certify to a lower standard on both fuels, a demonstration would be
required on both fuels showing compliance with the said standard. This
policy would continue to apply to all vehicle fuel conversions,
regardless of age or compliance program.\32\ In each case the
notification process for a dual-fuel vehicle will require separate
submissions for groups of vehicles with different standards. However,
test data from an EDV or EDE demonstrating compliance with a lower
standard may be able to be carried across to other vehicles or engines
that meet the criteria available for the combination of exhaust groups,
such as test groups and engine families, described in Sections IV.A.2
and IV.B.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Compliance testing and data submission requirements will
vary by vehicle age and mileage. See Section IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Useful Life
In the rulemaking that established the existing aftermarket
conversions certification program, EPA determined it was not
appropriate to extend the useful life of a conversion beyond that of
the original vehicle given that conversions generally rely on many
original vehicle components for proper operation.\33\ EPA's revised
program would leave this determination unchanged such that the
applicable useful life of a converted vehicle or engine would not
extend beyond the useful life of the original vehicle or engine. Thus,
the useful life of the conversion would continue to end at the same
time as the useful life of the original vehicle, including any optional
useful life standards to which the OEM certified the original
vehicle.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 59 FR 48488.
\34\ Examples of optional useful life include those described in
40 CFR 86.1805-04(b) and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. On Board Diagnostics (OBD)
As part of the good engineering judgment requirement described in
Section III.B, OEM vehicles or engines subject to OBD requirements
would also be required to have properly functioning OBD systems once
converted.\35\ OBD systems are designed to monitor critical vehicle or
engine emission control components and to alert the vehicle operator or
State emissions inspection official to malfunction, deterioration, or
other problems that might cause excessive emissions. States rely on OBD
systems to flag vehicles that exceed Inspection and Maintenance
thresholds and may require repair. OBD systems are also designed to
store diagnostic information in the vehicle's computer to assist
technicians in diagnosing and repairing the problem EPA is proposing
that the conversion OBD system would need to include any new monitoring
capability necessary to identify potential emission problems associated
with the new fuel. In addition, consistent with other EPA regulations,
EPA proposes that any dual-fuel clean alternative fuel conversion would
require the OBD to remain fully functional on the original fuel.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ OBD systems were phased in for light-duty and heavy-duty
complete vehicles beginning in 1994. See 40 CFR 86.1806-01, 86.1806-
04, and 86.1806-05. OBD systems were phased in for heavy-duty
vehicles weighing less than 14,000 pounds GVWR beginning in 2004. 40
CFR 86.005-17. OBD requirements for heavy-duty engines for vehicles
over 14,000 pounds begin phase-in in 2010. 40 CFR 86.005-18.
According to 40 CFR 86.010-18(o)(1)(v), engines in vehicles over
14,000 pounds GVWR certified on alternative fuels are exempt from
OBD requirements for model years 2010-2012.
\36\ Multi-fueled vehicles must be compliant on both fuels. See,
for example, 40 CFR 86.1811-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Durability Testing
Manufacturers must conduct durability testing for both exhaust and
evaporative emissions to determine expected useful life deterioration.
Durability procedures for light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty complete
vehicles are codified in 40 CFR 86.1823-01, 86.1824-01, 1824-07, 1824-
08, and 86.1825-01, 85.1825-08. Durability procedures for heavy-duty
engines are currently set forth in 40 CFR 86.096-24, 86.098-24, 86.001-
24,
[[Page 29614]]
86.094-26, 86.001-26, 86.0004-26, 86.094-28, et al. In lieu of
durability testing, these regulations provide that small volume
manufacturers may be eligible to utilize EPA assigned deterioration
factors to predict the emission rates at the end of a vehicle or
engine's useful life. See Section IV.B.3.c for more information.
EPA requests comment as to whether the durability procedures that
would be established under this proposal are appropriate for small and
large volume conversion manufacturers. EPA also requests comment on
whether the proposed procedures provide adequate assurance that the
emission control systems in converted vehicles and engines will
continue to function properly over time.
5. Warranty
The CAA requires manufacturers to warrant that a vehicle or engine
is (1) designed, built, and equipped to conform to applicable
regulations and (2) free from defects in material and workmanship which
cause the vehicle or engine to fail to conform to applicable
regulations for its useful life.\37\ For light-duty vehicles, this
defect warranty is applicable through two years or 24,000 miles of use
(whichever first occurs).\38\ Specified major emission control
components, including catalysts, engine control units (ECUs), and OBD
are warranted for eight years or 80,000 miles of use (whichever first
occurs).\39\ For Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles (complete
and incomplete) and light heavy-duty diesel engines, the warranty
period is at least 5 years or 50,000 miles, whichever first occurs. For
all other heavy-duty diesel engines, the warranty period is at least 5
years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs. For all heavy-duty
engines the warranty period may not be shorter than the basic
mechanical warranty period that the original equipment manufacturer
provides.\40\ Conversion manufacturers must accept in-use liability for
warranty and recall as a condition for gaining exemption from tampering
under EPA's current aftermarket conversions certification program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 42 U.S.C. 7541.
\38\ CAA section 207(i)(1).
\39\ CAA section 207(i)(2).
\40\ 40 CFR 86.004-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA would continue to apply this approach to in-use liability for
warranty under the revised clean alternative fuel conversions program
being proposed today. Under this policy, the clean alternative fuel
conversion manufacturer would normally be held accountable for fixing
problems that occur as the result of conversion, while the OEM would
generally retain responsibility for the performance of any parts or
systems that retain their original function following conversion and
are unaffected by the conversion. It is important that both clean
alternative fuel conversion manufacturers and consumers understand
these provisions because they could result in a transfer of warranty
liability for certain failed components from the OEM to the converter.
A reasonable indicator of cause and accountability might be whether the
failure of the part or system is also occurring in non-converted
configurations of the same vehicle. If so, the problem is most likely
not related to conversion and the OEM would typically remain liable for
performing repairs. If only converted vehicles are experiencing the
problem, it would be appropriate to trace the problem to the conversion
and to hold the converter responsible for warranty repairs. These views
are consistent with the liability provisions in the existing subpart F
regulations.\41\ EPA seeks comment on the best way to inform consumers
about the possibility that converting their vehicle or engine, even
with an EPA compliant system, may transfer portions of their OEM
warranty liability to the converter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 59 FR 48488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Other Provisions Applicable to Conversion Manufacturers
As stated above, all clean alternative fuel conversion
manufacturers would continue to be subject to labeling, warranty, and
certification requirements applicable to new vehicle and engine
manufacturers in 40 CFR parts 85 and 86.\42\ In addition, there are
recall and defect reporting requirements in 40 CFR 85.503 and 85.504
which would also continue to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 40 CFR 85.504 and 59 FR 48478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversion manufacturers are subject to the recall regulations in
40 CFR part 85, subpart S and the emission defect reporting
requirements in 40 CFR part 85, subpart T. If EPA determines that a
substantial number of vehicles or engines in a class or category do not
meet applicable emission standards in actual use even though they are
properly maintained and used, EPA can require the manufacturer to
recall and fix affected vehicles.\43\ All manufacturers are also
required to report to EPA certain defects affecting emission-related
parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ CAA section 207(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 206, 207 and 208 of the Act authorize EPA to establish
procedures to ensure that production vehicles and engines comply with
emission standards when they are new and continue to comply with
emission requirements after they are in customer service. These
provisions provide EPA broad authority to conduct testing as the
Administrator deems necessary to monitor in-use vehicle and engine
compliance. EPA intends to extend these emission testing programs to
cover clean alternative fuel conversions as well as OEM vehicles.
7. Misapplication
EPA may revisit the age-based approach being proposed today should
there at any time be evidence of widespread conversion system
misapplication that can be traced to differences among the age-based
demonstration or notification requirements. For example, if exempted
outside useful life conversion systems are commonly marketed to
vehicles that are still within their useful life, EPA would not only
consider the misapplication to be tampering, but would also consider
revising this rule to eliminate or constrain the age-based
demonstration approach.
H. Regulatory Procedures for Small Volume Manufacturers and Small
Volume Test Groups
EPA regulations afford certain flexibilities to small volume
manufacturers in recognition of special compliance challenges they may
face. The clean alternative fuels industry has historically been
comprised of companies that qualify for small volume manufacturer
status. Existing eligibility criteria and special procedures available
to small volume conversion manufacturers, along with changes under
today's proposal, are discussed below.
1. Definition of Small Volume Manufacturers, Small Volume Test Groups,
and Small Volume Engine Families
a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicle Small Volume
Manufacturers and Small Volume Test Groups
EPA has regulatory procedures specific to light-duty and heavy-duty
complete vehicle small volume manufacturers and small volume test
groups, set forth in 40 CFR 86.1838-01. A manufacturer is eligible for
small volume manufacturer status for light-duty and heavy-duty complete
vehicle procedures, if the manufacturer's annual model year motor
vehicle and engine total sales volume in all States and territories of
the United States (or aggregate sales volume for manufacturers in an
aggregate
[[Page 29615]]
relationship) is less than 15,000 units.\44\ (For sales aggregation
rules for related manufacturers, refer to 40 CFR 86.1839-01(b)(3)). A
large volume manufacturer may also use small volume manufacturer
certification procedures for test groups of vehicles which total less
than 15,000 units. For small volume test group eligibility criteria for
large volume manufacturers who participate in aggregate relationships,
refer to 40 CFR 86.1838-01(b)(2) for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 40 CFR 86.1838-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Heavy-Duty Engine Small Volume Manufacturers
The EPA regulatory provisions for small volume heavy-duty engines
are promulgated in 40 CFR 86.094-14, 86.096-14 and 86.098-14. Heavy-
duty engine small volume manufacturer status is tiered. Certain
procedures apply to manufacturers with aggregate sales of less than 301
units, and other procedures may apply to manufacturers with aggregate
sales volumes less than 10,000 units. For sales aggregation rules,
refer to 40 CFR 86.094-14(b)(2) and 86.094-14(b)(5).
2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
All light-duty and heavy-duty complete vehicle small volume
manufacturers or qualified small volume test groups are eligible to use
assigned deterioration factors (DFs) in lieu of durability testing to
predict emission rates at the end of a vehicle's useful life.\45\ EPA
assigned deterioration factors are authorized in 40 CFR 86.1826-01 and
are periodically updated by EPA via manufacturer guidance letters.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 40 CFR 86.1838-01(c)(1). Manufacturers not eligible for
small volume manufacturer or small volume test group status are
required to follow durability procedures in 40 CFR 86.1823-01,
86.1923-08, 86.1824-01, 86.1824-07, 86.1824-08, 86.1825-01, and
86.1825-08.
\46\ The current light-duty light duty and heavy-duty complete
vehicles assigned deterioration factor guidance document issued
pursuant to 40 CFR 86.1826(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(i)(c), is available
electronically at http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=14285&flag=1. The current heavy-duty engine assigned
deterioration guidance letter is available electronically at http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=14183&flag=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy-duty engine small volume manufacturers may also be eligible
for assigned DFs instead of conducting durability demonstrations.\47\
Under the regulations, manufacturers with sales volumes of less than
10,000 units are eligible to use assigned DFs determined by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 40 CFR 86.094-14, 40 CFR 86.095-14, 40 CFR 86.096-14, 49
CFR 86.098-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because assigned deterioration factors are determined assuming the
vehicle or engine is new, EPA proposes to allow small volume conversion
manufacturers to use deterioration factors, proportionate to the
vehicle or engine age under certain conditions. This would help create
a level playing field for older vehicles and engines that have already
experienced some of their expected emissions degradation. EPA proposes
that conversion manufacturers are eligible to use scaled DFs for
vehicles or engines that have accumulated more than 10,000 miles. EPA
proposes to allow a proportionate scaling of the EPA assigned
deterioration factor, if applicable, to demonstrate compliance with the
intermediate and/or full useful-life standards. See Section IV.B.3.c.i
for more detail.
3. Changes in Small Volume Manufacturer Status
If a conversion manufacturer's annual sales volume may surpass the
threshold for small volume manufacturer or test group status for a
given model year,\48\ the conversion manufacturer must satisfy the
regulatory requirements required for large volume manufacturers or test
groups, even if the conversion manufacturer initially complied properly
(in a previous model year) with the small volume requirements.
Conversion manufacturers should be aware that this status change could
result in new demonstration and notification requirements involving new
testing under both the new and intermediate age programs. EPA proposes
to require conversion manufacturers to report to EPA the number of
conversion systems they have sold annually in an end-of year
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Manufacturers of conversion systems for intermediate age
and outside useful life vehicles would use calendar year sales
volume to determine small volume manufacturer status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A change from small volume status to large volume status could
occur in several different situations. First, if a conversion
manufacturer is required to recertify a vehicle or engine (see Section
IV.A.4.c for an explanation of recertification) after a sales volume
status change, all large volume test procedures and requirements would
need to be conducted prior to the issuance of the new certificate.
Second, if a small volume conversion manufacturer crosses the annual
sales volume threshold and becomes a large volume conversion
manufacturer, the conversion manufacturer would need to update their
demonstration and complete all applicable large volume requirements for
the intermediate age vehicle or engine conversions which are no longer
eligible for small volume manufacturer or test group.
IV. Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion Program Details
As summarized earlier in this Notice, EPA is proposing to revise
the demonstration and notification procedures for clean alternative
fuel conversions based on the age of the vehicle or engine to be
converted. All conversion manufacturers would be required to
demonstrate to EPA that the conversion satisfies technical criteria to
qualify as a clean alternative fuel conversion, but demonstration and
notification requirements would be different depending on vehicle or
engine age. The age-specific requirements are summarized in Table IV-1
and are presented in detail below.
The age-based demonstration and notification requirements that EPA
is proposing stem from both legal and practical considerations. The
proposed distinctions between the demonstration required for new,
intermediate age, and outside useful life vehicles and engines address
the issues posed by the absence of applicable emission standards for
converted vehicles and engines that have exceeded full useful life. At
the same time, the proposed approach recognizes that new vehicles and
engines, at the time of conversion, should resemble the certified OEM
configuration from the perspective of emissions degradation and should
therefore be held to the same durability and deterioration factor
demonstrations required for OEM certification. Intermediate age
vehicles and engines fall between the new and outside useful life
categories. While useful life standards still apply, certain
certification requirements are no longer suitable for aging vehicles
and engines.
As with demonstration protocols, EPA believes different
notification protocols are appropriate for the three age classes. The
proposed notification protocols reflect the level of detail EPA has
determined to be necessary for conversion manufacturers to adequately
document and for EPA to review the required emissions demonstration.
The proposed age-based notification system would streamline the
notification process and would create a simple system that both small
and large conversion manufacturers could easily understand and follow.
[[Page 29616]]
Table IV-1--Overview of Proposed Program Elements 49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle/engine age Conversion manufacturer requirement Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certificate of detail
Example for 2010 conformity preamble
Category Applicability \50\ Demonstration Notification section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New.............................. MY > = current MY 2009, 2010, 2011 Exhaust, Evap, and Certification Yes IV.A
calendar year - 1. and < useful life OBD testing \51\. Application.
mileage.
Intermediate age................. MY < = current MY 2001, 2002, 2003, Exhaust and Evap Data Submission No IV.B
calendar year - 2 2004, 2005, 2006, testing \51\ + OBD \52\.
and within useful 2007, 2008 and < attestation.
life. useful life mileage.
Outside useful life.............. Exceeds useful life. MY 2000 and older or See Sec. IV.C for See Sec. IV.C for No IV.C
> full useful life options. options \52\.
mileage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. New Vehicle and Engine Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion
Certification Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See Section X of this preamble for more compliance details.
\50\ This example is for Light-duty Tier 2 vehicles which have a
useful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles.
\51\ Exhaust and Evap refers to all exhaust emission testing and
all evaporative emission and refueling emission testing required for
new vehicle certification, unless otherwise excepted.
\52\ EPA is proposing that the compliance notification process
for intermediate age and outside useful life conversion would be
electronic submission of data and supporting documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to require that conversions of new vehicles and
engines (as defined for purposes of this preamble) \53\ be covered by a
certificate of conformity in order to qualify for an exemption from the
tampering prohibition. EPA also proposes to allow, but not require,
conversions of intermediate age vehicles and engines to qualify for an
exemption from the tampering prohibition by obtaining a certificate of
conformity (see Sections IV.A.1.b. and IV.B). Certification would
satisfy the statutory tampering exemption prerequisites that the
conversion is ``for use of a clean alternative fuel'' and that the
converted vehicle ``complies with the applicable standards under
section 202.'' \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See footnote 4.
\54\ CAA 203(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that certification of clean alternative fuel
conversions remains an appropriate demonstration of compliance with
useful life standards for new vehicles and engines. New vehicles and
engines have not yet experienced deterioration and are still likely to
be representative, for purposes of emissions, of the technical
condition of the vehicle or engine that the OEM used for EPA
certification. Thus the certification process is suitable for and may
be directly applied to new vehicle and engine clean alternative fuel
conversions.
EPA also believes that a certification demonstration requirement
for new vehicle and engine conversions is prudent to maintain a level
playing field for OEMs and conversion manufacturers. We believe it is
important to prevent the potential opportunity for an OEM to circumvent
the new vehicle and engine certification process by choosing to certify
and then convert a traditionally-fueled vehicle or engine rather than
to certify it in an alternative fuel configuration in the first place.
New vehicles represent the vast majority of clean alternative fuel
conversion activity. For model year 2009, only two light duty vehicle
fuel conversion certificates out of 60 were issued based on data from a
vehicle that was more than one year old. EPA believes that a new
vehicle and engine certification requirement would continue to cover
most newly developed clean alternative fuel conversion systems and
therefore would preserve existing EPA control over their technical
viability and environmental performance. While new vehicle and engine
clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers would still be subject
to certification requirements under today's proposal, they would
benefit from reduced burden because the intermediate age compliance
program (see Section IV.B) would allow conversion manufacturers to
continue to sell their products as vehicles and engines age without
renewing certificates and paying certification fees after vehicles and
engines are about two years old.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Conversion manufacturers would be able to use their
certification data to qualify for a tampering exemption under the
intermediate age vehicle/engine program described in Section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal leaves the existing regulatory procedures for
demonstration, notification, and compliance documents relatively
unchanged for clean alternative fuel conversion of new vehicles and
engines. The demonstration of compliance with applicable standards
would use the same certification procedures required of conversion
manufacturers under the existing subpart F regulations with a few
technical amendments and other allowances.\56\ The notification process
in existing subpart F regulations would also remain unchanged for
conversion of new vehicles and engines. Conversion manufacturers would
continue to submit applications, including test data, certification
fees, and other required information to EPA on an annual basis. The
compliance document, a certificate of conformity, would also remain
unchanged for conversion of new vehicles and engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Technical amendment proposals are described in Section V.
