1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 8 Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

 9 Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 PUBLIC HEARING 

 15 CLEAN ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND ENGINE CONVERSIONS 

 16 June 23, 2010 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 REPORTED BY: ANN ARBOR REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 

 2551 Jade Court 

 23 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 

 (734) 330-5472 

 24 

 Jacqueline D. Duchene, CSR-4182 

 25 

 1 
 1 MS. COHEN: Good morning. My name is Janet 

 2 Cohen. I'm Deputy Director of the Compliance and 

 3 Innovative Strategies Division within EPA's Office of 

 4 Transportation and Air Quality. 

 5 On behalf of the Environmental Protection 

 6 Agency and the Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

 7 I would like to welcome you to this public hearing on 

 8 our proposed rule for clean alternative fuel vehicle and 

 9 engine conversions. A Federal Register notice appeared 

 10 on May 26th, 2010, at Volume 75, Federal Register, 

 11 page 29606 announcing an opportunity for public hearing 

 12 and comment on this proposed rule. 

 13 I will be the presiding officer for today's 

 14 hearing. On the panel with me are Kristien Knapp, an 

 15 environmental protection specialist within the 

 16 Compliance and Innovative Strategies, and Martin 

 17 Reineman, an engineer within the Compliance and 

 18 Innovative Strategies Division. Mark Kataoka, an 

 19 attorney with EPA's Office of General Counsel, may be 

 20 joining us later. 

 21 The purpose of today's hearing is to take 

 22 testimony on EPA's proposed rule for clean alternative 

 23 fuel vehicle and engine conversions. The proposal would 

 24 amend the regulatory procedures of 40 CFR part 85 

 25 subpart F and part 86 to simplify and streamline the 

 2 
 1 process by which manufacturers of clean alternative fuel 

 2 conversion systems may demonstrate compliance with 

 3 vehicle and engine emission requirements. 

 4 Specifically, the new program would establish 

 5 new testing and compliance options based on the age of 

 6 the vehicle or engine being converted; one, conversions 

 7 of vehicles or engines that are new and relatively new; 

 8 two, conversions of vehicles or engines that are no 

 9 longer new but still fall within EPA's definition of 

 10 full useful life. We refer to that category as 

 11 intermediate age. And, three, conversions of vehicles 

 12 or engines that are outside EPA's definition of useful 

 13 life. 

 14 As set forth in the proposal published in the 

 15 Federal Register, we seek testimony and comments on all 

 16 aspects of the proposed rule. We are also requesting 

 17 comments on a variety of specific issues, including the 

 18 compliance pack for vehicles outside their useful life. 

 19 We are particularly interested in receiving input on the 

 20 outside useful life compliance options presented in the 

 21 proposal. 

 22 Now I would like to briefly describe how we 

 23 will proceed today to hear your testimony. We are 

 24 conducting this hearing in accordance with Section 307 

 25 (b) 5 of the Clean Air Act as amended, which requires 

 3 
 1 EPA to provide interested persons with an opportunity 

 2 for oral presentation in addition to written 

 3 submissions. The official record of this rulemaking 

 4 will be kept open for 30 days after we conclude today's 

 5 hearing so that any interested person may submit 

 6 rebuttal and supplemental information. Today's hearing 

 7 will be conducted informally and the formal Rules of 

 8 Evidence do not apply. 

 9 As presiding officer I am authorized to strike 

 10 from the record any statements which I deem are 

 11 irrelevant or needlessly repetitious and to enforce 

 12 reasonable limits on the duration of any witness's 

 13 statement. We ask that presenters keep their remarks 

 14 brief so everyone has a chance to speak. We have 

 15 received requests to present oral testimony from Elio 

 16 Muller, Diesel 2 Gas, Inc., John Reed, Omnitek 

 17 Engineering, Pete Peterson, Omnitek Engineering, 

 18 Bob Natkin, American Power Group, Chris Disher, Flex 

 19 Fuel U.S., LLC, Jeffrey L. Clark, NGV America, 

 20 Giedrius Ambrozaitis, Alliance of Automobile 

 21 Manufacturers, and John Webster, Natgascar Company. We 

 22 will hear from them in that order. 

 23 A list of speakers is available at the 

 24 reception table, along with a copy of each person's 

 25 testimony if they have prepared copies for public 

 4 
 1 distribution. 

 2 Any member of the audience who wishes to 

 3 testify may still sign up at the reception table. We 

 4 will try to accommodate everyone who wants to testify. 

 5 We ask that everyone attending today's hearing sign in 

 6 at the reception table whether or not you are 

 7 testifying. Witnesses should state their name and 

 8 affiliation prior to making their statement. Witnesses 

 9 are reminded that any false statements or false 

 10 responses to questions may be a violation of law. When 

 11 each witness has finished their presentations, the EPA 

 12 panel will have an opportunity to ask clarifying 

 13 questions related to the testimony. EPA does not intend 

 14 to engage speakers in dialogue or respond to questions 

 15 from the audience. 

 16 We are having this hearing recorded and the 

 17 transcript will be available for public inspection in 

 18 EPA's Air Radiation Docket at docket number 

 19 EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299. The transcript will also be 

 20 available for public access on the regulations dot gov 

 21 website under that same docket number. Anyone 

 22 wishing -- wishing to purchase a copy of the transcript 

 23 may do so directly from the court reporter. Those 

 24 interested should make individual arrangements with the 

 25 court reporter. 

 5 
 1 In addition to today's hearing, there is also 

 2 an opportunity to send us written comments. The comment 

 3 period for this rule closes on July 23rd, 2010. We will 

 4 determine the schedule for final action on this proposal 

 5 after the comment period closes. 

 6 Thank you. I would like to mention that Mark 

 7 has now joined us. And with that I call the first 

 8 witness. 

 9 MR. MULLER: I just go to the podium? 

 10 MS. COHEN: Yes, please. 

 11 MR. MULLER: Good morning. My name is Elio 

 12 Muller. I am president and CEO of Diesel Gas, 

 13 Incorporated, and Director of Strategic Projects for 

 14 Gaseous Fuel Systems Corporation. Both are related 

 15 clean alternative fuel conversion companies based in 

 16 Tampa and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

 17 We appreciate this opportunity to provide oral 

 18 comments at this early stage in the rulemaking process. 

 19 EPA's effort to simplify and streamline the alternative 

 20 fuel conversion demonstration and approval process is 

 21 critical to the success of our business of converting 

 22 on-road vehicles and engines to operate on clean natural 

 23 gas to improve our nation's energy security and provide 

 24 substantial emission reductions. 

 25 Gaseous Fuel Systems, GFS Corporation, 

 6 
 1 manufactures and sells equipment that enables existing 

 2 diesel engines to operate on both diesel and natural gas 

 3 in a bi-fuel mode. The company offers a full line of 

 4 retrofit conversion systems covering a broad spectrum of 

 5 diesel engines made by all major manufacturers. GFS is 

 6 also the Florida master distributor of the GTI-Altronic 

 7 line of the same bi-fuel conversion technology for 

 8 stationary applications. 

 9 Diesel to Gas, D2G, is the exclusive US 

 10 on-road distributor for the GFS bi-fuel fumigation 

 11 technology that inexpensively converts diesel engines, 

 12 enabling them to safely operate in 50 to 80 percent 

 13 natural gas. The technology has been widely used for 

 14 more than 15 years converting thousands of engines. 

 15 More recently GFS has been converting vehicles in 

 16 Latin America and Asia. 

 17 A key feature is the ability to switch fuel 

 18 modes from 100 percent diesel to bi-fuel and back 

 19 without interruption of the vehicle operation. The GFS 

 20 system is compatible with compressed natural gas, 

 21 liquified natural gas, as well as bio-methane. 