See section IV.B.3.c.i for a description of the proposed scaling of
assigned deterioration factors for small volume manufacturers who
conduct demonstration testing on a vehicle with over 10,000 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Applicability
a. New Vehicles and Engines
EPA proposes to define ``new and relatively-new'' (as discussed
above in Section I in this preamble we refer to ``new and relatively-
new'' vehicles and engines as ``new'') vehicle or engine clean
alternative fuel conversions as those for which the date of conversion
is in a calendar year that is not more than one year after the original
model year (MY) of the vehicle or engine.\57\ For example, in calendar
year 2010, certified conversion systems would be
[[Page 29617]]
required for MY 2009, MY 2010, and MY 2011 vehicles or engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ OEM model years are often introduced ahead of the calendar
year. Thus, to calculate which conversions must be certified,
subtract the original vehicle model year from the current calendar
year. If the difference is one or less than one, then a certified
conversion is required to qualify for the tampering exemption. If
the difference is more than one, then the conversion may comply with
the intermediate age or outside useful life provisions as
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated previously, EPA believes that certification is an
appropriate requirement for new vehicles and engines because their
emissions and mileage accumulation still largely reflect the vehicle's
condition at the time of OEM certification. For consumer and conversion
manufacturer clarity, it makes sense to compare vehicle model year to
the current calendar year. This can be accomplished by applying the
formula presented in Table IV-1 above. In practice this means that
certification would be required for vehicles or engines that are less
than about two years old.
EPA is proposing an age threshold of less than about two years old
for the new vehicle and engine certification requirement on the basis
of historical conversion certification age patterns. EPA requests
comment regarding whether EPA has properly identified the vehicle and
engine age range for which certification is appropriate and should be
required for conversions. In particular EPA requests emissions or other
data to support comments suggesting a different age range than the
proposed two year period.
b. Older Vehicles and Engines
Manufacturers of conversion systems for vehicles and engines that
are older than the age range defined above for new vehicles and
engines, but still fall within the original vehicle's or engine's
useful life, may opt for certification as their demonstration of
compliance with useful life standards. These systems are also eligible
for the intermediate age notification program described in Section
IV.B.
2. Test Groups, Engine Families and Evaporative/Refueling Families
a. Test Groups for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
In seeking to streamline the certification process for clean
alternative fuel conversion manufacturer, EPA proposes to allow
conversion manufacturers to combine several OEM test groups into larger
conversion test groups, where the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR
86.1827-01 and 86.1820-01 are still satisfied. Test groups cannot span
multiple durability groups.\58\ However, all clean alternative fuel
conversion manufacturers who meet the Small Volume Manufacturer
criteria in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 are eligible to use EPA assigned
deterioration factors.\59\ By default the assigned deterioration
factors define the durability group. As such, EPA proposes to use
select criteria in the durability group determination, 40 CFR 86.1820-
01, the test group determination, 40 CFR 86.1827-01, and other
additional criteria to allow OEM test groups to be combined into a
single clean alternative fuel conversion test group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 40 CFR 86.1827-01.
\59\ 40 CFR 86.1826-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicles can be placed into the same clean alternative fuel
conversion test group using good engineering judgment if they satisfy
the following: \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Of the criteria listed above, 4-6 are
from 40 CFR 86.1827-01(a) and 7-11 are from 40 CFR
86.1820-01. To provide flexibility in combining OEM test groups,
this proposal does not include the precious metal composition and
catalyst grouping statistic criteria in CFR 86.1820-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Same OEM and OEM model year \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Aftermarket fuel conversion manufacturers would continue to
be able to use carry-over of test results from one model year to the
next if the OEM exercised such flexibility in accordance with EPA
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Same OBD group \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ On rare occasion, an OEM test group contains multiple OBD
groups. When this occurs, EPA proposes to allow the conversion test
group to include the multiple OBD groups that are covered by the OEM
test group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Same vehicle classification (e.g. light-duty vehicle, heavy-
duty vehicle)
(4) Engine displacement is within 15% of largest displacement or 50
CID, whichever is larger
(5) Same number of cylinders or combustion chambers
(6) Same arrangement of cylinders or combustion chambers (e.g. in-
line, v-shaped)
(7) Same combustion cycle (e.g., two stroke, four stroke, Otto-
cycle, diesel-cycle)
(8) Same engine type (e.g. piston, rotary, turbine, air cooled
versus water cooled)
(9) Same OEM fuel type (except otherwise similar gasoline and E85
flex fuel vehicles may be combined into dedicated alternative fuel
vehicles)
(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g. throttle body injection vs.
port injection)
(11) Same catalyst construction (e.g. beads or monolith, metal vs.
ceramic substrate)
(12) All converted vehicles are subject to the most stringent
emission standards used in certifying the OEM test groups within the
conversion test group
EPA requests comment on the proposed conversion test group criteria
and what additional criteria, if any, should be considered to
adequately ensure that models within a conversion test group share
emissions characteristics that would be similarly affected by the
conversion system being certified. EPA also requests comment on whether
the data generated from a worst case EDV will adequately represent the
proposed allowable fuel conversion test groups.
a. Dual-Fuel Vehicle Carry-Across Procedures for Small Volume
Manufacturers
As described in Section III.G.1.c, dual-fuel vehicles cannot be
certified to different standards for each fuel. However, if the
vehicles would otherwise meet the test group criteria described above,
the exhaust emissions test data for the new, alternative fuel from
dual-fueled emission data vehicles could be carried across to vehicles
which otherwise meet the test group criteria above. Test data can only
be carried across if the data demonstrate compliance with the most
stringent standard among the vehicles to which it is being applied.
This means that for dual-fuel conversions a manufacturer would have to
apply for multiple certificates if the OEM vehicles in the proposed
test group combination were originally certified to different
standards; however, the data acquired on the alternative fuel may be
applicable to multiple certificates when the test group criteria above
are otherwise met and the data demonstrate that the most stringent
standard within the group is met.
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
Large volume manufacturers must create test groups according to the
regulations in 40 CFR 86.1827-01. As required by these regulations, the
manufacturer must first create durability groups pursuant to 40 CFR
86.1820-01, and then divide those groups into test groups for the
purposes of exhaust emissions testing.
b. Engine Families for Heavy-Duty Engines
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
In seeking to streamline the certification process and maintain
consistency with the policy for light-duty vehicles, EPA proposes to
allow combinations of several original OEM engine families into larger
conversion engine families. Engines can be placed into the same clean
alternative fuel conversion engine family using good engineering
judgment if they satisfy the following: \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ These proposed criteria are consistent with the 2009
guidance letter, CISD 09-14, which can be accessed electronically at
http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=20194&flag=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Same OEM
(2) Same OBD group after 2013
[[Page 29618]]
(3) Same service class (e.g. light heavy-duty diesel engines,
medium heavy-duty diesel engines, heavy heavy-duty diesel engines)
(4) Engine displacements is within 15% of largest displacement or
50 CID, whichever is larger
(5) Same number of cylinders
(6) Same arrangement of cylinders
(7) Same combustion cycle
(8) Same method of air aspiration
(9) Same fuel type (e.g. diesel/gasoline)
(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g., mechanical direct or
electronic direct injection)
(11) Same catalyst/filter construction (e.g., metal vs. ceramic
substrate)
(12) All converted vehicles are subject to the most stringent
emission standards. For example, 2005 and 2007 heavy-duty diesel
engines may be in the same family if they meet the most stringent
(2007) standards
(13) Same emission control technology (e.g., internal or external
EGR)
a. Dual-Fuel Engine Carry-Across
Heavy-duty dual-fuel engines cannot be certified to different
standards for each fuel.\64\ However, if the engines would otherwise
meet the engine family criteria described above, the exhaust emissions
test data for the new, alternative fuel from dual-fueled test engines
could be carried across to engines which otherwise meet the engine
family criteria above. Test data can only be carried across if the data
demonstrates compliance with the most stringent standard among the
engines to which it is being applied. This means that for dual-fuel
conversions, a manufacturer would have to apply for multiple engine
family certificates if the OEM engines in the proposed engine family
combination were originally certified to different standards; however,
the data acquired on the alternative fuel may be applicable to multiple
certificates when the engine family criteria above are otherwise met
and the data demonstrates that the most stringent standard within the
conversion engine family is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Section III.G.1.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
All large volume heavy-duty engine manufacturers must create engine
families as set forth in 40 CFR 86.001-24.
c. Evaporative/Refueling Families
Conversion manufacturers would be required to follow the regulatory
provisions for designating evaporative and refueling families. These
provisions are located in 40 CFR 86.1821-01 for light-duty vehicles and
heavy-duty complete vehicles and in 40 CFR 86.096-24(a)(12)-(13) for
heavy-duty engines. If the clean alternative fuel conversion system
continues to use the OEM evaporative/refueling emissions system in
their original configurations, the conversion evaporative/refueling
families will remain identical to the OEM evaporative/refueling
families. If, however, the conversion requires a new evaporative/
refueling system (as for pressurized fuels, such as CNG and LPG), then
the conversion manufacturer may create a single evaporative/refueling
family as long as the regulatory criteria for evaporative/refueling
families are met. Small volume manufacturers may use EPA assigned
evaporative/refueling deterioration factors in lieu of evaporative/
refueling durability demonstrations.
Clean alternative fuel conversion evaporative families for dual-
fueled vehicles and engines may not include vehicles and engines which
were originally certified to different evaporative emissions standards.
3. Certification Demonstration Requirements
EPA proposes that certification for clean alternative fuel
conversions be based on the certification procedures specified in 40
CFR part 86, subpart A, B and/or S and 40 CFR part 1065 as applicable,
subject to the exceptions and special provisions described in Section
III.G.1.a and Section V, if applicable.
a. Exhaust Emissions
i. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
The exhaust emissions testing demonstration for light-duty and
heavy-duty complete vehicles would be conducted on a test group basis.
The worst-case emission data vehicle from each test group would be used
to demonstrate compliance with the most stringent standards represented
among the OEM vehicles when they were originally certified. All exhaust
certification requirements and test procedures which are required in
regulations for OEM certification would be required for fuel conversion
certification. Test procedures and certification requirements are
currently located in 40 CFR part 86, subparts B and S.
The certification test procedures for conventionally-fueled
vehicles include test cycles designed to represent a variety of ``real
world'' driving conditions. One of these, the US06 test procedure and
drive cycle, is intended to emulate high speeds, aggressive
accelerations, and other typical driving patterns not captured by the
FTP (Federal Test Procedure). The US06 drive cycle is required for
conventionally-fueled vehicles, but alternative fuel vehicles were
excepted from the current regulations.\65\ It has been suggested that
the US06 exhaust emissions test is valuable for confirming catalyst
protection when vehicle operation results in high exhaust temperatures.
EPA seeks comment about the need to add a US06 demonstration or
statement of compliance with the US06 standard to the exhaust
certification demonstration requirement for clean alternative fueled
vehicle conversions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 61 FR 54871 (Oct. 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Heavy-Duty Engines
The exhaust emissions testing demonstration for heavy-duty engines
would be conducted on an engine family basis. The worst-case emission
data engine from each engine family would be used to demonstrate
compliance with the most stringent standards represented among the OEM
engines when they were originally certified. All exhaust certification
requirements and test procedures which are required in regulations for
OEM certification would be required for fuel conversion certification.
Test procedures and certification requirements are currently located in
40 CFR part 86 and part 1065.
b. Evaporative/Refueling Emissions
EPA proposes to retain the evaporative and refueling emissions test
procedures and requirements promulgated in 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065
as the demonstration requirement for clean fuel conversion
certification. Please see the technical amendments discussed in Section
V for fuel-specific amendments that apply to conversions to CNG (or
LNG), LPG, or hydrogen fuels.
c. Durability Demonstration and Assigned Deterioration Factors
i. Small Volume Manufacturer Assigned Deterioration Factors
a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
As noted in Section III.H.2 above, small volume light-duty and
heavy-duty complete vehicle manufacturers and eligible small volume
test groups are permitted to use EPA-assigned deterioration factors in
lieu of exhaust and evaporative/refueling durability
[[Page 29619]]
demonstrations. If the emission data vehicle (EDV) has accrued more
than 10,000 miles, we propose to allow the conversion manufacturer to
utilize the scaled assigned deterioration factors described in Section
IV.B.3.c below.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ This is due in part to the Fuel Economy testing
requirements which effectively limit the testing of vehicles with
more than 10,000 miles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Heavy-Duty Engines
For consistency with light-duty vehicles, EPA also proposes that
heavy-duty engine manufacturers who are eligible to use EPA assigned
deterioration factors would be permitted to use scaled assigned
deterioration factors when the emission data engine has accrued more
than 10,000 miles.
ii. Large Volume Manufacturer Durability Procedures
Large volume manufacturers would be required to conduct all
applicable durability testing demonstrations.
d. On-Board Diagnostics
EPA believes that a fully functional OBD system is valuable in
sustaining long-term emissions control and therefore proposes that the
same OBD requirements that apply to OEMs would continue to apply to
clean alternative fuel conversion systems. The certification
demonstration would require a submission of emissions data to prove
that the OBD continues to function and the Malfunction Indicator Light
(MIL) illuminates at the proper thresholds as set forth in 40 CFR
86.1806-01, 86.1806-04, and 86.1806-05 for light-duty vehicles and
heavy-duty complete vehicles. EPA also proposes that if an OEM heavy-
duty engine was certified with an OBD requirement, the conversion
should follow those requirements, unless an alternative fuel OBD
requirement is otherwise excepted from the OBD regulations. Heavy-duty
engine OBD requirements are promulgated in 40 CFR 86.007-17, 86.007-30,
86.010-18, and 86.010-38.
4. Certification Notification Process
EPA proposes a conversion certification notification process based
on the OEM certification procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86, as
applicable. The proposed notification requirement is intended to
continue to incorporate the entire OEM certification process. If the
OEM process is amended in the future, the fuel conversion certification
procedures would also change, unless specifically excepted. The
following is a brief overview of the current light-duty and heavy-duty
complete vehicle certification process, but should not be considered an
exhaustive list of all certification requirements:
1. Manufacturer requests an EPA manufacturer code and creates a
data entry (Verify) account. Instructions for this are located at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/verify/mfr-code.htm. Manufacturers are assigned
an EPA certification representative.
2. Manufacturer contacts their assigned EPA certification
representative to describe the certification plan, including a
discussion on how emissions durability will be demonstrated.
3. Manufacturer conducts all testing, including exhaust emission
testing, evaporative/refueling emission testing, and on-board
diagnostics demonstrations.
4. Manufacturer enters data in web-based data entry system (Verify)
and fills out a confirmatory testing waiver request to request a place
in the EPA confirmatory testing queue.
5. EPA conducts confirmatory testing based on the need to test the
first vehicle from a new manufacturer, a random selection of an
emission data vehicle through the computerized Verify system, the
desire to test a vehicle employing new technology, or other EPA reasons
as appropriate.
6. Certification fees are paid to EPA. Reduced fees may be
available. See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/guidance.htm for instructions
and forms pertaining to fee payment.
7. Manufacturer submits an application for certification according
to 40 CFR 86.1843-01 and 86.1844-01. The application must contain any
applicable statements of compliance or attestations \67\ and an OBD
approval letter from the California Air Resources Board or an EPA OBD
approval letter if the vehicle will be sold only in States which have
not adopted the California emissions standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ The certification process may permit several statements of
compliance or attestations in lieu of test data. Some of these are
found in the OEM certification regulations in 40 CFR part 86,
subparts A and S and 40 CFR part 1065. In addition we are proposing
attestation statements specific to conversion to a clean alternative
fuel. These would include:
1. The test group or engine family converted to dual fuel
operation retains all the OEM fuel system, engine calibration, and
emission control system functionality when operating on the fuel
with which the vehicle was originally certified.
2. The test group or engine family converted to dual fuel
operation retains all the functionality of the OEM OBD system (if so
equipped) when operating on the fuel with which the vehicle was
originally certified.
3. The test group or engine family converted to dual fuel
operation properly purges hydrocarbon vapor from the evaporative
emission canister when the vehicles/engines are operating on the
alternative fuel.
4. The test group or engine family converted to an alternative
fuel has fully functional OBD systems (if the OEM vehicles or
engines are OBD equipped) and therefore meet the OBD requirements in
40 CFR Part 86, subpart S or subpart A, as appropriate, when
operating on the alternative fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. If EPA testing confirms that all standards are met, based on
testing at the EPA NVFEL laboratory, or based on a review of the data
submitted by the manufacturer if no EPA confirmatory testing is
conducted, a Certificate of Conformity is issued to the manufacturer
for the appropriate fuel conversion test group and evaporative
emissions family of vehicles. The certificate is valid until December
31st of the model year on the certificate.
a. Re-Certification
Conversion manufacturers who wish to renew a certificate that has
expired may re-certify the same conversion group in subsequent years
using the same data. To re-certify, the manufacturer would update the
cover page of the application, re-enter the necessary data into EPA's
on-line data submission Web site, and submit the certification fees.
5. In-Use Compliance
Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers are subject to in-
use requirements. Many of these are described in Section III above,
including warranty, defect reporting and recall requirements, as well
as EPA's authority to perform in-use testing.
B. Intermediate Age Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program
EPA is proposing an alternative to certification to satisfy the
compliance demonstration and notification requirements for vehicles and
engines that are no longer new but still fall within their useful
life.\68\ The intermediate age vehicle and engine compliance program
(intermediate age program) would require conversion manufacturers to
demonstrate through testing that the converted vehicle or engine will
continue to meet applicable standards through its useful life.
Alternatively, to qualify for an exemption to the tampering
prohibition, manufacturers could opt to certify conversion systems for
intermediate age vehicles and engines as if they were new vehicles and
engines. See Section IV.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ The original subpart F rulemaking weighed several options
for useful life determination of a fuel converted vehicle or engine,
and it was determined that the useful life of the original vehicle
or engine would not be extended after fuel conversion. 59 FR 48488.