 22 The GFS technology is an intake air fumigation 

 23 system. It introduces natural gas into the engine 

 24 intake air at atmospheric pressure upstream of the 

 25 engine. The fumigation is accomplished by using a 

 7 
 1 patented mixer installed in the air induction pipe 

 2 upstream of the turbocharger. And we brought one here 

 3 with us today. 

 4 The GFS system electronically intercepts the 

 5 pedal position signal upstream of the engine's 

 6 electronic controller to simulate the pedal position 

 7 signal to supply the correct diesel fuel rate to 

 8 supplement the gas and fuel rate. Therefore, GFS -- the 

 9 GFS system does not physically touch the engine or the 

 10 engine electronic control system, nor does it bypass, 

 11 defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of 

 12 design installed on the engine. 

 13 Also the GFS system does not affect the 

 14 durability of the OEM engine or emission control system. 

 15 And fuel evaporative emissions are not generated since 

 16 it is a closed system and natural gas is introduced into 

 17 the engine at atmospheric pressure. 

 18 Clearly the GFS system is within the class of 

 19 systems contemplated by EPA on page 27 of the proposed 

 20 rule change where it states, and I quote, certain 

 21 demonstration requirements could potentially be waived 

 22 for clean alternative fuel conversions if the conversion 

 23 manufacturer has not altered the OEM configuration of 

 24 the vehicle or engine when operating on its original 

 25 fuel. 

 8 
 1 Let me pause here and state that we -- we have 

 2 a system where you could just turn off the gas and that 

 3 engine could go to 100 percent diesel and it's going to 

 4 do it automatically. The driver's not even going to 

 5 know what happened. We have a system that by just 

 6 turning off the gas EPA will be able to take that engine 

 7 and take it into confirmatory testing without doing 

 8 anything, without taking anything off of it that we put 

 9 on it. It will absolutely operate as it was designed 

 10 and manufactured to do on the original 100 percent 

 11 diesel fuel. 

 12 Until recently the U.S. focus of GFS has been 

 13 on converting generator sets. Publix Supermarkets is 

 14 the largest user of the technology in the U.S with more 

 15 than 650 of its backup generators. Our proven patented 

 16 technology is unique and it's capable of even converting 

 17 existing engines without tampering and with -- without 

 18 tampering with any of the components at a low cost while 

 19 maintaining original engine performance. We are now 

 20 reintroducing our product for vehicle conversions in the 

 21 United States. To date we have successfully installed 

 22 over 3,000 stationary GFS systems and over 800 units on 

 23 vehicles. 

 24 And I'll pause again to state that -- that 

 25 this technology was originally developed for on road and 

 9 
 1 at one time there were hundreds of vehicles in the 

 2 United States before the current regulations came in. 

 3 We -- our technology also is one that we -- 

 4 because of the way we're fumigating into the airstream 

 5 we haven't found a diesel engine we cannot convert. And 

 6 we've been able to successfully convert every one we've 

 7 attempted. We've reviewed the more than 225 EPA 

 8 certified heavy-duty diesel engines. And we think that 

 9 we have a very general application that could go into 

 10 this existing fleet at the -- at the intermediate age 

 11 and outside useful life vehicles. 

 12 We are encouraged that EPA's proposal 

 13 recognizes that it is appropriate to treat after-market 

 14 conversion differently than new vehicle and engine 

 15 certification with regard to age, test group criteria, 

 16 and the need for testing. We also appreciate and 

 17 support several steps that EPA has taken in the proposed 

 18 rule that would greatly simplify the process. 

 19 However, as a practical matter, the rule would 

 20 require the use of certification procedures in too many 

 21 cases. Several key modifications to the proposed rule 

 22 are needed to address business issues and facilitate 

 23 alternative fuel field conversions. Without these 

 24 modifications we believe that the intermediate age and 

 25 older alternative fuel conversions will continue to be 

 10 
 1 severely limited and the potential criteria pollutant 

 2 emissions and greenhouse gas emission and energy 

 3 security benefits of these conversions to vehicles in 

 4 the existing fleet will not be realized. 