This proposal leaves this determination unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29620]]
The proposal to create an alternative to certification for
intermediate age vehicle and engine conversion systems addresses EPA's
interest in creating a streamlined compliance process that is
appropriate for vehicles and engines that have been subject to real-
world aging. EPA does not believe certification of intermediate age
vehicles and engines is necessary because they are generally no longer
representative of certification vehicles, as described in 40 CFR part
86, subpart S. EPA originally developed the certification test
procedures for new OEM vehicles and engines. Typical OEM vehicles
delivered to EPA for confirmatory testing are recently manufactured
pre-production models with about 4,000 miles of engine and emission
control system stabilization mileage. No OEM vehicles with more than
10,000 miles are tested for certification.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ This is due in part to fuel economy testing regulations
which limit the accrued mileage for a fuel economy test vehicle to
10,000 miles. 40 CFR 600.007-08(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed program for intermediate age vehicles and engines
maintains many of the existing certification test procedures, but
departs from the existing subpart F requirements in several notable
areas. The demonstration of compliance with applicable standards would
use the same procedures required of certified conversion manufacturers
for exhaust and evaporative emissions testing.\70\ However, the OBD
demonstration requirement would be significantly different. Instead of
requiring OBD demonstration testing as required for certification, an
attestation that the OBD system is fully functional would be required
to meet the OBD demonstration requirement for conversion of an
intermediate age vehicle or engine.\71\ The notification process would
also be significantly different for intermediate age vehicles and
engines. Conversion manufacturers would still submit test data,
attestations, and other required information to EPA; however the
application process would be significantly streamlined. Certification
fees would not be assessed unless EPA updates its fees rule in the
future.\72\ Conversion manufacturers participating in the intermediate
age program would not receive a certificate of conformity. Rather, EPA
would maintain a publicly available list identifying conversion systems
that have satisfied the intermediate age demonstration and notification
requirements, and that therefore have qualified for the tampering
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ The technical amendment proposals described in Section V
and the proposed scaling of assigned deterioration factors described
in section IV.B.3.c.i would be available.
\71\ See Section IV.B.4 for more information about the required
OBD attestations.
\72\ CFR part 1027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Applicability
Vehicles and engines would become eligible for the intermediate age
compliance program when the date of their conversion is in a calendar
year that is at least two years after the original model year of the
vehicle or engine, i.e. when they are about two years old. For example,
in calendar year 2010, model year 2008 and earlier vehicles and engines
would be eligible for the intermediate age program.
EPA proposes that manufacturers of conversion systems for vehicles
and engines that are outside their full useful life may also use the
intermediate age program as a demonstration sufficient to qualify for
the clean alternative fuel conversion exemption from tampering.
Conversion manufacturers that choose to participate in the intermediate
age program would need to demonstrate compliance with the full useful
life standards, even if the vehicle or engine has surpassed its useful
life in age or mileage. In that case it would not be required to
generate or use deterioration factors.
2. Test Groups/Engine Families and Evaporative/Refueling Families
a. Test Groups for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
i. Small Volume Manufacturer Test Groups
EPA proposes that small volume manufacturers of conversion systems
for intermediate age vehicles be permitted some additional flexibility
in creating test groups to which the conversion is applicable. The
primary difference between proposed test group criteria for the new and
intermediate age programs is the elimination of the OBD group criterion
under the intermediate age program. Vehicles can be placed into the
same clean alternative fuel conversion test group using good
engineering judgment if they satisfy the following:
(1) Same OEM and OEM model year \73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Aftermarket fuel converters are currently permitted to use
carry-over of test results from one model year to the next if the
OEM exercised such flexibility in accordance with EPA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) OBD still functional \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Note that a functional OBD system means that it must not be
disabled, there are no false MILs or false DTCs, and all readiness
flags must be set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Same vehicle classification (e.g., light-duty vehicle, heavy-
duty vehicle)
(4) Engine displacement (within 15% of largest displacement or 50
CID, whichever is larger)
(5) Same number of cylinders or combustion chambers
(6) Same arrangement of cylinders or combustion chambers (e.g., in-
line, v-shaped)
(7) Same combustion cycle (e.g., two stroke, four stroke, Otto-
cycle, diesel-cycle)
(8) Same engine type (e.g., piston, rotary, turbine, air cooled
versus water cooled)
(9) Same OEM fuel type (except otherwise similar gasoline and E85
flex fuel vehicles may be combined into dedicated alternative fuel
vehicles)
(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g., throttle body injection vs.
port injection)
(11) Same catalyst construction (e.g., beads or monolith, metal vs.
ceramic substrate)
(12) All converted vehicles are subject to the most stringent
emission standards used in certifying the OEM test groups within the
conversion test group
EPA especially seeks comment regarding whether the 15% engine
displacement criterion should apply to intermediate age vehicles and
engines. EPA seeks comment on allowing additional flexibility by
permitting combinations of vehicles based on any other criteria. EPA
would like to receive relevant data supporting any combination
suggestions.
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
EPA proposes to allow large volume manufacturers the same test
group combination flexibility as small volume manufacturers when
designating intermediate age vehicle test groups. See Section
IV.B.2.a.i for details. However, large volume manufacturers are
required to conduct durability testing, as noted below.
iii. Dual-Fuel Vehicle Carry-Across
Under the proposed rule, dual-fuel vehicles which have different
standards would need to create a separate submission to EPA for each
OEM test group with different standards. However, as is described above
in Section IV.A.2.a.i.a, test data from an emission data vehicle on the
alternative fuel may be used to satisfy the demonstration requirement
of multiple OEM test groups if the conversion test group criteria
described above are otherwise met and the data demonstrate compliance
with each standard.
[[Page 29621]]
b. Engine Families for Heavy-Duty Engines
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
EPA proposes to allow the same engine family combination criteria
that are described in Section IV.A.2.b.i for clean alternative fuel
conversion of new engines.
ii. Large Volume Manufacturers
EPA proposes to allow large volume manufacturers the same
flexibility as small volume manufacturers when designating intermediate
age heavy-duty engine families. See Section IV.B.2.b.i for details.
However, large volume manufacturers are required to conduct durability
testing.
iii. Dual-Fuel Engine Carry-Across
EPA proposes to allow the same data carry-across procedures for
intermediate age dual-fuel engines described in Section IV.A.2.b.i.a.
c. Evaporative/Refueling Families
EPA proposes that evaporative family criteria under the
intermediate age program remain as provided in 40 CFR part 86. If the
OEM evaporative system is no longer functionally necessary (e.g.,
conversion to dedicated CNG or LPG), then conversion manufacturers may
create new evaporative conversion groups following the criteria in 40
CFR 86.1821-01 for light-duty and heavy-duty complete vehicles and 40
CFR 86.096-24(a)(12)-(13) for heavy-duty engines. Clean alternative
fuel conversion evaporative/refueling families for dual-fueled vehicles
cannot include vehicles that were originally certified to different
evaporative emissions standards.
3. Demonstration Requirements
EPA proposes that the demonstration requirements for clean
alternative fuel conversions be based on the certification procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A, B and/or S and 40 CFR part
1065 as applicable, subject to the exceptions and special provisions
described in this section, Section III.G.1.a and Section V, if
applicable.
a. Exhaust Emissions
Exhaust emissions testing demonstration is conducted on a test
group (light-duty) or engine family (heavy-duty) basis. The worst-case
emission data vehicle or engine from each test group or engine family
would be used to demonstrate compliance with the most stringent
standards represented among the OEM vehicle or engines when they were
originally certified. All exhaust demonstration requirements and test
procedures which are required in regulations for OEM certification
would be required for fuel conversion compliance. Test procedures and
other requirements are currently located in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A,
B, C, O, P, S and 40 CFR part 1065.
b. Evaporative/Refueling Emissions
The acceptable test procedures to demonstrate that a vehicle or
engine will meet evaporative standards during normal vehicle operation,
including refueling, are specified in 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065. EPA
proposes that these test procedures and other requirements continue to
apply for the intermediate age vehicle and engine fuel conversion
program. Please see the technical amendments discussed in Section V for
fuel-specific amendments which apply to conversions to CNG (or LNG) and
LPG or hydrogen fuels.
c. Durability Demonstration and Assigned Deterioration Factors
i. Small Volume Manufacturers
As noted in Section III.H.2 above, small volume manufacturers and
eligible small volume test groups are permitted to use EPA-assigned
deterioration factors in lieu of exhaust and evaporative/refueling
durability demonstrations. EPA proposes to continue this practice for
purposes of evaluating conversion systems that will be applied to
intermediate age vehicles and engines. In addition, EPA is proposing a
new concept which would be applicable to emissions data vehicles and
engines with more than 10,000 miles. EPA proposes to allow small volume
manufacturers to use ``scaled deterioration factors.'' Scaled
deterioration factors would be derived using current assigned
deterioration factors to determine mileage applicable deterioration
factors from 10,000 miles through intermediate useful life and from
intermediate useful life through full useful life.\75\ Although the
actual rates of emissions deterioration from 10,000 miles to
intermediate useful life and from intermediate useful life to full
useful life may vary, EPA may assume a linear increase of emissions
with increasing mileage in order to facilitate a simple scaling of the
EPA-assigned deterioration factors. In the future, EPA may adjust these
scaled assigned deterioration factors if we find the rate of
deterioration non-constant or the rate differs by fuel type.
Mathematically, a constant rate of deterioration can be expressed as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Intermediate standards only apply to those vehicles
originally certified with intermediate standards.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY10.000
Note: This does not mean that the deterioration factor increases
linearly with mileage. The equation assumes that the grams of
pollutant per mile increases at a constant rate as vehicle mileage
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
increases.
In addition to this primary assumption, EPA proposes to use these
two definitions:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY10.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY10.002
Where:
ADF(FUL) is the full useful life assigned multiplicative
deterioration factor (DF).
FULgpm is the grams per mile of pollutant projected at full useful
life.
INITgpm is the grams per mile of pollutant measured at the beginning
of the vehicle or engine's useful life.
SDF(FUL) is the scaled full useful life multiplicative DF.
MGgpm is the grams per mile of pollutant at the actual mileage of
emission data vehicle or engine.
Based on the assumption in equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY10.003
[[Page 29622]]
Where:
FULMG is the appropriate full useful life mileage.
MG is the actual mileage of the emission data vehicle or engine.
INITMG is the mileage at the beginning of the useful life. Note that
this value is zero for heavy-duty vehicles, since evaluation is done
at the zero-hour level.
From this expression, equations 2 and 3 can be used to ultimately
arrive at:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY10.004
This equation shows how the scaled full useful life multiplicative
DF can be calculated using the emissions data vehicle or engine mileage
and the assigned full useful life multiplicative DF.
By carrying out the same processes, scaled intermediate useful life
of deterioration factors, where applicable, can be determined by the
expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY10.005
Where:
SDF(MID) is the scaled intermediate useful life multiplicative DF.
MIDMG is the intermediate useful life mileage.
ADF(MID) is the intermediate useful life assigned multiplicative DF,
where applicable.
In the same manner, additive scaled deterioration factors could
also be derived. The resulting equations are:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY10.006
Where:
ODF is the OEM's original additive DF and ASDF is the additive
scaled deterioration factor.
EPA proposes using equations 4, 5 and 6 to scale deterioration
factors of vehicles with more than 10,000 miles used in the testing of
clean alternative fuel conversions, for demonstration of compliance
with exhaust and evaporative/refueling emissions standards. Only the
derivation of the full useful life scaled additive deterioration factor
is presented. However, the derivation of the intermediate useful life
scaled additive deterioration factor would follow the same process.
ii. Large Volume Manufacturer Durability Procedures
a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
Durability testing would be required for large volume manufacturers
of clean alternative fuel conversions of intermediate age vehicles. EPA
proposes that durability groups for intermediate age vehicles would be
designated using the provisions set forth in 40 CFR 86.1820-01, except
the durability grouping criteria for intermediate age vehicles need not
include the precious metal composition and catalyst grouping statistic
criteria, since they are not included in the test group criteria for
clean alternative fuel conversions.
b. Heavy-Duty Engines
Durability testing would be required for large volume manufacturers
of clean alternative fuel conversions for intermediate age engines.
d. On-Board Diagnostics
EPA believes the proper functioning of an OBD system is essential
to ensure continued emission compliance of an aging vehicle or engine.
However, EPA proposes that the demonstration of OBD compliance for
intermediate age vehicles and engines may be streamlined relative to
the current certification requirements. In lieu of the OBD
demonstration test data requirement, EPA proposes to allow
manufacturers of intermediate age clean alternative fuel conversion
systems to attest that the OBD system on the converted vehicle or
engine will continue to properly detect and identify malfunctions in
all monitored emission-related systems or components consistent with 40
CFR part 86 OBD requirements, including any new monitoring capability
to identify potential emission problems associated with the new fuel.
These include but are not limited to: Fuel trim lean and rich monitors,
catalyst deterioration monitors, engine misfire monitors, oxygen sensor
deterioration monitors, EGR system monitors, if applicable, and vapor
leak monitors, if applicable. The manufacturer would not be allowed to
alias, remove, or turn off any applicable original OBD system monitor.
Furthermore the malfunction indicator light system would be required to
continue to function properly and not display an illuminated
Malfunction Indicator Light unless system indicators or emission
thresholds are truly being exceeded. EPA would also require readiness
flags to be properly set for all monitors that identify any malfunction
for all monitored components.
Additionally, EPA seeks comment on whether a readiness flag
demonstration is appropriate for intermediate age vehicles. Such a
demonstration could involve the same process proposed as ``Option 3''
demonstration for vehicles and engines outside of useful life. See
Section IV.C.3.b for more details.
[[Page 29623]]
4. Notification Process
For intermediate age clean alternative fuel conversions EPA
proposes that converters complete and submit emission data vehicle
information, test data, compliance statements and all other appropriate
information using an electronic data submission form and process. EPA
would provide information about the process through its Web site and
other information dissemination mechanisms.
EPA would require the conversion manufacturer to enter information
about the emission data vehicle or engine, emission results from the
exhaust and evaporative emissions testing, including any permissible
carry-over data, applicable exhaust and evaporative emissions standards
and deterioration factors, and the OEM test groups or engine families
and evaporative/refueling families for which the conversion system is
intended. In this submission, EPA would allow conversion manufacturers
to use the appropriate exhaust and evaporative emissions scaled
deterioration factors for vehicles and engines with greater than 10,000
miles as described in Section IV.B.3.c.i to demonstrate that the
converted vehicle meets the same standards to which the OEM vehicle or
engine was certified.
The intermediate age program notification requirements would also
include submission of any required compliance statements and other
supporting documents such as an example label and packaging
information, warranty provisions, and maintenance requirements. The
specific set of necessary compliance statements will depend on the
vehicle or engine category, the applicable standards, the alternative
fuel type, and other factors.
The intermediate age vehicle and engine notification process would
enable conversion manufacturers to submit statements of compliance or
attestations instead of submitting test data for certain system
features. Some of these compliance statements are found in the OEM
certification regulations in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S and 40
CFR part 1065. In addition we are proposing attestation statements
specific to conversion to a clean alternative fuel. These would
include:
1. The test group or engine family converted to dual-fuel operation
retains all the OEM fuel system, engine calibration, and emission
control system functionality when operating on the fuel with which the
vehicle or engine was originally certified.
2. The test group or engine family converted to dual-fuel operation
retains all the functionality of the OEM OBD system (if so equipped)
when operating on the fuel with which the vehicle was originally
certified.
3. The test group or engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has fully functional OBD systems (if the OEM vehicles are OBD equipped)
and therefore meets the OBD requirements in 40 CFR part 86, Subpart S
when operating on the alternative fuel.
4. The test group or engine family converted to dual fuel operation
properly purges hydrocarbon vapor from the evaporative emission
canister when the vehicles or engines are operating on the alternative
fuel.
5. The test group or engine family converted to an alternative fuel
use fueling systems, evaporative emission control systems, and engine
powertrain components that are compatible with the alternative fuel and
that are designed with the principles of good engineering judgment.
EPA proposes that this information would be submitted
electronically in a format specified by the Administrator. If the test
results meet both the intermediate and full useful life standards,
after applying the deterioration factors (see Section IV.3.c.i), all
supporting documents are included, and all compliance statements are
attested, then the conversion manufacturer may submit the test data
form to EPA.
EPA will periodically update its list of conversion systems that
have satisfied EPA demonstration and notification requirements. The
exemption from the tampering prohibition is void ab initio if the
conversion manufacturer fails to meet all of the requirements for the
program. This is the case even if a submission has been made and the
conversion system has been publicly posted.
a. Previously Certified Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion Systems
EPA proposes to allow manufacturers who have previously certified
conversion systems for either new or intermediate age vehicles or
engines to move those systems into the intermediate age program by
using the intermediate age compliance process described above. The
manufacturer would not need to generate new data but rather could re-
submit the same data previously used for certification. The transfer
option would apply only to vehicles/engines that meet intermediate age
applicability criteria and that fall within the identical test group
and evaporative family as those covered by the conversion certificate.
Manufacturers who transfer previously certified conversion systems to
the intermediate age compliance program would no longer need to renew
the certificate each year. Once transferred, the conversion system
would no longer be listed as certified but rather would appear on EPA's
list of conversion systems that are compliant for intermediate age
vehicles.
5. In-Use Compliance
Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers are subject to in-
use requirements. Many of these are described in Section III above,
including warranty, defect reporting and recall requirements, as well
as EPA's authority to perform in-use testing.
C. Outside Useful Life Program
As discussed in Section II, vehicle and engine emission standards
established under the CAA apply not only at the time of production but
also until the vehicle or engine reaches an age or usage threshold
known as ``full useful life.'' EPA regulations defining useful life are
found in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. Once a vehicle or engine has
exceeded the useful life threshold there is no longer a statutory or
regulatory obligation to comply with the applicable standard. However,
the prohibition against tampering in section 203(a)(3) still applies to
vehicles and engines outside their useful life. Thus, it is important
to provide a program that enables converters of older vehicles and
engines to use the clean alternative fuel tampering exemption, provided
that all requirements of the regulations are satisfied. We are
proposing such a program through which manufacturers of clean
alternative fuel conversion systems for outside useful life vehicles
and engines can qualify for an exemption in order to avoid violating
the tampering prohibition.
The absence of an applicable section 202 standard for vehicles and
engines outside their useful life necessitates a different
demonstration requirement than the demonstration of compliance with the
applicable section 202 standard that we are proposing for conversion of
vehicles and engines still within their useful life. There are several
possible approaches to a demonstration that would help assure that
outside useful life conversions are consistent with the CAA prohibition
on tampering and do not cause environmental degradation. EPA intends to
finalize a single demonstration requirement for outside useful life
vehicles and engines but we are seeking comment on three options
described below. EPA requests comment on all aspects of the outside
useful life demonstration options and especially
[[Page 29624]]
on the relative advantages and disadvantages of each of the options
with regard to clarity of what would be required, ability of conversion
manufacturers to satisfy the demonstration requirement, quality of
information EPA would receive to evaluate emissions performance and
durability, and enforceability. Please note that while the
demonstration requirement would differ among the three options, all
other elements of the outside useful life program would be the same.
The notification process would be the same under all options, as would
the public listing of conversion systems qualifying for EPA-compliant
status, much like the list that would be maintained for intermediate
age vehicle and engine conversion systems. Also, under all options, the
exemption from the tampering prohibition is void ab initio if the
conversion manufacturer fails to meet all of the requirements for the
program. This is the case even if a submission has been made and the
conversion system has been publicly posted.
1. Applicability
Clean alternative fuel conversion of vehicles and engines that have
exceeded their useful life are eligible for the outside useful life
program. As vehicle and engine technologies have advanced and changed,
so have the regulatory definitions for useful life. Please refer to
Section II.B for current useful life references.
Manufacturers of conversion systems for outside useful life
vehicles may also qualify for exemption from the tampering prohibition
through the intermediate age vehicle and engine compliance program. See
Section IV.B.
EPA requests comment on whether to establish a subcategory of
outside useful life vehicles and engines that reach the applicable
mileage threshold for outside useful life status before they reach the
applicable age threshold in years (see Section II.B for discussion of
useful life). The reason to consider establishing a subcategory of
``younger'' outside useful life vehicles and engines that might be
subject to a demonstration requirement much like the intermediate age
requirement is that the on-road fleet will include both inside- and
outside-useful life vehicles/engines of the same model year and test
group/engine family. This presents a potential opportunity for
misapplication and inappropriate marketing of conversion systems
developed for outside useful life vehicles or engines. These outside
useful life conversion systems could be inappropriately marketed and
misapplied to vehicles and engines that are still within useful life.
This type of inappropriate marketing and misapplication presents
practical challenges for enforcement.
a. Outside Useful Life Subcategory Option
The outside useful life subcategory option would create two
subcategories of outside useful life vehicles and engines. One
subcategory would include vehicles and engines that have achieved
outside useful life status because of their age in years. For this
subcategory of vehicles and engines, EPA is soliciting comment on three
demonstration options described in Sections IV.C.3.A, B, and C. A
second subcategory of outside useful life vehicles or engines would
include those that have achieved outside useful life status because of
their mileage, but that have not yet reached the useful life age
threshold in years. An example of a vehicle in the second subcategory
would be a light duty vehicle with 125,000 miles that is five years
old. This vehicle would have exceeded its useful life only because of
its mileage. EPA is seeking comment on whether, for purposes of
achieving exemption from the tampering prohibition for clean
alternative fuel conversions, it is reasonable to establish a
subcategory of outside useful life vehicles that have exceeded the
useful life mileage threshold but that are still young in years. EPA
further requests comment as to whether manufacturers of conversion
systems for this subcategory of vehicles and engines should be required
to satisfy a different demonstration requirement than would be required
for conversion of vehicles/engines in the ``old by years'' outside
useful life subcategory. Specifically, EPA requests comment about
whether to establish the Option 2 demonstration requirement described
in Section IV.C.3.a., below, for this subcategory of vehicles/engines,
regardless of the demonstration option that is applied to the other
outside useful life vehicles and engines (those that have qualified by
years alone, or by years and mileage).
2. Test Groups, Engine Families, and Evaporative/Refueling Families
EPA proposes that the same requirements and criteria for test
groups, engine families, and evaporative refueling family designations
as are proposed for intermediate age vehicles and engines would also
apply to outside useful life vehicles and engines. See Section IV.B.2.
3. Demonstration Requirements
As stated above, there are several possible approaches to a
demonstration that would satisfy EPA's interest in assuring that
conversion of vehicles and engines beyond their useful life are for the
purpose of conversion to a clean alternative fuel and do not cause
environmental degradation. EPA is seeking comment on the three options
below. All three options would require a demonstration that the
conversion is technically viable and will not increase emissions;
however, the means by which the conversion manufacturer could make that
demonstration differs among the three options. EPA intends to finalize
a single demonstration requirement, unless two subcategories of outside
useful life vehicles are established in the final rule, in which case,
EPA may finalize two demonstration requirements, one for each
subcategory of outside useful life vehicles.
A. Option 1
Manufacturers of conversion systems for outside useful life
vehicles and engines would satisfy the demonstration requirement by
submitting to EPA a detailed description of the conversion system. The
submission would need to provide a level of technical detail sufficient
for EPA to confirm the conversion system's ability to sustain
acceptable emission levels in the intended vehicle or engine. Required
technical information would include but not be limited to a complete
characterization of exhaust and evaporative emissions control
strategies, and specifications related to OBD system functionality. EPA
would audit the submission and could require the conversion
manufacturer to supply additional information, including test data, to
support the claim that the technology involves good engineering
judgment that is being applied for purposes of conversion to a clean
alternative fuel.
Examples of the kind of information EPA would expect to be included
in the demonstration could include test data, component or part
specifications, technical descriptions or diagrams, and any other
information necessary for EPA to evaluate the technical viability of
the conversion system and the use of good engineering judgment in its
design, such as information concerning:
Exhaust Control System: The original engine controller, sensors,
actuators, catalysts and other emission control components would be
connected and functional, and actively monitored by the OBD system.
[[Page 29625]]
Evaporative Control System: The alternative fuel system would be
leak free and utilize materials compatible with the alternative fuel.
Dual-fuel and flex-fuel vehicles would retain the components and the
functionality of the OEM evaporative emission control system. For dual-
fuel and flex-fuel systems the evaporative emission control system
would purge the evaporative emission canister in a manner identical to
the OEM designed purge system when the vehicle is operating on the
alternative fuel.
Fuel Delivery System: The alternative fuel delivery system would
employ technology that is at least equivalent in sophistication to the
OEM fuel delivery system. For example, conversions of engines with
multiple port injectors would need to employ alternative fuel systems
with multiple port injectors; engines with throttle injection would
need to use alternative fuel systems with throttle injection; OEM
carbureted engines would be able to use alternative fuel systems with
central air mixers. Conversions of OEM vehicles with closed loop
feedback fuel control systems would be expected to have similar closed
loop control systems to maintain stoichiometric air/fuel control.
Acceptable fuel control could also be achieved by using a secondary
electronic control unit which adjusts fuel injector pulse width based
on existing sensor inputs and on the alternative fuel's properties.
Good engineering design would preclude the use of driver actuated
controls for engine starting or fuel adjustment, other than for
selecting the fuel type for a dual-fuel vehicle.
Durability: A discussion of the durability of the alternative fuel
system would be necessary to support a good engineering judgment
determination. The conversion to a clean alternative fuel should not
increase the deterioration rate of the exhaust or evaporative emission
system components. Fueling system components whose material is known to
prematurely deteriorate due to the alternative fuel's properties would
need to be upgraded.
OBD: Good engineering judgment dictates that vehicles equipped with
OBD systems produce no false MILs or diagnostic trouble codes during
normal operation, nor may there be any modifications that prevent OBD
readiness flags from being properly set while operating on the
alternative fuel. The OBD system must properly detect and identify
malfunctions in all monitored emission related powertrain systems or
components including any new monitoring capability necessary to
identify potential emission problems associated with the alternative
fuel.
B. Option 2
Manufacturers of conversion systems for outside useful life
vehicles and engines would satisfy the demonstration requirement by
conducting one of the following vehicle emissions testing protocols and
submitting the results to EPA:
1. The manufacturer must submit data demonstrating that the vehicle
or engine meets the exhaust and evaporative emissions standards that
were applicable to the original vehicle within its defined useful life.
This would be accomplished by following the demonstration requirements
described for the intermediate age vehicle program (see Section IV.B).
2. The manufacturer must submit data from two sets of all the
exhaust and evaporative/refueling testing applicable to alternative
fueled vehicles and engines set forth in 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065,
with the first test conducted before conversion and the second test
after conversion. The data must demonstrate that emissions have not
increased after conversion. The emission data vehicle(s) or engine(s)
would need to be set to the manufacturer's tune up specification before
the first test, and, apart from what is required of the normal
conversion procedure, no additional adjustments to the vehicle would be
allowed between the first and second set of tests.
The demonstration requirement under this option would also include
a description of the OBD compliance strategy and a description of the
good engineering judgment and technical information.
C. Option 3
Manufacturers of conversion systems for outside useful life
vehicles and engines that were equipped with OBD systems in their OEM
configuration would satisfy the demonstration requirement by submitting
all materials required for the Option 1 demonstration requirement,
along with a report containing OBD checks following conversion to the
alternative fuel. This report must be based on the OBD information from
the emission data vehicle or engine that is selected to represent the
outside useful life program test group or engine family. Under EPA's
proposed rule, conversion manufacturers must satisfy the good
engineering judgment description in Section III.B of this proposal.
The OBD demonstration would involve using an OBD scan tool to clear
all readiness codes (set codes to ``not ready''), driving the vehicle
to trigger all codes to be set to ready, and then using an OBD scan
tool to interrogate the OBD system.
Under Option 3, in addition to satisfying all requirements for good
engineering judgment, clean alternative fuel converted vehicles and
engines would be considered compliant if they pass the testing
prescribed in 40 CFR 85.2222, except that Sec. 85.2222 (c)(2) does not
apply, and document this by means of a printable report from the OBD
scan. If necessary, the evaporative emission readiness monitor may
remain unset for conversions in which the original evaporative
emissions system is no longer functionally necessary.
If not included in the OBD scan tool printout, the vehicle
information number (VIN) would need to be provided with the scan tool
report. 40 CFR 85.2222 provides for a test procedure which checks the
status of OBD readiness monitors, checks to determine if the OBD MIL is
functional (bulb check), checks for commanded-on MIL illumination, and
if the MIL is commanded-on, the scan tool records all DTCs (diagnostic
trouble codes). Any scan tool capable of collecting the information
required by 40 CFR 85.2222 is considered acceptable under this option.
4. Notification Process
Manufacturers of outside useful life conversion systems would use
the same notification procedures to submit the required information as
those proposed for the intermediate age vehicle and engine compliance
program (see Section IV.B). The notification submission would include
documentation of the required demonstration as well as labeling
information and all appropriate attestation statements.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The attestation statements to be reviewed and signed for
the outside useful life program are identical to the attestation
statements required for the intermediate age vehicle and engine
compliance program. See Section IV.B.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Alternate Registration Approach for Newer Outside Useful Life
Vehicles and Engines
EPA is requesting comment on an alternative approach that would be
applicable to vehicles and engines that exceed the useful life
threshold in mileage before they reach the threshold in years. An
example of this type of vehicle would be a 2005 Dodge Caravan with
125,000 miles. Typically, an average 2005 model year Dodge Caravan
would be driven 15,000 miles per year, and would have only 75,000 miles
on the odometer in 2010, which would still
[[Page 29626]]
be within useful life. These relatively new outside useful life (NOUL)
vehicles and engines are distinguishable from those still within useful
life only by checking the odometer. EPA is concerned that conversion
system manufacturers might choose to forego the testing and compliance
demonstrations required for the new and intermediate age vehicles and
engines, and would instead register a conversion system for use on NOUL
vehicles and engines only. However, EPA fears that conversion systems
registered for NOUL vehicles and engines would be marketed to consumers
of conversion systems for all vehicles of the same model year,
regardless of their mileage. It would be difficult for EPA to monitor
whether these conversion systems were ultimately installed only on
outside useful life vehicles, and also difficult for conversion system
installers and consumers to distinguish between conversion systems
built for identical model year and model vehicles, where the only
difference is that one conversion system is registered for use only on
vehicles with mileage greater than useful life, and the other is
registered for installation on all vehicles of the appropriate model
year and model.
EPA is seeking comment on an approach under which the requirements
for registration of conversion systems for NOUL vehicles and engines
would be based on registration of intermediate age vehicles and engines
of the same test group/engine family, or back-to-back testing. Under
this approach for NOUL vehicles and engines, if the first option is
taken, consumers and installers would be able to identify the
appropriate registered conversion system by matching model year and
model, without regard to the vehicle's mileage. We would expect the
vast majority of conversion system manufacturers would take this option
because they will wish to sell the same conversion system to
intermediate age vehicle owners, and this one-size-fits all approach is
cost-effective. We are providing the second option for conversion
system manufacturers who may not be able to locate a suitable test
vehicle that is still subject to the standards, or who plans to
manufacture a conversion system for a targeted high mileage population.
Under the second option, the conversion system supplier would need to
perform back-to-back emission testing to demonstrate that the
conversion does not degrade the performance of the emission control
system. This approach is designed to be efficient for the converter but
would prevent the type of gaming described above, would provide a
clearer choice for conversion system installers and consumers, and
would make enforcement of these new requirements easier, benefitting
responsible manufacturers and installers. This approach would not
increase the burden on the vast majority of conversion system
manufacturers because it is designed for testing efficiency, and EPA
anticipates that most conversion system manufacturers would choose to
find a test vehicle that is still within its useful life and go ahead
with either the certification demonstration or the intermediate age
demonstration option in order to maximize market coverage for products
designed for a given model and model year of vehicle and engine.
1. NOUL Vehicles and Engines Subcategory
a. Applicability
The NOUL approach would apply to vehicles and engines that exceed
the useful life threshold in mileage before they reach the threshold in
years.
b. Demonstration Requirements
Under the NOUL approach, manufacturers of conversion systems
intended for NOUL vehicles or engines would be required to follow the
same registration requirements and procedures that are established for
intermediate age vehicles and engines in order to gain an exemption
from the prohibitions in CAA section 203(a), or conduct back-to-back
testing. In brief, the conversion system manufacturer would have two
testing options for NOUL vehicles. Under the first option, the
manufacturer would be required to locate a test vehicle that is still
within useful life, in terms of both miles and years. The manufacturer
would demonstrate that the inside-useful life test vehicle complies
with applicable standards by using the same test procedures as those
required of intermediate age conversion system manufacturers. The
conversion system manufacturer would also perform the intermediate age
vehicle and engine OBD compliance demonstration to prove continued
compliance with OBD requirements and provide an attestation that the
OBD system remains fully functional. All other requirements of the
intermediate age vehicles and engines program would apply to this
subcategory. Where a conversion system manufacturer has already
registered a conversion system for intermediate age vehicles and
engines for specific model years and models, that registration would
also apply to NOUL vehicles and engines. Under the second option, the
conversion system manufacturer would perform two tests on a
representative NOUL vehicle or engine using the Federal Test Procedure.
The first test would be with the fuel for which the NOUL vehicle or
engine was originally certified and prior to installation of the
conversion system. The second test would be performed after the
conversion system is installed and using the alternative fuel. The
conversion system would qualify for the tampering exemption provided
that the second test shows emissions that are equal to or less than the
emissions from the first test, and all other registration requirements
for the outside useful life program are met.
V. Technical Amendments
EPA is proposing several technical amendments to 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S which are applicable to the exhaust and evaporative emission
testing requirements for vehicles using gaseous alternative fuels. The
purpose of these amendments is to allow flexibility in determining
compliance with EPA non-methane organic material (NMOG) standards for
vehicles, and also to allow statements of compliance in lieu of test
data for meeting exhaust emission standards for formaldehyde (HCHO),
and evaporative emissions. For purposes of this regulation, compressed
natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG), or hydrogen fuels are eligible for the technical amendments
described below.
EPA is seeking comment whether there are other test procedures in
40 CFR part 86 or part 1065 which should be updated to address concerns
specific to certain alternative fuels.
A. Exhaust Emission Technical Amendments
NMHC Multiplicative Adjustment Factor--CFR section 86.1810-01(p)
allows use of a multiplicative factor to convert non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) exhaust emissions to an equivalent NMOG result to
demonstrate compliance with NMOG standards. Under current regulations,
use of a multiplicative factor, such as the 1.04 value presented in
86.1810-01(p), is only applicable to gasoline fueled vehicles. At
present, EPA regulations require hydrocarbon exhaust emission
measurements from fuel types other than gasoline or diesel to use the
California Air Resources Board NMOG speciation procedures. The
speciation procedures are more expensive and
[[Page 29627]]
significantly more time consuming than a simple measurement of NMHC.
EPA proposes to amend 86.1810-01(p) to allow use of multiplicative
factors that will permit a compliance demonstration with NMOG standards
to be determined by measuring NMHC from vehicles fueled on CNG (or
LNG), LPG, or hydrogen, and converting those measurements to an
equivalent NMOG result by applying a multiplicative adjustment factor.
The multiplicative adjustment factors must be based on data and use
of such factors must be approved in advance by EPA.
HCHO Compliance Statement--CFR section 86.1829-01(b)(1)(iii)(E)
allows vehicle manufacturers to submit a statement of compliance in
lieu of submitting HCHO test data to demonstrate compliance with HCHO
exhaust standards for vehicles tested with gasoline or diesel. EPA
proposes by technical amendment to allow such flexibility for CNG (or
LNG), LPG, and hydrogen. Similar to what is currently required in
86.1829-01, manufacturers using CNG (or LNG), LPG, or hydrogen fuels
may optionally make a statement of compliance for meeting HCHO
standards if they have received approval to measure NHMC in lieu of
actual NMOG.
B. Evaporative Emission Technical Amendments
1. Evaporative Emissions, Running Loss, Refueling Loss Compliance
Statement
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 86.1829-01(b)(2)(i) to allow
waiver of evaporative emission reporting requirements, including
running loss and refueling loss, and allow compliance with the
requirements in 86.1811-04(e) for CNG (or LNG), LPG, or hydrogen fuels
by making a compliance statement in the application for certification.
86.1829-01(b)(2)(i) already provides for allowing a compliance
statement in lieu of submitting data to demonstrate compliance with
evaporative emission standards in 86.1811-04(e). EPA has received
inquiries about other types of gaseous fuels and this amendment simply
clarifies that manufacturers using other hydrogen fuels may qualify for
an evaporative emission statement of compliance. Compliance statements
do not alleviate the OEM or aftermarket fuel converter from complying
with evaporative emission, running loss and refueling standards in
86.1811-04(e). Compliance statements are expected to be supported by
development testing data or other engineering data.
The rationale for allowing compliance statements for evaporative
emission, running loss, or refueling emission requirements is based on
the fact that gaseous fuel systems must be a closed fueling system, and
therefore the expectation is that they have zero emissions. Allowing a
statement of compliance for LPG refueling emissions is contingent that
the LPG fuel tank has no open vent (sometimes referred to as an
``outage'' valve) during the refueling operation.
The flexibilities described above for evaporative emissions are
consistent with EPA regulations published in the Federal Register,
Volume 59, No. 182, September 21, 1994--Standards for Emissions From
Natural Gas-Fueled and Liquefied Petroleum Gas-Fueled Motor Vehicles
and Motor Vehicle Engines, and Certification Procedures for Aftermarket
Conversions, but not explicitly incorporated in 40 CFR part 86, subpart
S. Adding these technical amendments to section 86.1829-01(b)(2)(iv)
will provide clarity to EPA regulations for OEM manufacturers and
aftermarket fuel converters desiring to certify vehicles on gaseous
fuels.