 5 EPA has requested comments on several options 

 6 for compliance demonstration of outside useful life 

 7 vehicles. We believe Option 1 is the appropriate for 

 8 these vehicles. It requires a detailed statement that 

 9 the conversion technology -- technology is technically 

 10 sound and is applied according to principles of good 

 11 engineering judgment. Option 2 requires emission 

 12 testing of a worst case vehicle or engine before and 

 13 after application of the alternative fuel technology. 

 14 Option 3 is the same as Option 1 with on-board 

 15 diagnose -- on-board diagnostic scan report to 

 16 demonstrate proper function. 

 17 A significant portion of our business is 

 18 likely to be intermediate age category vehicles where 

 19 emissions data vehicle certification procedures would be 

 20 required for demonstration of compliance. We believe 

 21 that -- we believe that even the proposed alternative 

 22 test group definition, emissions data vehicle procedures 

 23 including selection, mileage accumulation and testing, 

 24 are far too cumbersome and unnecessary to demonstrate 

 25 the emissions performance of the already certified 

 11 
 1 vehicle or engine as maintained. Instead, before and 

 2 after testing of intermediate age vehicles as described 

 3 in Option 2 for outside useful life vehicle would be 

 4 adequate to demonstrate that emissions performance of 

 5 OEM vehicles was maintained and that the alternative 

 6 fuel conversion did not cause emissions to increase. 

 7 For large volume manufacturers, rather than a 

 8 certification style durability -- durable -- vehicle 

 9 demonstration, the durability of the aftermarket 

 10 conversion equipment could be independently demonstrated 

 11 by field or laboratory testing. 

 12 We expect our business will also involve the 

 13 conversion of heavy duty diesel vehicles that were 

 14 originally engine certified. The proposed rule could be 

 15 interpreted to require the removal of engines from 

 16 vehicles to conduct certification styled emissions data 

 17 engine demonstration. It would be unnecessarily 

 18 difficult and expensive to remove and reinstall entire 

 19 engines, particularly for systems that do not alter the 

 20 OEM configuration of the engine when operating on its 

 21 original fuel, when before and after testing on complete 

 22 vehicles would be adequate to demonstrate that emissions 

 23 were not adversely affected by the alternative fuel 

 24 conversion. 

 25 We understand that our before and after 

 12 
 1 testing recommendations on a complete vehicle that was 

 2 originally engine certified would not demonstrate 

 3 compliance of the OEM engine with the applicable 

 4 standards. Before and after testing would only 

 5 demonstrate whether emissions were affected by the 

 6 alternative fuel conversion. However, the OEM is 

 7 responsible for in-use compliance administered 

 8 separately by EPA. 

 9 We believe that the responsibility of the 

 10 alternative fuel conversion manufacturer should be 

 11 limited to demonstrating that the alternative fuel 

 12 conversion does not cause the emissions performance to 

 13 deteriorate. As a result, we believe that before and 

 14 after testing on complete vehicle that was engine 

 15 certified would comprise an adequate demonstration of 

 16 compliance on an intermediate age vehicle. Again, this 

 17 is particularly true in the case of GFS technology where 

 18 it does not alter the OEM configuration of the engine 

 19 when operating on its original fuel. 

 20 Also, we believe expanding the definition of 

 21 small volume manufacturers would help to facilitate the 

 22 growth of alternative fuel conversion and take advantage 

 23 of potential emissions benefits it offers. In the rule 

 24 preamble, EPA stated that the purpose of the rule was to 

 25 simplify and streamline the clean alternative fuel 

 13 
 1 conversion process. The preamble goes on to say that it 

 2 would do so to alleviate some of the economic and 

 3 procedural impediments to clean alternative fuel 

 4 conversions while maintaining environmental safeguards 

 5 to ensure that applicable emissions levels from 

 6 converted vehicles are sustained. We assume this 

 7 includes facilitating clean alternative fuel conversion 

 8 in order to realize the full potential of environmental 

 9 advantages of clean alternative fuels. 