VI. Environmental Effects
As in the original subpart F rulemaking, 59 FR 48488 (September 21,
1994), the primary purpose of this proposal is to maintain emissions
performance and air quality while removing a potential barrier to the
commercial production of clean alternative fuel conversion systems. The
Agency has not attempted to quantify the environmental effects of
today's proposal because the goal of this rulemaking is to preserve
environmental benefits from existing EPA vehicle and engine standards
by creating a clear, legal pathway for clean alternative fuel
conversion while maintaining existing emissions control levels.
Therefore the Agency's best assessment of environmental impacts due to
this rulemaking is that the environmental effects are at worst,
neutral.
VII. Associated Costs for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles
The cost associated with achieving a regulatory exemption from
tampering for clean alternative fuel conversion under this proposal is
expected to be less than the current cost of compliance. The amount of
cost reduction will vary based on conversion technology, fuel type,
vehicle or engine age, applicability, conversion manufacturer
preference, and the manufacturer's annual sales volume. The current
baseline cost estimates are summarized in Section VII.A below.
Additionally, there are two vehicle-age dependent cost estimates
summarized in Section VII.B and VII.C. for certified conversions
(VII.B) and intermediate age vehicle conversions (VII.C).
The baseline and projected costs will also depend on the original
vehicle or engine fuel and on the specific clean alternative fuel to
which the vehicle is being converted. This cost analysis is intended to
apply to conversions to any fuel. Some test procedures are not required
for either dedicated CNG or LPG or dual-fuel gasoline/CNG or dual-fuel
gasoline/LPG. Since more than 98% of the alternative fuel conversion
certificates issued by EPA in 2007 and 2008 were for these types of
conversions, EPA conversion requirements or testing exemptions which
are specific to CNG and LPG are noted in a separate section. However,
any description in this section which is not specified as applying to
CNG or LPG specifically should be assumed to apply to all conversion
fuels.
The current (baseline) and projected costs also depend upon the
conversion manufacturer's annual sales volume. Every current conversion
manufacturer has sales volumes low enough to be eligible to use Small
Volume Manufacturer certification procedures. EPA has no indication
that manufacturers in this industry are approaching the eligibility
limits of small volume status; therefore, this cost analysis will only
describe baseline and projected costs for small volume.\77\ If sales
volumes were to increase such that manufacturer(s) surpassed small
volume thresholds, EPA expects costs for large volume manufacturer fuel
conversion compliance to remain unchanged or to decrease from the
current (baseline) large volume manufacturer fuel conversion compliance
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 40 CFR 86.1838-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to testing costs and fees, cost estimates will include
costs associated with creating applications for certification and
submitting test data to EPA. EPA also analyzed the costs associated
with confirmatory testing requirements at EPA. These costs include
preparing a vehicle to test at the EPA, and shipping the vehicle to the
EPA laboratory for testing. All hourly wage data for conversion
manufacturer labor is based on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.\78\
All conversion manufacturers reported that a senior manager is
conducting testing oversight and application preparation, so the labor
rate for all conversion
[[Page 29628]]
manufacturer labor is consistent across tasks. Engineering managers are
reported to earn an average of $57.97 per hour according to a May 2008
report by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.\79\ EPA has applied a
suggested 100% labor overhead cost to all conversion manufacturer labor
costs. In addition, EPA typically applies a 6.5% general and
administrative overhead cost to all costs. Technology research and
development costs were not considered in this analysis because these
costs are not expected to change as a result of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ For electronic access to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics
Data, see http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b11-0000.
\79\ For electronic access to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics
Data, see http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b11-0000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, conversion manufacturers try to apply one set of test
data to as many vehicle makes and models as EPA will allow in order to
minimize testing costs. Because costs can be scaled when certifying
multiple test groups and/or multiple evaporative/refueling families,
and conversion manufacturers each have different testing and compliance
strategies and different target market plans, this analysis will derive
the current cost of compliance (baseline costs) for converting vehicles
based on the assumption that costs can be scaled when certifying
multiple test groups and/or multiple evaporative/refueling families.
The scaling factors were determined by the following applicable ratios:
(1) Number of OEM exhaust test groups to number of OEM certificates and
(2) number of OEM evaporative/refueling families to number of OEM
certificates. This allowed EPA to create a scaled unit cost for each
certificate which adequately represents that manufacturers apply test
data to multiple certificates. To create a real-world example, and
allow a clear comparison of baseline versus projected costs of the
proposed programs, this cost analysis ultimately compares the cost of
fuel conversion for four OEM certificates after applying all
appropriately scaled unit costs. This same logic was then used to
derive the approximate cost of compliance for the vehicle fuel
conversion of four OEM certificates under the proposed regulations, as
described previously in this preamble.
A. Baseline Costs (Cost of Current Compliance)
Baseline costs will be derived by first determining the cost of one
certificate without any scaled costs. These costs would be applicable
if a conversion manufacturer chose to convert vehicles represented by
only one OEM certificate. This is rarely done in practice because
conversion manufacturers choose to take advantage of using one set of
test data to apply to multiple certificates.
Next the baseline cost of one certificate will be calculated
assuming the conversion manufacturers choose to take advantage of the
application of data to multiple certificates. Average scaled costs are
calculated on a unit basis of one certificate with scaled costs.
Lastly, EPA calculated the baseline cost of converting vehicles
represented by four OEM certificates. This is done to create a real-
world example which allows a clear comparison for the cost reductions
created by the changes proposed under this NPRM.
1. Costs of One Certificate Without Scaling Costs
Several aftermarket conversion manufacturers as well as an
independent test lab were contacted to estimate the current aftermarket
fuel conversion certification costs under 40 CFR, part 85 subpart F.
The basic certification testing requirements included: (a)
Demonstration of compliance with exhaust emissions on a test group
basis: One FTP75 test and CO, NOX, and NMHC analysis; HCHO
and NMOG speciation; one HFET NOX test; (b) Demonstration of
compliance with evaporative/refueling emissions on an evaporative/
refueling family basis: Hot soak, canister purge and 2 or 3 day
evaporative emissions tests; and (c) Compliance with the Federal OBDII
demonstration tests which is generally done at the Federal level on the
same basis as the exhaust test group. Lodging, labor and general and
administrative costs are appropriated to each requirement category in
order to provide a clear examination of costs under the proposed
programs.
a. Costs Associated With Exhaust Emission Testing (Test Group Basis)
All estimated independent test lab costs associated with exhaust
emissions testing are listed in Table VII.A-1 and Table VII.A-2 below.
Table VII.A-1--Exhaust Emissions Testing Costs Typically Incurred at
Independent Test Labs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Down Coefficient Determination.................. $360.00
One FTP75 Test and CO, NOX, NMHC Analysis............. 1,116.67
(NMOG Speciation)--Aldehydes and Ketones.............. 1,500.00
(NMOG Speciation)--Alcohols........................... 250.00
One HFET NOX Test..................................... 430.00
Exhaust Independent Test Lab Billable Labor Costs..... 702.50
-----------------
Total Exhaust Independent Test Lab Costs.......... 4,359.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29629]]
Table VII.A-2--Total Estimated Exhaust Emissions Testing Costs for Fuel
Conversion of One OEM Certificate
[No scaling applied]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing costs
for one
aftermarket fuel
conversion
certificate (no
scaling for
multiple
certificates
applied)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total exhaust independent test lab costs.............. $4,359.17
Total exhaust Mfr testing oversight labor costs 1236.69
(including 100% labor overhead)......................
Lodging............................................... 280.00
-----------------
Subtotal.......................................... 5875.86
6.5% G & A............................................ 381.93
-----------------
Total Cost for Exhaust Tests...................... 6,257.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Costs Associated With Evaporative/Refueling Emission Testing
(Evaporative/Refueling Family Basis)
Table VII.A-3--Total Estimated Evaporative Emissions Testing Costs for
Fuel Conversion of One OEM Certificate
[No scaling applied]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total evap independent test lab costs................. $5,980.00
Total evap Mfr testing oversight labor costs ................
(including 100% labor overhead)......................
Lodging............................................... ................
-----------------
Subtotal.......................................... 5,980.00
6.5% G & A............................................ 388.70
-----------------
Total Cost for Evap Tests......................... 6,368.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Costs Associated With OBDII Demonstration Testing (Test Group Basis)
Table VII.A-4--Total Estimated OBD Demonstration Testing Costs for Fuel
Conversion of One OEM Certificate
[No scaling applied]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total OBD independent test lab costs.................. $16,325.00
Total OBD Mfr testing oversight labor costs (including 7,265.57
100% labor overhead).................................
Lodging............................................... 1,120.00
-----------------
Subtotal.......................................... 24,710.57
6.5% G & A............................................ 1,606.19
-----------------
Total Cost for OBD Demo Tests..................... 26,316.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Other Certification Costs
Table VII.A-5--Other Certification Estimated Costs for Fuel Conversion
of One OEM Certificate
[No scaling applied]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel to oversee testing at independent test lab..... $1,000.00
Shipment of vehicle to independent test lab........... 4,000.00
Prep and shipment of vehicle to EPA for confirmatory 6,200.00
tests................................................
Preparation of Application for certification labor 4,637.60
costs (including 100% labor overhead)................
-----------------
Subtotal.......................................... 15,837.60
[[Page 29630]]
6.5% G & A............................................ 1,029.44
-----------------
Total Costs for Travel, Vehicle Shipments, and 16,867.04
Application Preparation..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Certification Fees
Full certification fees for highway vehicles are $34,849 for
2009.\80\ However, there is a reduced fee program which allows most
conversion manufacturers to pay far less. The reduced fee is calculated
based on sales volume and value added.\81\ The formula can be described
as 1% * number of units * retail value added. Because most conversion
manufacturers sell less than 50 vehicle conversions per test group and
conversion kits vary greatly in price, for purposes of this estimate,
EPA is using 50 units and a retail value of $8,000. Therefore, for this
cost estimate the baseline certification fees are estimated at $4,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ For an electronic version of the current fee filing form,
see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/on-hwy2010feeform-01-07-10.pdf.
\81\ 40 CFR 1027.120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current base cost of compliance for one certificate, including
all testing, associated labor, overhead, and general and administrative
costs if costs are not scaled due to test group, OBD, or evaporative/
refueling family combinations is about $59,810. Certification fees are
not included in this total because they are variable by sales volume
for manufacturers that are eligible for reduced fees.
2. Cost of One Certificate When Testing Costs Are Scaled for Multiple
Certificate Groups
OEM test groups, evaporative/refueling families, and Federal OBD
approvals are combined to form a unique certificate. These same test
groups and evaporative/refueling families, when taken separately, can
often apply to multiple certificates. Here, EPA examined 418 model year
2007 light-duty certificates to determine appropriate scaling factors
for exhaust Test Groups, Evaporative/Refueling Families, and OBD
demonstrations tests. EPA reviewed model year 2007 data because these
data were complete, readily available, and deemed to be representative.
Of those 418, there were 335 unique test groups each with exhaust
emission data, meaning the OEMs used 335 sets of exhaust test data to
apply for 418 certificates. The ratio represented here (335/418 = 0.8)
provides an approximate scaling factor which can be applied to the cost
of one set of exhaust emissions data to determine the average unit cost
per certificate for exhaust emission testing. Of those same 418
certificates there were only 189 evaporative/refueling families,
therefore the average scaling factor for evaporative/refueling family
testing costs (189/418 = 0.45) times the cost for one set of
evaporative emissions testing represents the average unit cost per
certificate for evaporative/refueling emissions testing. For the
purposes of this cost estimate we assumed that all Federal OBD
approvals for conversion manufacturers were done in parallel with
exhaust test group testing and therefore applied the same scaling
factor to OBD testing costs as determined for exhaust emissions
testing.
Table VII.A-6--Cost of One Certificate When Testing Costs Are Scaled for Multiple Certificate Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing costs for
one aftermarket
fuel conversion Scaled testing
certificate (no costs for
scaling for Scaling factor conversion of one
multiple OEM certificate
certificates
applied)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost for Exhaust Tests.................... $6,257.79 0.80.................. $5,015.22
Total Cost for Evap Tests....................... 6,368.70 0.45.................. 2,879.63
Total Cost for OBD Demo Tests................... 26,316.76 0.80.................. 21,091.18
Total Costs for Travel, Vehicle Shipments, and 16,867.04 Weighted appropriately 11,385.68
Application Preparation. to each task.
Certification Fees.............................. 4,000.00 1..................... 4,000.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost for OEM Test Group(s) of Vehicles 59,810.30 ...................... 44,371.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the current base cost of compliance for one certificate,
including all testing, associated labor, and overhead and general and
administrative costs if costs are scaled is about $44,372.
3. Baseline Cost Analysis Based on Four OEM Certificates
EPA estimated the current baseline cost of conversion of four
certificate groups of vehicles after applying appropriately scaled
testing costs, including all testing, confirmatory testing, associated
labor, overhead, and general and administrative costs to be about
$177,487.
B. Certified Conversion Costs Under the Proposed Rule
Under this proposal the cost for a certified conversion will be
similar to the current fuel conversion certification process, with
three exceptions: (1) A statement of compliance using good engineering
judgment would be accepted in lieu of HCHO testing analysis for certain
alternative fuels, and the use of conversion factors to calculate NMOG
from NMHC would be accepted in lieu of speciation testing for some
alternative fuels; (2) statements of compliance are accepted for sealed
gaseous fuel systems in lieu of evaporative emissions test data and (3)
[[Page 29631]]
test group combinations would allow one set of test data to apply to a
broader range of vehicles. These changes all reduce costs associated
with compliance testing.
1. HCHO and NMOG Cost Reductions for CNG (or LNG), LPG, and Hydrogen
In lieu of testing, this proposal would accept a statement of
compliance for formaldehyde emissions for conversions to CNG (or LNG),
LPG, or hydrogen fuels. In addition, conversions to CNG (or LNG), LPG,
or hydrogen need only submit engineering data and analysis supportive
of the usage of a conversion factor from NMHC to NMOG, in lieu of
speciation testing. Testing for formaldehyde is generally done in
conjunction with NMOG speciation, and the average cost for both tests
is $1,750 per test group, which would be scaled to an average of $1,400
per certificate. Under this proposal, testing cost for HCHO and NMOG
analysis for conversions to CNG (or LNG), LPG, or hydrogen would be $0.
2. Evaporative Emissions Cost Reductions for Gaseous Fuels
The average cost for evaporative emissions hot soak, and diurnal
SHED testing, including labor costs is $6,369. After scaling the
average is $2,879 per certificate. The proposed amendment to 40 CFR
86.1811-04 would allow a manufacturer statement of compliance for
evaporative testing for gaseous fuels. This would eliminate all
evaporative emissions testing costs for gaseous fuels such as to CNG
(or LNG), LPG, or hydrogen fuels.
3. Test Group Combination Cost Reductions for All Conversions to Clean
Alternative Fuel
This proposal defines criteria which may allow the combination of
several OEM test groups into a single aftermarket fuel conversion test
group. This is a significant cost savings, the percentage of which is
dependent upon the exact number of OEM test groups combined. For
example: If two OEM test groups are combined, the testing costs for
exhaust emission testing are halved; if three test groups are combined,
these testing costs are about 33% the current cost.
The quantity of OEM test groups which can be combined into a single
clean alternative fuel conversion test group will vary depending on the
available OEM vehicle individual certification compliance strategies.
EPA examined the 2007 light-duty OEM test group data and has
conservatively estimated that on average conversion manufacturers will
be permitted to combine about 25% of the OEM exhaust test groups.
Therefore, the cost reduction estimate for our comparative grouping,
four test groups, would conservatively result in a 25% cost reduction
in exhaust emissions and OBD testing which can be applied to the
scaling factors for comparison simplicity.
4. Total Cost Reductions for Certification Under the Proposed Rule
Table VII.B-1--Proposal Cost for New Vehicle Conversion for One Certificate When Testing Costs Are Scaled for
Multiple Certificate Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing costs
for one
aftermarket fuel Scaled testing
conversion costs for Scaled testing
certificate (no Scaling factor conversion of costs for
scaling for one OEM conversion of 4
multiple certificate OEM certificates
certificates
applied)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost for Exhaust Tests............. $6,257.79 0.60........... $3,761.41 $15,045.65
Total Cost for Evap Tests................ 6,368.70 0.45........... 2,879.63 11,518.51
Total Cost for OBD Demo Tests............ 26,316.76 0.60........... 15,790.06 63,160.23
Total Costs for Travel, Vehicle 16,867.04 Weighted 10,313.03 41,252.14
Shipments, and Application Preparation. appropriately
to each task.
Certification Fees....................... 4,000.00 1.............. 4,000.00 ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost for OEM Test Groups(s) of 59,810.30 ............... 36,744.13 146,976.52
Vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total cost for the certification of the conversion of four OEM
certificates to any clean alternative fuel under the proposed rule is
$146,977. This represents an estimate of a cost reduction of over
$30,000 in current fuel conversion certification testing costs for
conversion of four OEM certificates. If the conversion certification is
for conversions to CNG (or LNG), LPG, or hydrogen fuels, the costs may
be further reduced due to the technical amendments described above.
C. Intermediate Age Vehicle Compliance Costs
The current fuel conversion process requires certification.
Therefore the baseline costs presented in Section VI.A also apply to
intermediate age vehicles.
1. HCHO and NMOG Cost Reductions for CNG, LPG, and Hydrogen
In lieu of testing, this proposal would accept a statement of
compliance for formaldehyde emissions for conversions to CNG (or LNG),
LPG and hydrogen. In addition, conversions to CNG (or LNG), LPG, or
hydrogen need only submit engineering data and analysis supportive of
the usage of a conversion factor from NMHC to NMOG, in lieu of
speciation testing. Testing for formaldehyde is generally done in
conjunction with NMOG speciation, and the average cost for both tests
is $1,750 per test group, which would be scaled to an average of $1,400
per certificate. Under this proposal, testing cost for HCHO and NMOG
analysis for conversions to CNG (or LNG), and LPG would be $0.
2. Evaporative Emissions Cost Reductions for Gaseous Fuels
The average cost for evaporative emissions hot soak, and diurnal
SHED testing, including labor costs is $6,369. After scaling the
average is $2,879 per certificate. The proposed amendment to 40 CFR
86.1811-04 would allow a manufacturer statement of compliance for
evaporative testing for gaseous fuels. This would eliminate all
evaporative emissions testing costs for gaseous fuels.