 10 We believe that the small volume manufacturer 

 11 limits for certification purposes do not necessarily 

 12 have to be applied to intermediate age and outside 

 13 useful life vehicles. We -- we recommend that the small 

 14 volume manufacturer provisions could be at least 

 15 expanded to larger volume manufacturers, perhaps up to 

 16 50,000 units per year without compromising emissions 

 17 performance. 

 18 We believe our recommendations especially as 

 19 they apply to heavy duty intermediate age vehicles would 

 20 accomplish EPA's objectives of streamlining and 

 21 simplifying the alternative fuel conversion compliance 

 22 demonstration process on a more practical basis while 

 23 reducing criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas 

 24 emissions and improving energy security. 

 25 I want to add a note to the -- the prepared 

 14 
 1 documents to say what we see this market to be for a 

 2 technology like ours that can actually go into just 

 3 about any existing fleet and convert it to a bi-fuel 

 4 system. You do that on -- on a vehicle without taking 

 5 the engine out because we're not exchanging any parts. 

 6 As you can see, we're -- we're doing very unintrusive 

 7 actions to the vehicle itself. That means that we could 

 8 go into a fleet and offer this across the board 

 9 regardless of how many engines they have in that fleet. 

 10 And the reality of the market out there is that you're 

 11 not going to find homogenous engine fleets operating. 

 12 You're going to find fleets that have a variety of 

 13 engines and engine styles in their fleet. 

 14 These fleets in order to financially or 

 15 economically justify a conversion and to justify the -- 

 16 the logistical culture of fueling with a new fuel as 

 17 cumbersome as CNG or LNG is not going to do this by 

 18 converting a very small percentage of their fleets. And 

 19 that has been part of the challenge of the few products 

 20 that are offered in the market that can hopefully 

 21 penetrate a small part of -- of a fleet or do it 

 22 gradually over time. It makes it almost impossible to 

 23 have these captive fleets, make the investment in the 

 24 fueling infrastructure if they can't take on a 

 25 conversion of their entire fleet. 

 15 
 1 So what we find in the market is we may find a 

 2 fleet that has 200 plus vehicles and that's what's going 

 3 to justify putting a CNG plant or a fast fill overnight. 

 4 That's what's going to justify putting an LNG storage 

 5 facility. But in order to economically make that work 

 6 they're going to have to be able to convert their entire 

 7 fleet. We happen to have a technology that can do that 

 8 very inexpensively that can justify the investment on 

 9 older vehicles. But if we have to -- if that process 

 10 gets bogged down by 225 heavy duty diesel engines that 

 11 are certified by the EPA, having to pull engines and -- 

 12 and take them into test cells and -- and -- and make 

 13 this too cumbersome, it makes it almost impossible to 

 14 penetrate this market and to deploy these technologies 

 15 in the way that is required and envisioned by what your 

 16 objective stated in your proposed rule change of 

 17 streamlining and simplifying and financially being 

 18 pragmatic. 

 19 We -- we appreciate your objectives here and 

 20 we've been -- we've been waiting for them for -- for -- 

 21 for over 15 years, but I just want to underscore what 

 22 this market looks like in reality as you go through 

 23 finalizing your rule change, realizing what we find 

 24 when -- when we come out there. We -- we understand 

 25 that there are some -- that -- that -- that you 

 16 
 1 currently lack some heavy duty above 15,000 pound 

 2 protocols for vehicle testing. You know, we'd be glad, 

 3 and I think a lot of the other manufacturers would be 

 4 glad, to work with EPA to work out a protocol that makes 

 5 this work. 

 6 We currently use vehicle chassis dynamometers 

 7 to install our systems. We -- we -- we go into the test 

 8 cell with the vehicle to properly calibrate how these -- 

 9 these conversion systems are going to operate and we 

 10 have our own protocol. Of course, you have to develop 

 11 your own that's going to be uniform for all of the 

 12 products and manufacturers. But my -- my -- my 

 13 sincerest hope, as I congratulate EPA for taking these 

 14 steps, is that you keep a very pragmatic eye on 

 15 fulfilling what your objectives are in simplifying and 

 16 streamlining and alleviating the economic and procedural 

 17 impediments, as well as all of the technical ones. 

 18 Thank you very much for your attention. 

 19 MS. COHEN: Thank you. I would ask you if you 

 20 have any data or technical specifications on the test 

 21 procedures that we might use to implement your 

 22 suggestion of before and after testing instead of engine 

 23 testing, if you could submit those with your comments? 

 24 MR. MULLER: We would be glad to do that. 

 25 MS. COHEN: And then I did have another 

 17 
 1 question. You mentioned 800 vehicles having been 

 2 converted. Were those U.S. vehicles? 

 3 MR. MULLER: Some of those were prememorandum 

 4 1A vehicles from the '90s, and at one point the 

 5 technology had CARB certification of one engine. 

 6 MS. COHEN: Uh-huh. 

 7 MR. MULLER: And then -- and then the 

 8 remainder have been in Latin America and Asia since. 

 9 MS. COHEN: Thank you. Are there any other 

 10 questions from the panel? 

 11 MR. REINEMAN: I would -- I was going to 

 12 reiterate what you said, Janet, with the desire to 

 13 provide any specific information or ideas you have about 

 14 alternative chassis test procedures that would apply to 

 15 implementing the vehicles. Also, if you have any data 

 16 from that type of testing we would like to see the 

 17 emission improvements if you have such that show what 

 18 happened before and after testing. 

 19 And then on the second page of your 

 20 presentation, it looks like the fourth paragraph, you 

 21 were talking about durability of the aftermarket 

 22 conversion equipment. If you have more information 

 23 about what you're thinking about there with respect to 

 24 an alternative durability demonstration, that would be 

 25 good to put into writing for us as well. 

 18 
 1 MR. MULLER: Perfect. 

 2 MR. REINEMAN: Otherwise I think your -- 

 3 you've covered it, which was the general request for 

 4 test data and information about the test procedure. 

 5 MR. MULLER: Thank you very much for your 

 6 attention today. 

 7 MS. COHEN: Thank you. Mr. Reed. 

 8 MR. REED: Good morning. 

 9 MS. COHEN: Good morning. 

 10 MR. REED: Well, my name is Dr. John Reed. 

 11 I'm formerly with Omnitek Engineering, currently the 

 12 Regulatory Affairs Director for Core Power. I'm here 

 13 with Pete Peterson, also formerly of Omnitek. Pete's 

 14 and I at our tenure at Omnitek were in part of the team 

 15 that got one of the only two engines that are a 2010 

 16 CARB EPA certified for heavy duty natural gas 

 17 applications, so I think our experience in this process 

 18 is something that we can hopefully give some -- give 

 19 some insight to. 

 20 And I really appreciate the opportunity to do 

 21 this and appreciate the EPA coming through with the 

 22 proposed regulation showing that they're very much 

 23 listening to America and listening to manufacturers out 

 24 there and really actually trying to make this work and I 

 25 really appreciate that. 

 19 
 1 I'll try not to read this too much, but we 

 2 will see how it goes. 

 3 All right. So currently the proposed rules 

 4 would allow two types of natural gas heavy duty vehicles 

 5 to exist, those that are EPA certified and have a 

 6 documented low emissions profile, and those that are EPA 

 7 allowed and have little or no documentation of 

 8 emissions. 