[[Page 29632]]
3. Conversion Test Groups Cost Reduction
Under this proposal, conversion test groups are identical to the
exhaust test groups for new, certified vehicles, except the exhaust
conversion test groups do not require the same OEM OBD grouping. This
provision is likely to result in a further reduction in testing costs
due to further scaling. However, the scaling appropriate due to these
combinations is variable from year to year and from OEM manufacturer to
OEM manufacturer. Therefore, for the purposes of this cost estimate, we
will assume that the exhaust conversion test group costs for
intermediate age vehicles are the same as the exhaust test group costs
for certification vehicles under this proposal.
4. OBD Demonstration Testing Cost Reduction
Manufacturers of conversion systems for intermediate age vehicles
would not be required to submit OBD test data as part of their
demonstration. The conversion manufacturer must still conduct any
development and bear associated costs necessary to ensure that the
post-conversion OBD system remains functional OBD and meets the EPA
standards, but the costs associated with conducting tests for data
submission to EPA would not be required. This is a significant cost
reduction which would result in a cost savings of around $26,000 per
exhaust conversion test group.
5. Total Cost Reductions for Intermediate Age Vehicles Under The
Proposed Rule
Table VII.C-1--Proposal Cost for Intermediate Age Vehicle Conversion When Testing Costs Are Scaled for Multiple
Conversion Test Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing costs
for one
aftermarket fuel Scaled testing
conversion costs for Scaled testing
compliance unit Scaling factor conversion of costs for
(no scaling for one OEM conversion of 4
multiple OEM certificate OEM certificates
certificates
applied)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost for Exhaust Tests............. $6,257.79 0.60........... $3,761.41 $15,045.65
Total Cost for Evap Tests............... 6,368.70 0.45........... 2,879.63 11,518.51
Total Cost for OBD Demo Tests........... 0 0.60........... 0 0
Total Costs for Travel, Vehicle 12,915.81 Weighted 6,361.80 25,447.20
Shipments, and Data Submission. appropriately
to each task.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost for Conversion of OEM Test 25,542.30 ............... 13,002.84 52,011.35
Group(s) of Vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total cost for the intermediate age compliance program for the
conversion of vehicles represented by four OEM certificates to any
clean alternative fuel under the proposed rule is $52,011. This
represents an estimate of a cost reduction of more than $100,000 from
the current estimated baseline cost of compliance for conversion of
vehicles represented by four OEM certificates. If the conversion
certification is for conversions to CNG, LPG or hydrogen, the costs may
be further reduced due to the NMHC/NMOG technical amendment described
under Section V.1.B.
D. Outside Useful Life Vehicle Compliance Costs
The testing that conversion manufacturers choose to undergo to
demonstrate compliance for outside useful life vehicle applications
will depend on which option is selected in the final rulemaking.
EPA would expect the maximum testing costs for Option 1 to
be equivalent to those costs incurred for intermediate age vehicle
compliance, since conducting all testing required for the intermediate
age vehicle program would always be an acceptable demonstration of good
engineering judgment.
Maximum testing costs for Option 2 would be double that of
the intermediate age vehicle program, since two sets of exhaust test
data would be required. However, the costs would still be less than the
baseline costs because no OBD demonstration testing would be required.
Maximum testing costs for Option 3 would be the sum of the
cost for Option 1 and about $300. An OBD scan tool with
capabilities for printing via a computer and printer can be acquired
for less than $300.
VIII. Associated Costs for Heavy-Duty Engines
The costs associated with achieving compliance under this proposal
are expected to be the same or less, on an engine family basis, than
the current cost of compliance for clean alternative fuel conversion of
heavy-duty engines. The amount of cost reduction will vary based on
conversion technology, fuel type, age of engine, conversion
manufacturer preference, and the manufacturer's annual sales volume.
EPA has analyzed the cost of obtaining a certificate of conformity
under current regulations and used that as a baseline cost. All costs
analysis in this section are intended to apply to conversions to any
fuel.
It is important to note that heavy-duty conversions have not
received as much interest as LD conversions. As a result, EPA's
experience with and data available on heavy-duty conversions is
limited. For example, in model year (MY) 2008, EPA only received seven
certification applications from four different converters. In 2009, the
number dropped to three applications from three different
manufacturers. Despite limited historical data on heavy-duty
conversions, EPA has evaluated the cost a converter would incur to
fully certify a heavy-duty engine that has been converted at each of
three stages in the life of the engine: (1) Beginning of useful life,
(2) mid-useful life, and (3) outside the useful life. These costs are
then compared to a baseline--the current cost of certification.
The costs associated with obtaining an exemption from the tampering
prohibition under this proposal are expected to be the same or less, on
an engine family basis, than the current cost of obtaining an exemption
from the tampering for prohibition for clean
[[Page 29633]]
alternative fuel conversion of heavy-duty engines. The amount of cost
reduction will vary based on conversion technology, fuel type, age of
engine, conversion manufacturer preference, and the manufacturer's
annual sales volume.
EPA has analyzed the cost of obtaining a certificate of conformity
under current regulations and used that as a baseline cost. The cost
analysis in this section is intended to apply to conversions to any
fuel.
It is important to note that heavy-duty engine conversions have not
received as much interest as light-duty conversions. As a result, EPA
has less experience with heavy-duty vehicle and engine conversions, and
the available cost data are limited. For example, in model year 2008,
EPA only received seven certification applications from four different
converters. In 2009, the number dropped to three applications from
three different manufacturers. Despite limited historical data on
heavy-duty conversions, EPA has evaluated the cost a converter would
incur to fully certify a heavy-duty engine that has been converted at
each of three age categories: (1) New and nearly new engines, (2)
intermediate age engines, and (3) outside useful life engines. These
costs are then compared to a baseline--the current cost of
certification.
A. Baseline Costs (Cost of Current Compliance)
Baseline costs were derived by determining the cost of obtaining
exhaust and evaporative emission certificates for a new engine family
under current regulations and procedures. A new engine family is a
family that has not been certified in previous years. After the first
certification, the manufacturer may in some cases use the same test
data to obtain certificates of conformity in subsequent years. Engine
families certified this way are referred to as ``carry-overs.'' The
cost of a carry-over family is mostly limited to the certification fee
and minor labor costs.
Converters who have obtained certificates in recent years will
notice that the baseline used here is higher than the costs they may
have incurred. This is due, in part, to a temporary provision which
exempts small volume manufacturers and vehicles above 14,000 pounds
from submitting actual OBD test data to demonstrate compliance with OBD
requirements. This exemption is in place through 2013. All heavy-duty
converters who have certified with EPA have been able to claim this
exemption. To represent the true future costs conversion manufacturers
may incur, EPA has included costs for post-2013 OBD testing and
evaporative emissions testing (for conversions to gaseous fuels) in the
cost basis for heavy-duty conversions.
Estimated labor costs include the time engineering, managerial,
legal and support staff spends performing the various activities
associated with completing an application for certification and any
necessary updates (running changes). These activities include data
gathering and analysis, reviewing regulations, and recordkeeping. To
estimate labor costs, EPA used the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS)
National Industry-specific Occupational Wage Estimates (May 2008) for
the Motor Manufacturing Industry under the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) Code 336100. Mean hourly rates were used
and then increased by a factor of 2.1 to account for benefits and
overhead. Table VIII.A-1 summarizes this information and presents the
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code for each occupation
used to estimate labor costs.
VIII.A-1--Labor Categories and Costs Used To Calculate Heavy-Duty Costs
Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOC code Mean hourly
Occupation No. rate (BLS) 110%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechanical Engineers............. 17-2141 $37.59 $78.94
Engineering Managers............. 11-9041 54.56 114.58
Lawyers.......................... 23-1011 67.14 140.99
Secretaries, Except Legal, 43-6014 19.76 41.50
Medical and Executive...........
Mechanical Engineering 17-3029 31.53 66.21
Technicians.....................
Engine and Other Machine 51-2031 24.56 51.58
Assemblers......................
Truck Drivers, Heavy and Tractor- 53-3032 26.69 56.05
Trailer.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers are also required to pay a certification fee under
the authority of Section 217 of the CAA and the Independent Offices
Appropriation Act (31 U.S.C. 9701). This fee is updated every calendar
year to reflect changes on EPA labor costs and the number of
certificates issued each year. The costs basis analysis includes the
appropriate 2010 fee for exhaust ($35,967) and evaporative ($511)
certification. However, it should be noted that the fees rule provides
for a reduction in fee based on the ``projected aggregate retail price
of all vehicles or engines covered by that certificate'' (69 FR 26226,
Section F). Despite the possibility of a reduction in fee, EPA has used
the full fee for the cost basis of heavy-duty engines.
1. Costs of Certification for One Heavy-Duty Exhaust New Engine Family
Under Current Regulations
Historically, all manufacturers who have certified converted heavy-
duty engines are small manufacturers and thus, do not own testing
facilities. They hire independent laboratories to test their engines.
EPA does not expect that to change in the foreseeable future. EPA
estimates that the cost of testing a heavy-duty engine for exhaust
emissions in an independent laboratory is approximately $30,000. Other
operation and maintenance costs include shipping engines to test sites,
lodging for manufacturer employees to oversee testing, recordkeeping
costs, and the cost of preparing and submitting the application for
certification.
Since EPA does not expect manufacturers to build testing
laboratories or facilities in response to the proposed rule, no capital
costs have been added to the cost basis.
a. Current Costs Associated With Obtaining One Heavy-Duty Exhaust
Certificate of Conformity
[[Page 29634]]
Table VIII.A-2--Current Costs Associated With Obtaining One Heavy-Duty
Exhaust Certificate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Estimated cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust Testing....................................... $30,000
Labor................................................. 9,495
Shipping Engines to Test Sites........................ 2,500
Lodging............................................... 250
Other Operating and Maintenance Costs................. 15
Certification Fee for MY 2010......................... 35,967
-----------------
Total............................................. 78,227
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Current Costs Associated With Obtaining One Heavy-Duty Evaporative
Certificate of Conformity
Most heavy-duty conversions certified by EPA are conversions to
Otto-cycle engines. Manufacturers and converters of Otto-cycle engines
are required to demonstrate compliance with evaporative emissions
requirements and obtain certificate of compliance with evaporative
emissions. This certificate is in addition to the certificate of
compliance with exhaust emission requirements. Manufacturers must
combine engines into groups with similar evaporative emission
characteristics or evaporative engine families. Exhaust and evaporative
families are not necessarily identical. Engines grouped into several
exhaust engine families may belong to only one evaporative family, and
vice versa. For the purpose of establishing a costs baseline, EPA has
included the cost of evaporative certification in its estimates.
Table VIII.A-3--Current Costs Associated With Obtaining One Heavy-Duty
Evaporative Certificate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Estimated cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust Testing....................................... $7,030
Labor................................................. 2,431
Other Operating and Maintenance Costs................. 524
Certification Fee for MY 2010......................... 511
-----------------
Total............................................. 10,496
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Costs Associated With OBDII Demonstration Testing (Engine Family
Basis)
Currently, alternative fuel converters are required to submit test
data to demonstrate compliance with OBD regulations. However, 40 CFR
86.010-18(o) provides exemptions for small volume and alternative
fueled engines used in applications over 14,000 lbs. All heavy-duty
converters who have sought EPA certification in recent years have been
able to claim one of these exemptions.
In an effort to also reduce costs for those heavy-duty
manufacturers who are not able to claim this exemption, EPA is
accepting through MY 2013 approval issued by either the California Air
Resource Board or the EPA light-duty certification team as proof of
compliance. Manufacturers must demonstrate how the OBD system they have
designed to comply with California OBD requirements also complies with
the intent of Federal requirements. So far, heavy-duty manufacturers
have been able to either claim the exemption or submit approval from
CARB or through the EPA light-duty process. Therefore, EPA does not
have historical data to use as basis for OBD demonstrations
specifically related to heavy-duty conversions.
In interest of accounting for every possible cost a heavy-duty
converter might incur to get a certificate, EPA considers it
appropriate to adopt light-duty estimates to represent the heavy-duty
basis. Light duty estimates are summarized in Section VII.A(1)(a)(c),
Table VII.A-4. EPA estimates the cost of OBD compliance at $26,317.
In summary, the base cost of fully certifying a heavy-duty engine
family, including evaporative certification is $115,041, as indicated
in Table VIII.A-4.
Table VIII.A-4--Cost of Full Certification at the Beginning of Useful
Life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Estimated cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust Certification................................. $42,260
Exhaust Certification Fee............................. 35,967
Evaporative Certification............................. 9,985
Evaporative Certification Fee......................... 511
OBD Compliance Demonstration.......................... 26,317
-----------------
Total............................................. 115,041
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29635]]
3. Baseline Cost Analysis Based on Four Exhaust Engine Families and
Four Evaporative Families
Based on the cost of fully certifying one engine family for both
exhaust and evaporative emissions, EPA has estimated the current
baseline cost of certifying four heavy-duty conversion families,
including all testing, associated labor, overhead, and general and
administrative costs. For the purpose of this estimate, EPA assumed
that these four exhaust families will belong to two evaporative
families. This assumption reflects the fact that manufacturers tend to
use the same evaporative system for multiple exhaust families. The
estimated cost of four exhaust families and two evaporative families
would be about $439,170 (Table VIII.A-5). Please see the next section
for an explanation of why EPA has chosen to estimate the cost on four
families.
Table VIII.A-5--Cost of Certifying Four Exhaust Engine Families and Two Evaporative Families Under Current
Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Item Estimated cost engine Total cost
families
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust Certification........................................... $42,260 4 $169,042
Exhaust Certification Fee....................................... 35,967 4 143,868
Evaporative Certification....................................... 9,985 2 19,971
Evaporative Certification Fee................................... 511 2 1,022
OBD Compliance Demonstration.................................... 26,317 4 105,268
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 111,424 4 439,170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Certified Conversion Costs Under the Proposed Rule
As mentioned above, interest in heavy-duty conversions has been low
in the past. In model year 2008, EPA received only seven applications
for certification from a total of four converters. In 2009, only three
of those converters submitted one application each. EPA understands
that this is in part due to converters not submitting an application
until they find a market for the engines. Light-duty vehicles are
typically sold in higher volumes than heavy duty engines. Since the
cost of certification is spread over a smaller pool of engines, it is
typically more expensive to certify a heavy-duty family on a per engine
basis.
After reviewing available information, EPA determined that the
current data are not sufficient to develop a scaling factor that could
be applied in order to calculate an estimated cost of certification
under the proposed rule. Instead, EPA believes it is more appropriate
to illustrate how the proposed regulations would affect a converter
seeking certification. This hypothetical scenario is partly based on
the actual case of a converter who certified four families in 2008. The
scenario is also used for mid-useful-life and end-of-useful-life
estimates.
1. Base Scenario
In MY 2008, Converter X obtained certificates of conformity with
heavy-duty exhaust emission regulations for four engine families.
Converter X used current regulations found at 40 CFR 86.000-24 to
determine how many exhaust engine families, and therefore, how many
certificates it needed. For the purpose of this demonstration, EPA will
assume that Converter X submitted one test data set and paid one full
fee for each exhaust certificate. If Converter X also pursues
evaporative certification for two families separately, it would have to
pay for two evaporative tests and two evaporative fees. In addition OBD
approval was obtained. As shown in Table VIII.A-5 in the previous
section, the cost for this scenario is $439,170.
2. Scenario Under Proposed Regulations
After reviewing the characteristics of each engine family as
reported in the applications for certification, EPA applied the
criteria for combining multiple engine families contained in the
proposed rule. For a list of this criteria, see Section IV.B. Had the
proposed regulations been available to Converter X, Converter X would
have been able to combine two of its engine families into engine family
A, and the remaining two engine families into engine family B. Figure
VIII.B-1 illustrates this combination.
[[Page 29636]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY10.007
By submitting only two exhaust certificate applications, Converter
X would only need to perform two tests and pay two fees instead of four
tests and fees, thus cutting the cost of certifying its exhaust engine
families in half. (Table VIII.B-1).
Table VIII.B-1--Cost of Certifying Two Exhaust Engine Families and Two Evaporative Families Under Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Item Estimated cost engine Total cost
families
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust Certification........................................... $42,260 2 $ 84,521
Exhaust Certification Fee....................................... 35,967 2 71,934
Evaporative Certification....................................... 9,985 2 19,971
Evaporative Certification Fee................................... 511 2 1,022
OBD Compliance Demonstration.................................... 26,317 2 52,634
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 111,424 2 230,082
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total cost of certifying the same engines under the proposed
rule is $230,082, representing 48% savings for Converter X over the
base costs under the current regulations. The cost of certification is
spread over a larger pool of engines, lowering the cost per unit, as
Figure VIII.B-1 shows. The new engine family combination criteria may
create this type of cost-cutting scenario.
C. Intermediate Age Engine Compliance Costs
The current fuel conversion process requires certification
regardless of the age of the engine being converted. Therefore the
baseline costs presented in Section VIII.A also apply to intermediate
age heavy-duty engines. Under the proposed rule, converters of
intermediate age engines will be required to gather and submit all
required data, including test data. Engine families will be grouped in
larger families as described in Section VIII.B. However, the proposed
rule does not require EPA to issue a certificate of conformity for
intermediate age engines. Instead, manufacturers will be required to
submit data to show that converted engines meet applicable standards.
In addition, OBD testing will not be required for intermediate
conversions.
If the engine families Converter X certified in our previous
scenario were intermediate age engines, Converter X would have savings
due to both (1) engine family groupings, and (2) the lack of a
certification fee. As shown in Table VIII.B-2, the cost to Converter X
would be about $97,259. This represents savings of about $341,912 or
78% when compared to the baseline.
[[Page 29637]]
Table VIII.B-2--Cost of Intermediate Age Conversions Certification Under Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost for two Cost for two
Baseline cost for exhaust and two exhaust and two
four exhaust and evap families evap families
Item two evap families (new and nearly (intermediate
(current new enignes-- age--proposed
regulations) proposed rule) rule)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust Certification.................................. $169,042 $84,521 $84,521
Exhaust Certification Fee.............................. 143,868 71,934 .................
Evaporative Certification.............................. 19,971 19,971 12,738
Evaporative Certification Fee.......................... 1,022 1,022 .................
OBD Compliance Demonstration........................... 105,268 52,634 .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 439,170 230,082 97,259
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Outside Useful Life Engine Compliance Costs
The demonstration and associated compliance costs required of
outside useful life conversion manufacturers will depend on which
option is selected in the final rulemaking.
EPA would expect the maximum testing costs for Option 1 to
be equivalent to those costs incurred for intermediate age engine
compliance, since conducting all testing required for the intermediate
age engine program would always be an acceptable demonstration of good
engineering judgment.
Maximum testing costs for Option 2 would be double that of
the intermediate age engine program, since two sets of emissions test
data would be required. However, the costs would still be less than the
baseline costs because no OBD demonstration testing would be required.