 9 Currently, heavy duty diesel vehicle owners 

 10 have few choices when it comes to switching to a cleaner 

 11 fuel and breaking our country's dependence on foreign 

 12 oil. They have choice of replacing the entire vehicles 

 13 with very high priced, new EPA certified heavy duty 

 14 natural gas vehicles, of which there are very few, or if 

 15 they are fortunate enough to own vehicles that can use 

 16 one of these two engines they can repower with these 

 17 selected vehicles. This is a capital intensive process 

 18 and the available certified engines and vehicle types 

 19 make up a tiny fraction of the diesel powered heavy duty 

 20 engines in vehicles in use today. Therefore fleet 

 21 owners that wish to move to natural gas as their fuel of 

 22 choice have very little opportunity to do so at this 

 23 time. Even if everyone that could did convert today the 

 24 total number would be quite small. 

 25 Under the proposed rules owners would also -- 

 20 
 1 could also convert their existing in-use vehicles with 

 2 EPA approved kits that would allow them to run on 

 3 natural gas but which could possibly be creating more 

 4 greenhouse gases than the original diesel engine in the 

 5 form of unburned methane, which is 24 times more potent 

 6 than greenhouse gas than CO2, if low quality kits were 

 7 installed. Quality conversion systems could also be 

 8 available which would allow most heavy duty engines on 

 9 the road today to meet or be cleaner than the 2004 to 

 10 '07 CARB on-road heavy duty engine emission standard. 

 11 Wow, say that fast. Okay. 

 12 Unfortunately, the proposed rules would not 

 13 allow consumers to differentiate these products through 

 14 EPA labeling, and clean conversions would be on the same 

 15 footing as low quality conversions in the eye of the 

 16 public and the EPA. What the proposed rules will not 

 17 create is the option of installing a quality conversion 

 18 product that meets a defined low emission standard and 

 19 involves the use of existing in use engines and 

 20 vehicles. What diesel fleet owners won't have is the 

 21 option of installing an EPA certified product that has 

 22 all of the warranty protections provided under the 

 23 Clean Air Act, yet is affordable and works in their 

 24 existing vehicle. 

 25 The cost differential between converting an 

 21 
 1 existing in-use engine and purchasing new EPA certified 

 2 heavy duty natural gas products is enormous, as new 2010 

 3 heavy duty CNG CARB/EPA certified vehicle and engines 

 4 demand an exorbitant premium. This is a major barrier 

 5 to adoption of natural gas as the fuel of choice for 

 6 heavy duty applications. A fleet owner could convert 

 7 several in-use engines with a quality conversion product 

 8 for the price of a single new heavy duty CNG engine, 

 9 assuming the size and type of certified CNG engine that 

 10 they need even exists. 

 11 Many large fleet owners regularly schedule 

 12 engine rebuilds at predetermined levels. In fact, 

 13 diesel engine rebuilds annually outpace new diesel 

 14 engine purchases by over ten to one. If a quality 

 15 conversion is done at the time of the scheduled rebuild, 

 16 the incremental cost of converting to natural gas is a 

 17 fraction of the cost of a new certified engine. 

 18 In this way large fleet owners could rapidly 

 19 convert their entire fleet over a period of a few years 

 20 without needing a major inflow of capital, but without a 

 21 certification process that allows in-use conversions to 

 22 meet an obtainable emission standard fleet owners have 

 23 no assurance that they are making the right decision in 

 24 converting. If a quality conversion was available which 

 25 has been EPA certified to a realistically obtainable 

 22 
 1 emission standard, the end user would be assured that 

 2 the conversion product has been evaluated in a manner 

 3 similar to a new CNG engine and is of sound engineering. 

 4 Cheap, low quality conversion kits are 

 5 currently being sold outside of the U.S. and these kits 

 6 will undoubtedly be marketed in the U.S. once the 

 7 proposed rules are in place as currently stated. 