Maximum testing costs for Option 3 would be sum of the
cost for Option 1 and about $300. An OBD scan tool with
capabilities for printing via a computer and printer can be acquired
for less than $300.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO. OMB confirmed this
proposal was non-significant on October 9, 2009 and waived review.
EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. Cost analyses are summarized in Sections
VII and VIII of this preamble.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents prepared by EPA have
been assigned EPA ICR numbers 0783.55 and 1684.15.
The Agency proposes to collect information to ensure compliance
with the provisions in this rule. This includes a variety of
requirements for alternative fuel vehicle converters. Under Title II of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) EPA is required to establish
motor vehicle emission standards that apply throughout useful life, and
to verify through issuance of a certificate of conformity that any
vehicle or engine entered into commerce complies with the established
emission standards. Under Section 203 of the Air Act, once certified,
the vehicle or engine generally may not be altered from its certified
configuration. EPA has established policies through which conversion
manufacturers can demonstrate that the conversion does not compromise
emissions compliance. The current regulations are located in 40 CFR
part 85, subpart F and the proposal would amend these regulations.
Section 208(a) of the Act requires that vehicle manufacturers and
others subject to the Act provide information the Administrator may
reasonably require to determine compliance with the regulations;
submission of the information is therefore mandatory for securing the
regulatory exemption from the tampering prohibition set forth in 40 CFR
part 85, subpart F. We will consider confidential all information
meeting the requirements of section 208(c) of the Clean Air Act.
As described in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble, compliance
costs per test group or engine family are expected to decrease overall.
As shown in Table IX-1, the total annual industry burden associated
with this proposal is about 7,247 hours and $1,186,726 in annual
capital and operations and maintenance costs based on a projection of
13 respondents. The estimated burden for converters is a total estimate
for both new and existing reporting requirements. This represents an
estimated reduction in burden from previous requirements of 7,361 hours
and $132,981 in non-labor costs for light-duty converters. The total
heavy-duty conversion industry is expected to grow as a result of this
rule, therefore increasing industry-wide costs. However, costs per
respondent are likely to decrease, by as much as 48 percent. Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
[[Page 29638]]
Table IX-1--Estimated Burden for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Number of Annual burden annual Estimated Estimated
Industry sector respondents (hours) capital and annual labor total costs
O&M costs cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Duty Vehicles (IRC 5 6,068 $103,160 $352,495 $455,655
0783.55).......................
Heavy Duty Vehicles (ICR 8 1,179 1,083,566 182,876 1,266,442
1684.15).......................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 13 7,247 1,186,726 535,371 1,722,097
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes these ICRs, under Docket ID number [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0299]. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB.
See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after May 26, 2010, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 25, 2010.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposal on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) Small businesses that are
primarily engaged in engine and motor vehicle parts manufacturing,
specifically aftermarket fuel conversion systems for vehicles and
engines as included in the definitions by NAICS, codes 336312 and
336399 with fewer than 750 employees (based on Small Business
Administration size standards at 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
To qualify for an exemption from the prohibition on tampering,
existing alternative fuel conversion regulations require converters to
complete vehicle and engine certification testing, data submittal and
compliance procedures much like OEM new vehicle certification
procedures. The current certification process for conversion of
vehicles and engines that are two years old or newer largely will be
retained, with a few amendments which may reduce the testing burden.
The amendments include provisions such as (1) a statement of compliance
using good engineering judgment in lieu of HCHO testing analysis for
certain alternative fuels, (2) the use of conversion factors to
calculate NMOG from NMHC in lieu of speciation testing for some
alternative fuels, and (3) allowing the combination of OEM test groups
into larger testing combinations for aftermarket fuel conversion.
In addition, this proposed rule creates an intermediate age and
outside useful life compliance program as an alternative to vehicle and
engine certification of fuel conversion of older vehicles and engines.
The notification program will allow conversion manufacturers to conduct
fewer tests and will provide a streamlined data-submittal process. The
notification program may also allow for one set of test data to apply
to a broader set of OEM vehicles.
We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule will
generally relieve or not increase regulatory burden for each affected
small entity. The number of potentially affected small entities subject
to this rule is projected to be less than 15 per year. The degree of
cost reduction for each entity will vary based on conversion
technology, fuel type, vehicle or engine age, applicability, conversion
manufacturer preference, and the manufacturer's annual sales volume.
See Sections VII and VIII of this preamble for further details. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposal contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local
or tribal governments. EPA has determined that this proposal does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for the private sector in any one year. Thus, this rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. EPA
has determined that this rule is also not subject to the requirements
of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
[[Page 29639]]
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA and the States will maintain
the current distribution of power and responsibility. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The proposed rule changes some required procedures but
does not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule
and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources.
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
Statutory authority for the regulation of clean alternative fuel
conversion can be found in 42 U.S.C. 7401-7617q. The Administrator has
determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 307(d).\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 85 and 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Alternative fuel conversion, Confidential business information,
Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 5, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble title 40, Chapter 1 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Subpart F of part 85 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--Exemption of Clean Alternative Fuel Conversions From
Tampering Prohibition
Sec.
85.501 General applicability.
85.502 Definitions.
85.505 Overview.
85.510 Exemption provisions for new and relatively new vehicles/
engines.
85.515 Exemption provisions for intermediate age vehicles/engines.
85.520 Exemption provisions for outside useful life vehicles/
engines.
85.525 Applicable standards.
85.530 Vehicle and commercial packaging labeling.
85.535 Liability, recordkeeping and end of year reporting.
Subpart F--Exemption of Clean Alternative Fuel Conversions From
Tampering Prohibition
Sec. 85.501 General applicability.
(a) This subpart describes the provisions related to an exemption
from the tampering prohibition in Clean Air Act section 203(a) (42
U.S.C. 7522(a)) for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty
vehicles, and heavy-duty engines. This subpart F does not apply for
highway motorcycles or for nonroad or stationary engines or equipment.
(b) For purposes of this subpart, the term ``you'' generally means
a clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturer, which may also be
called ``conversion manufacturer'' or ``converter''.
[[Page 29640]]
Sec. 85.502 Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply to this subpart. All terms
that are not defined in this subpart have the meaning given in 40 CFR
part 86. All terms that are not defined in this subpart or in 40 CFR
part 86 have the meaning given in the Clean Air Act. The definitions
follow:
Clean alternative fuel conversion (or ``fuel conversion'' or
``conversion system'') means any alteration of a motor vehicle or
engine, its fueling system, or the integration of these systems, that
allows the vehicle or engine to operate on a fuel or power source
different from the fuel or power source for which the vehicle or engine
was originally certified; and that is designed, constructed, and
applied consistent with good engineering judgment and in accordance
with all applicable regulations. A clean alternative fuel conversion
also means the components, design and instructions to perform this
alteration.
Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturer (or ``conversion
manufacturer'' or ``converter'') means any person that manufactures,
assembles, sells, imports, or installs a motor vehicle or engine fuel
conversion for the purpose of use of a clean alternative fuel.
Conversion model year means the clean alternative fuel conversion
manufacturer's annual production period which includes January 1 of
such calendar year. A specific model year may not include January 1
from the previous year or the following year. The term conversion model
year means the calendar year if the converter has no different annual
production period.
Date of conversion means the date on which the clean alternative
fuel conversion system is fully installed and operable.
Dedicated vehicle/engine means any vehicle/engine engineered and
designed to be operated using a single fuel.
Dual-fuel vehicle/engine means any vehicle/engine engineered and
designed to be operated on two different fuels, but not on a mixture of
the fuels.
Flex-fuel vehicle/engine means any vehicle/engine engineered and
designed to be operated on a mixture of two fuels.
Heavy-duty engines describes all engines covered under the
applicability of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A and part 1065.
Light-duty and heavy-duty complete vehicles describes all vehicles
covered under the applicability of 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) means the original
manufacturer of the new vehicle/engine or relating to the vehicle/
engine in its original certified configuration.
Original model year means the model year in which a vehicle/engine
was originally certified by the original equipment manufacturer, as
noted on the emission control information label.
We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or any authorized representative.
Sec. 85.505 Overview.
(a) You are exempted from the tampering prohibition in Clean Air
Act section 203(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 7522)(a)(3) (``tampering'') if you
satisfy all the provisions of this subpart.
(b) The tampering exemption provisions described in this subpart
are differentiated based on the age of the vehicle/engine at the point
of conversion as follows:
(1) ``New and relatively new'' refers to a vehicle/engine where the
date of conversion is in a calendar year that is not more than one year
after the original model year. See Sec. 85.510 for provisions that
apply specifically to new and relatively new vehicles and engines.
(2) ``Intermediate age'' refers to a vehicle/engine that has not
exceeded the useful life (in years, miles, or hours of operation)
applicable to the vehicle or engine as originally certified, excluding
new and relatively new vehicles/engines. See Sec. 85.515 for
provisions that apply specifically to intermediate-age vehicles and
engines.
(3) ``Outside useful life'' refers to any vehicle/engine that has
exceeded the useful life (in years, miles, or hours of operation)
applicable to the vehicle/engine as originally certified. See Sec.
85.520 for provisions that apply specifically to outside useful life
vehicles/engines.
(c) If the converted vehicle/engine is a dual-fuel vehicle/engine,
you must submit test data using each type of fuel, except that you may
omit testing for the fuel originally used to certify the vehicle/engine
if you comply with Sec. 85.510(b)(7)(ii), (iii), and (v), Sec.
85.515(b)(9)(iii)(B), (C), and (E), or Sec. 85.520(b)(4)(ii), (iii)
and (v) as applicable.
(d) This subpart specifies certain reporting requirements. We may
ask you to give us more information than we specify in this subpart to
determine whether your vehicles/engines conform with the requirements
of this subpart. We may ask you to give us less information or do less
testing than we specify in this subpart.
Sec. 85.510 Exemption provisions for new and relatively new vehicles/
engines.
(a) You are exempted from the tampering prohibition with respect to
new and relatively new vehicles/engines if you certify the conversion
systems to the emission standards specified in Sec. 85.525 as
described in this section; you meet the labeling and packaging
requirements in Sec. 85.530 before you sell, import or otherwise
facilitate the use of a clean alternative fuel conversion system; and
you meet the liability, recordkeeping, and end of year reporting
requirements in Sec. 85.535.
(b) Certification under this section must be based on the
certification procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A or S or
40 CFR part 1065, as applicable, subject to the following exceptions
and special provisions:
(1) Test groups, engine families and evaporative/refueling families
for light-duty and heavy-duty complete vehicles.
(i) Small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups.
(A) If criteria for small volume manufacturer or small volume test
groups are met as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-01, you may combine light-
duty vehicles or heavy-duty vehicles which can be chassis certified
under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S using good engineering judgment into
conversion test groups if the following criteria are satisfied instead
of those specified in 40 CFR 86.1827-01.
(1) Same OEM and OEM model year.
(2) Same OBD group.
(3) Same vehicle classification (e.g. light-duty vehicle, heavy-
duty vehicle).
(4) Engine displacement is within 15% of largest displacement or 50
CID, whichever is larger.
(5) Same number of cylinders or combustion chambers.
(6) Same arrangement of cylinders or combustion chambers (e.g. in-
line, v-shaped).
(7) Same combustion cycle (e.g., two stroke, four stroke, Otto-
cycle, diesel-cycle).
(8) Same engine type (e.g. piston, rotary, turbine, air cooled vs.
water cooled).
(9) Same OEM fuel type (except otherwise similar gasoline and E85
flex-fuel vehicles may be combined into dedicated alternative fuel
vehicles).
(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g. throttle body injection vs.
port injection).
(11) Same catalyst construction (e.g. metal vs. ceramic substrate).
(12) All converted vehicles are subject to the most stringent
emission standards used in certifying the OEM test groups within the
conversion test group.
(B) EPA-established scaled assigned deterioration factors for both
exhaust and evaporative emissions may be used for vehicles with over
10,000 miles if the criteria for small volume
[[Page 29641]]
manufacturer or small volume test groups are met as defined in 40 CFR
86.1838-01. This deterioration factor will be adjusted according to
vehicle or engine miles of operation. The deterioration factor is
intended to predict the vehicle's emission levels at the end of the
useful life. EPA may adjust these scaled assigned deterioration factors
if we find the rate of deterioration non-constant or the rate differs
by fuel type, if necessary.
(ii) Conversion evaporative/refueling families are identical to the
OEM evaporative/refueling families unless the OEM evaporative emission
system is no longer functionally necessary. You must create any new
evaporative families according to 40 CFR 86.18321-01.
(2) Engine families and evaporative/refueling families for heavy-
duty engines.
(i) Small volume heavy-duty engine families.
(A) If criteria for small volume is met as defined in 40 CFR
86.098-14 you may combine heavy-duty engines using good engineering
judgment into conversion engine families if the following criteria are
satisfied instead of those specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A.
(1) Same OEM.
(2) Same OBD group after MY 2013.
(3) Same service class (e.g. light heavy-duty diesel engines,
medium heavy-duty diesel engines, heavy heavy-duty diesel engines).
(4) Engine displacement is within 15% of largest displacement or 50
CID, whichever is larger.
(5) Same number of cylinders.
(6) Same arrangement of cylinders.
(7) Same combustion cycle.
(8) Same method of air aspiration.
(9) Same fuel type (e.g. diesel/gasoline).
(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g. mechanical direct or
electronic direct injection).
(11) Same catalyst/filter construction (e.g. metal vs. ceramic
substrate).
(12) All converted vehicles are subject to the most stringent
emission standards. For example, 2005 and 2007 heavy-duty diesel
engines may be in the same family if they meet the most stringent
(2007) standards.
(13) Same emission control technology (e.g., internal or external
EGR).
(B) EPA-established scaled assigned deterioration factors for both
exhaust and evaporative emissions may be used for engines with over
10,000 miles if the criteria for small volume manufacturer are met as
defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 and 40 CFR 86.098-14. This deterioration
factor will be adjusted according to vehicle or engine miles of
operation. The deterioration factor is intended to predict the engine's
emission levels at the end of the useful life. EPA may adjust these
scaled assigned deterioration factors if we find the rate of
deterioration non-constant or the rate differs by fuel type, if
necessary.
(ii) Conversion evaporative/refueling families are identical to the
OEM evaporative/refueling families unless the OEM evaporative emission
system is no longer functionally necessary. You must create any new
evaporative families according to 40 CFR 86.096-24(a).
(3) Conversion test groups/engine families may include vehicles/
engines that are subject to different OEM emission standards; however,
all the vehicles/engines certified under this subpart in a single
conversion test group/engine family are subject to the most stringent
standards that apply for vehicles or engines included in the conversion
test group or engine family. For example, if OEM vehicle test groups
originally certified to Tier 2, Bin 4 and Bin 5 standards are in the
same conversion test group for purposes of fuel conversion, all the
vehicles certified in the conversion test group under this subpart are
subject to the Tier 2, Bin 4 standards.
(4) Conversion test groups/engine families for conversions to dual
fueled vehicles/engines cannot include vehicles subject to different
emission standards; however the data generated from exhaust emission
testing on the new fuel for dual fueled test vehicles/engines may be
carried over to vehicles/engines which otherwise meet the test group or
engine family criteria and for which the test vehicle/engine data
demonstrate compliance with the application vehicle or engine standard.
Clean alternative fuel conversion evaporative families for dual fueled
vehicles may not include vehicles/engines which were originally
certified to different evaporative emissions standards.
(5) The vehicle/engine selected for testing must qualify as a
worst-case vehicle/engine under 40 CFR 86.1828-01 or 40 CFR 86.096-
24(b)(3), as applicable.
(6) A certificate issued under this section is valid starting with
the indicated effective date but it is not valid for any clean
alternative fuel conversion systems you manufacture after December 31
of the conversion model year for which it is issued. You may apply for
a certificate of conformity for the next conversion model year using
the applicable provisions for carryover certification.
(7) In lieu of specific certification test data, you may be
eligible to submit the following attestations for the appropriate
statements of compliance.
(i) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has properly exercised the optional and applicable statements of
compliance or waivers in the certification regulations in 40 CFR part
86, subparts A, B, and S and 40 CFR part 1065.
(ii) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel operation
retains all the OEM fuel system, engine calibration, and emission
control system functionality when operating on the fuel with which the
vehicle/engine was originally certified.
(iii) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel operation
retains all the functionality of the OEM OBD system (if so equipped)
when operating on the fuel with which the vehicle/engine was originally
certified.
(iv) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has fully functional OBD systems (if the OEM vehicles are OBD equipped)
and therefore meets the OBD requirements in 40 CFR 86, subparts A and S
when operating on the alternative fuel.
(v) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel operation
properly purges hydrocarbon vapor from the evaporative emission
canister when the vehicles/engines are operating on the alternative
fuel.
(8) Certification fees apply per 40 CFR 1027.101.
(9) Conversion systems must be properly installed and adjusted such
that the vehicle/engine operates consistent with the principles of good
engineering judgment and in accordance with all applicable regulations.
Sec. 85.515 Exemption provisions for intermediate age vehicles/
engines.
(a) You are exempted from the tampering prohibition with respect to
intermediate age vehicles/engines if you properly test, document and
notify EPA that the conversion system complies with the emission
standards specified in Sec. 85.525 as described in paragraph (b) of
this section; you meet the labeling requirements in Sec. 85.530 before
you sell, import or otherwise facilitate the use of a clean alternative
fuel conversion system; and you meet the liability, recordkeeping, and
end of year reporting requirements in Sec. 85.535. You may also meet
the requirements under this section by complying with the requirements
in Sec. 85.510.
(b) Documenting and notifying EPA under this section includes
following all
[[Page 29642]]
the provisions described in Sec. 85.510 for new and relatively new
vehicles/engines with the following exceptions and special provisions:
(1) You may notify us as described in this section instead of
certifying the aftermarket conversion system.
(2) Conversion test groups for light-duty and heavy-duty complete
vehicles may be grouped together into an exhaust conversion test group
using the criteria described in Sec. 85.510(b)(1)(i)(A), except that
the same OBD group is not a criterion.
(3) Conversion engine families for heavy-duty engines may be
grouped together into an exhaust conversion engine family using the
criteria described in Sec. 85.510(b)(2)(i)(A), except that the same
OBD group is not a criterion.
(4) EPA-established scaled assigned deterioration factors for both
exhaust and evaporative emissions may be used for vehicles/engines with
over 10,000 miles if the criteria for small volume manufacturer or
small volume test groups are met as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 or 40
CFR 86.096-14, as appropriate. This deterioration factor will be
adjusted according to vehicle/engine miles or hours of operation. The
deterioration factor is intended to predict the vehicle/engine's
emission level at the end of the useful life. EPA may adjust these
scaled assigned deterioration factors if we find the rate of
deterioration non-constant or the rate differs by fuel type, if
necessary.
(5) Conduct all exhaust and all evaporative and refueling emissions
testing with a worst-case vehicle/engine to show that the conversion
test group/engine family complies with exhaust and evaporative/
refueling emission standards, as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subparts
A, B, and S and 40 CFR part 1065.
(6) The OBD system must properly detect and identify malfunctions
in all monitored emission-related powertrain systems or components
including any new monitoring capability necessary to identify potential
emission problems associated with the new fuel. These include but are
not limited to: Fuel trim lean and rich monitors, catalyst
deterioration monitors, engine misfire monitors, oxygen sensor
deterioration monitors, EGR system monitors, if applicable, and vapor
leak monitors, if applicable. No original OBD system monitor which is
still applicable to the vehicle/engine may be aliased, removed,
bypassed, or turned-off. No MILs shall be illuminated after the
conversion. Readiness flags must be properly set for all monitors that
identify any malfunction for all monitored components.
(7) Conversion test groups and conversion engine families for
conversions to dual fueled vehicles/engines may not include vehicles/
engines subject to different emissions standards. However the data
generated from testing on the new fuel for dual fueled test vehicles/
engines may be carried over to vehicles/engines which otherwise meet
the conversion test group/engine family criteria and for which the test
vehicle/engine data demonstrate compliance with the applicable vehicle/
engine standard. Clean alternative fuel conversion evaporative families
for dual fueled vehicles/engines cannot include vehicles/engines which
were originally certified to different evaporative emissions standards.
(8) Durability procedures for large volume manufacturers of
intermediate age light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and heavy-duty
complete vehicles that follow provisions in 40 CFR 86.1820-01 may
eliminate precious metal composition and catalyst grouping statistic
when creating clean alternative fuel durability groupings.
(9) Notify us by electronic submission in a format specified by the
Administrator with all required documentation. The following must be
submitted:
(i) Describe how your conversion system qualifies as a clean
alternative fuel conversion. You must include emission test results
from the required exhaust and evaporative emissions testing, applicable
exhaust and evaporative emissions standards and deterioration factors.
You must also include a description of how the test vehicle/engine
selected qualifies as a worst-case vehicle/engine under 40 CFR 86.1828-
01 or 40 CFR 86.096-24(b)(3) as applicable.
(ii) Describe the group of vehicles/engines (conversion test group/
conversion engine family) that are covered by your notification based
on the criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3) of this
section.
(iii) In lieu of specific test data, the clean alternative fuel
conversion manufacturer may be eligible to submit attestations for the
appropriate statements of compliance.
(A) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has properly exercised the optional and applicable statements of
compliance or waivers in the certification regulations in 40 CFR part
86, subparts A and S and 40 CFR part 1065.
(B) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel operation
retains all the OEM fuel system, engine calibration, and emission
control system functionality when operating on the fuel with which the
vehicle was originally certified.
(C) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel operation
retains all the functionality of the OEM OBD system (if the OEM
vehicles/engines are OBD equipped) when operating on the fuel with
which the vehicle was originally certified.
(D) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has fully functional OBD systems (if the OEM vehicles/engines are OBD
equipped) and therefore meets the OBD requirements in 40 CFR 86
subparts A and S when operating on the alternative fuel.
(E) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel operation
properly purges hydrocarbon vapor from the evaporative emission
canister when the vehicles/engines are operating on the alternative
fuel.
(F) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
use fueling systems, evaporative emission control systems, and engine
powertrain components which are compatible with the alternative fuel
and designed with the principles of good engineering judgment.
(iv) Include any other information as the Administrator may deem
appropriate to establish the conversion system is for the purpose of
conversion to a clean alternative fuel.
(10) Conversion systems must be properly installed and adjusted
such that the vehicle/engine operates consistent with the principles of
good engineering judgment and in accordance with all applicable
regulations.
(c) Documentation under this section may use the same test data
used to certify conversion systems under Sec. 85.510, subject to the
applicable provisions for differentiating test groups/engine families.
Sec. 85.520 Exemption provisions for outside useful life vehicles/
engines.
(a) You are exempted from the tampering prohibition with respect to
outside useful life vehicles/engines if you properly document and
notify EPA that the conversion system satisfies all the provisions in
this section; you meet the labeling requirements in Sec. 85.530 before
you sell, import or otherwise facilitate the use of a clean alternative
fuel conversion system; and you meet the applicable requirements in
Sec. 85.535. You may also meet the requirements under this section by
complying with the provisions in Sec. 85.515.
[[Page 29643]]
(b) Documenting and notifying EPA under this section includes the
following provisions:
(1) You may notify us as described in this section instead of
certifying the conversion system.
(2) Conversion test groups, evaporative/refueling families, and
conversion engine families may be the same as those allowed for the
intermediate age vehicle and engine program in Sec. 85.515(b)(2) and
(3), and the new and relatively new vehicle and engine program in Sec.
85.510(b)(1)(ii) and Sec. 85.510(b)(2)(ii), as applicable.
(3) Use good engineering judgment to specify, use, and assemble
fuel-system components and other hardware and software that are
properly designed and matched for the vehicles or engines in which they
will be installed. You must submit a detailed description of the
conversion system. The submission must provide a level of technical
detail sufficient for EPA to confirm the conversion system's ability to
sustain acceptable emission levels in a worst case vehicle/engine.
Required technical information must include a complete characterization
of exhaust and evaporative emissions control strategies, the fuel
delivery system, durability, and specifications related to OBD system
functionality. Good engineering judgment also dictates that any testing
or data used to satisfy demonstration requirements be generated at a
quality laboratory that is capable of performing official EPA emission
tests and follows good laboratory practices.
(4) Notify us by electronic submission in a format specified by the
Administrator with all required documentation. The following must be
submitted, where applicable:
(i) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has properly exercised the optional and applicable statements of
compliance or waivers in the certification regulations in 40 CFR part
86, subparts A and S and 40 CFR part 1065.
(ii) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel operation
retains all the OEM fuel system, engine calibration, and emission
control system functionality when operating on the fuel with which the
vehicle was originally certified.
(iii) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel operation
retains all the functionality of the OEM OBD system (if the OEM
vehicles/engines are OBD equipped) when operating on the fuel with
which the vehicle was originally certified.
(iv) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
has fully functional OBD systems (if the OEM vehicles/engines are OBD
equipped) and therefore meets the OBD requirements in 40 CFR Part 86,
subpart S when operating on the alternative fuel.
(v) The test group/engine family converted to dual fuel operation
properly purges hydrocarbon vapor from the evaporative emission
canister when the vehicle is operating on the alternative fuel.
(vi) The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel
use fueling systems, evaporative emission control systems, and engine
powertrain components which are compatible with the alternative fuel
and designed with the principles of good engineering judgment.
(vii) Include any other information as the Administrator may deem
appropriate to establish that the conversion system is for the purpose
of conversion to a clean alternative fuel.
Option 1 for paragraph (b)(5):
(5) Notify us by electronic submission in a format specified by the
Administrator with all required documentation. The following must be
submitted, where applicable:
(i) Describe how your conversion system complies with the good
engineering judgment criteria in Sec. 85.520(b)(3) and/or other
requirements under this subpart or other applicable subparts such that
the conversion system qualifies as a clean alternative fuel conversion.
The submission must provide a level of technical detail sufficient for
EPA to confirm the conversion system's ability to sustain acceptable
emission levels in a worst case vehicle/engine. Required technical
information must include a complete characterization of exhaust and
evaporative emissions control strategies, the fuel delivery system,
durability, and specifications related to OBD system functionality. EPA
may ask you to supply additional information, including test data, to
support the claim that the conversion system does not increase
emissions and involves good engineering judgment that is being applied
for purposes of conversion to a clean alternative fuel.
(ii) Describe the group of vehicles or engines that are covered by
your notification based on the criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(iii) Include any other information as the Administrator may deem
appropriate to establish the conversion system is for the purpose of
conversion to a clean alternative fuel.
Option 2 for paragraph (b)(5):
(5) Notify us by electronic submission in a format specified by the
Administrator with all required documentation. The following must be
submitted, where applicable:
(i) Describe how your conversion system complies with the good
engineering judgment criteria in Sec. 85.520(b)(3) and/or other
requirements under this subpart or other applicable subparts such that
the conversion system qualifies as a clean alternative fuel conversion.
(ii) Additionally, a clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturer
must either
(A) Submit data demonstrating that the vehicle or engine would meet
the applicable exhaust and evaporative emissions standards as if it
were within its defined useful life, or
(B) Submit comparative emission test data to verify that emissions
do not increase as a result of the fuel conversion. Submit data from
two sets of the applicable exhaust and evaporative/refueling testing
described in 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065, with the first test
conducted before conversion and the second test after conversion. The
data must demonstrate that emissions do not increase after conversion.
The test vehicle(s)/engine(s) must be set to the manufacturer's tune up
specification before the first test, and, apart from what is required
of the normal conversion procedure, no additional adjustments to the
vehicle/engine may occur between the first and second tests.
(iii) Describe the group of vehicles or engines that are covered by
your notification based on the criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(iv) Include any other information as the Administrator may deem
appropriate to establish the conversion system is for the purpose of
conversion to a clean alternative fuel.
Option 3 for paragraph (b)(5):
(5) Notify us by electronic submission in a format specified by the
Administrator with all required documentation. The following must be
submitted, where applicable:
(i) Describe how your conversion system complies with the good
engineering judgment criteria in Sec. 85.520(b)(3) and/or other
requirements under this subpart or other applicable subparts such that
the conversion system qualifies as a clean alternative fuel conversion.
The submission must provide a level of technical detail sufficient for
EPA to confirm the conversion system's ability to sustain acceptable
emission levels in a worst case vehicle/engine. Required technical
information must include a complete characterization of exhaust and
[[Page 29644]]
evaporative emissions control strategies, the fuel delivery system,
durability, and specifications related to OBD system functionality. EPA
may ask you to supply additional information, including test data, to
support the claim that the conversion system does not increase
emissions and involves good engineering judgment that is being applied
for purposes of conversion to a clean alternative fuel.
(ii) Submit a printed version of results from an OBD scan tool
following test procedures in 40 CFR 85.2222, with the exception that
paragraph (c)(2) of this section does not apply. If necessary, the
evaporative emission readiness monitor may remain unset for conversions
to dedicated alternative gaseous fuels. The results may not demonstrate
a failed test.
(iii) Describe the group of vehicles/engines that are covered by
your notification based on the criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section.
(iv) Include any other information as the Administrator may deem
appropriate, which may include test data, to establish the conversion
system is for the purpose of conversion to a clean alternative fuel.
(6) Conversion systems must be properly installed and adjusted such
that the vehicle or engine operates consistent with the principles of
good engineering judgment and in accordance with all applicable
regulations.
(c) You must keep records as described in Sec. 85.535(e). EPA may
ask for any documentation and/or conduct emission testing to
demonstrate the conversion is for the purpose of a clean alternative
fuel.
Sec. 85.525 Applicable standards.
Vehicles and engines that have been converted to operate on a
different fuel must meet emission standards and related requirements as
follows:
(a) The following emission standards and related requirements apply
for conversions of vehicles and engines with an original model year of
1992 or earlier:
(1) Exhaust hydrocarbons. Light-duty vehicles must meet the Tier 0
hydrocarbon standard specified in 40 CFR 86.094-8. Light-duty trucks
must meet the Tier 0 hydrocarbon standard specified in 40 CFR 86.094-9.
Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines must meet the hydrocarbon standard
specified in 40 CFR 86.096-10. Diesel heavy-duty engines must meet the
hydrocarbon standard in 40 CFR 86.096-11.
(2) CO, NOX and particulate matter. Vehicles and engines must meet
the CO, NOX, and particulate matter emission standards that
applied for the vehicle or engine's original model year. If the engine
was certified with a Family Emission Limit, as noted on the emission
control information label, the modified engine may not exceed this
Family Emission Limit.
(3) Evaporative hydrocarbons. Vehicles and engines must meet the
evaporative hydrocarbon emission standards that applied for the vehicle
or engine's original model year.
(b) For vehicles/engines with an original model year of 1993 or
later, the modified vehicle or engine must meet the requirements that
applied for the OEM vehicle/engine, or the most stringent OEM vehicle/
engine standards in any allowable grouping. If the engine was certified
with a Family Emission Limit for NOX, NOX+HC, or
particulate matter, as noted on the vehicle emission control
information label, the modified vehicle/engine may not exceed this
Family Emission Limit.
Sec. 85.530 Vehicle and commercial packaging labeling.
(a) The following labeling requirements apply for clean alternative
fuel conversion manufacturers:
(1) You must make a supplemental emission control information label
for each clean alternative fuel conversion system.
(2) On the supplemental label identify the OEM vehicles/engines for
which you authorize the use of your clean alternative fuel conversion
system, consistent with the requirements of this subpart. You may do
this by identifying the OEM vehicle test group/engine family names and
OEM model year as described in Sec. 85.510(c) or Sec. 85.515(c) to
which your conversion is applicable. Your commercial packaging
materials must also clearly describe this information.
(3) Include the following on the supplemental label:
(i) State that the vehicle/engine has been equipped with a clean
alternative fuel conversion system designed to allow it to operate on a
fuel other than the fuel it was originally manufactured to operate on.
Identify the fuel or fuels the vehicle/engine is designed to use and
provide a unique conversion test group/conversion engine family name
and conversion evaporative/refueling emissions family name.
(ii) Identify your corporate name, address, and telephone number.
(iii) Include one of the following statements that describes how
you comply under this subpart and any applicable mileage or age
restrictions due to compliance demonstration pathway:
(A) ``This clean alternative fuel conversion system has been
certified to meet EPA emission standards.''
(B) ``Testing has shown that this clean alternative fuel conversion
system meets EPA emission standards under the intermediate age vehicle
program.''
(C) ``This conversion system is for the purpose of use of a clean
alternative fuel in accordance with EPA regulations and is applicable
only to vehicles and engines that are older than 11 years or 120,000
miles.'' (Values must be adjusted to reflect OEM useful life and useful
life in hours should be added, if appropriate.)
(iv) State the following: ``This conversion was manufactured and
installed consistent with the principles of good engineering judgment
and all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations.''
(4) On the supplemental label, identify any original parts that
will be removed for the conversion and any associated changes in
maintenance specifications.
(5) On the supplemental label, include the date of conversion and
the mileage of the vehicle or engine (or hours of operation for the
engine) at the time of conversion.
(b) The supplemental emission control information label shall be
placed in a permanent manner adjacent to the vehicle or engine's
original emission control information label if possible. If it is
impractical to place the supplemental label adjacent to the original
label, it must be placed where it will be seen by a person viewing the
original label on a part that is needed for normal operation and does
not normally need replacement.
(c) All information provided on clean alternative fuel conversion
system packaging must be consistent with the required vehicle labeling
information.
Sec. 85.535 Liability, recordkeeping, and end of year reporting.
(a) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers are liable for
in-use performance of their conversion systems as outlined in this
part.
(b) We may conduct or require testing on any vehicles or engines as
allowed under the Clean Air Act. This may involve confirmatory testing
or selective enforcement audits for clean alternative fuel conversion
systems. Dual-fuel vehicles/engines may be tested when operating on
either fuel type.
(c) Except for an application for certification, your actions to
document compliance and notify us under this subpart are not a request
for our approval. We generally do not give any formal approval short of
issuing a
[[Page 29645]]
certificate of conformity. However, if we learn that your actions fall
short of full compliance with applicable requirements we may notify you
that you have not met applicable requirements or that we need more
information to make that determination. The exemption from the
tampering prohibition is void ab initio if the conversion manufacturer
has not satisfied all of the applicable provisions of this subpart even
if a submission to EPA has been made and the conversion system appears
on EPA's publicly available list of compliant systems.
(d) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers must accept in-
use liability for warranty and recall for any parts or systems for
which the failure can be traced to the conversion, regardless of
whether application was proper or improper. The original equipment
manufacturer shall remain liable for the performance of any parts or
systems which retain their original function following conversion and
are unaffected by the conversion. The applicable useful life of a clean
alternative fuel converted vehicle/engine shall end at the same time of
the useful life of the original vehicle.
(e) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers must keep
sufficient records for five years to show that they meet applicable
requirements.
(f) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers must submit an
end of the year sales report to EPA describing the number of
conversions. The number of conversions is the sum of the calendar year
intermediate age and outside useful life conversions and the same model
year certified clean alternative fuel conversions. The number of
conversions will be added to any other vehicle and engine sales
accounted for using 40 CFR 86.1838-01 or 40 CFR 86.096-14 as
appropriate to determine small volume manufacturer status.
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
3. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 86 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart S--[Amended]
4. Section 86.1810-01 is amended by revising paragraph (p) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.1810-01 General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe
conditions; waivers.
* * * * *
(p) For Tier 2 and interim non-Tier 2 vehicles fueled by gasoline,
diesel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen manufacturers
may measure non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) in lieu of NMOG.
Manufacturers must multiply NMHC measurements from gasoline vehicles by
an adjustment factor of 1.04 before comparing with the NMOG standard to
determine compliance with that standard. Manufacturers may use other
factors to adjust NMHC results to more properly represent NMOG results.
Such factors must be based upon comparative testing of NMOG and NMHC
emissions and be approved in advance by the Administrator.
5. Section 86.1829-01 is amended by revising paragraphs
(b)(1)(iii)(E) and (F), and by revising the last sentence of paragraph
(b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1829-01 Durability and emission testing requirements;
waivers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) In lieu of testing a gasoline or diesel fueled, natural gas,
liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen fueled Tier 2 or interim non-Tier
2 vehicle for formaldehyde emissions when such vehicles are certified
based upon NMHC emissions, a manufacturer may provide a statement in
its application for certification that such vehicles comply with the
applicable standards. Such a statement must be based on previous
emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information.
(F) In lieu of testing a petroleum-fueled, natural gas, liquefied
petroleum gas, or hydrogen fueled heavy-duty vehicle for formaldehyde
emissions for certification, a manufacturer may provide a statement in
its application for certification that such vehicles comply with the
applicable standards. Such a statement must be based on previous
emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information.
(2) * * *
(i) * * * In lieu of testing natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas,
or hydrogen fueled vehicles to demonstrate compliance with the
evaporative emission standards specified in Sec. 86.1811-04(e), a
manufacturer may provide a statement in its application for
certification that, based on the manufacturer's engineering evaluation
of appropriate testing and/or design parameters, all light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and complete heavy-duty vehicles comply
with applicable emission standards.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-11149 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P