 8 The experience in foreign markets for us has 

 9 shown that these low priced low quality kits while of 

 10 seemingly sound engineering have led to a large number 

 11 of catastrophic engine failures. And they have slowed 

 12 the adoption of CNG, essentially giving the conversion 

 13 business a bad name in these countries. 

 14 Although the proposed rules would mandate the 

 15 suppliers warranty their goods the same as OEM or new 

 16 engine producers, our experience in other countries has 

 17 shown these kits -- these types of rules have offered 

 18 little protection to the end user. Most of the low 

 19 quality kits we encountered were cursory copies of OEM 

 20 systems or other quality manufacturers in terms of 

 21 general design and types of parts used but were not the 

 22 same. Much of the technology used in heavy duty natural 

 23 gas conversions is not patented or patentable but is 

 24 proprietary in nature and not obvious on visual 

 25 inspection. I am doubtful that EPA will be able to 

 23 
 1 determine the quality of an HD engine conversion system 

 2 by reviewing drawings in a single exhaust test. When 

 3 these low quality systems began to fail, the sellers 

 4 simply left the country, leaving no promises of warranty 

 5 protection behind. 

 6 I see no way for EPA to prevent this type of 

 7 activity without putting up barriers to entry in this 

 8 market that would also negatively affect honest, small 

 9 volume manufacturers. The alternative is to create a 

 10 certification pathway for producers that are willing to 

 11 demonstrate to EPA satisfaction that their products can 

 12 perform well and consistently meet a low emission 

 13 standard, but a standard that takes into account the use 

 14 of a used engine. 

 15 EPA needs to have a pathway to certification 

 16 for conversion products that is separate from being 

 17 defined as new and being required to meet new model year 

 18 standards. Emission standards for all types of engines 

 19 are created four years prior to enforcement to allow 

 20 major OEMs sufficient lead time to develop technology to 

 21 meet these standards. Multi-millions of dollars are 

 22 spent by each of these large multi-nationals to try and 

 23 meet these standards. The makers of conversion products 

 24 do not have that type of budget to work with, and to 

 25 expect them to meet the new standards with their 

 24 
 1 products is unrealistic. But to completely eliminate 

 2 the need for conversions to meet a low emission standard 

 3 is not the way to increase adoption rates of natural gas 

 4 heavy duty engine technology. 

 5 The CARB 2010 heavy duty CNG on road emisson 

 6 standard has become the Holy Grail, and the technology 

 7 has yet to arrive for the majority of engine types and 

 8 sizes to meet this standard. Several HD diesel OEMs and 

 9 one major multi-national industrial company have tried 

 10 and failed to meet the standard for CNG fueled engines, 

 11 and some have publicly pulled out of the CNG HD market 

 12 altogether. This has left consumers with few options, 

 13 but with the disaster in the Gulf, the political 

 14 pressure to go green, the very real need to participate 

 15 in our country becoming energy independent, the pressure 

 16 for heavy duty diesel owners to use natural gas for fuel 

 17 has never been greater. These consumers need an option 

 18 that is available, affordable, certified clean and 

 19 provides all the warranty protection promised by the 

 20 Clean Air Act. 

 21 EPA recognizes that used motors are not as 

 22 clean as new and much work has been done to incorporate 

 23 the engine emission deterioration rates into within 

 24 useful life conversion emissions goals in the proposed 

 25 rules. It would seem logical to then require that 

 25 
 1 certified conversions of in use heavy duty diesel 

 2 engines to natural gas meet an emission standard in 

 3 force prior to the current model year standard, such as 

 4 the CARB of 2004 to '07 on road standard for immediate 

 5 and past useful life categories of HD engines. A 

 6 conversion product certified to this standard is 

 7 attainable for many engine families, especially large 

 8 displacement motors, and can fulfill Clean Air Act 

 9 warranty protections no matter what the age or mileage. 

 10 Even if you do not believe this to be true, the 

 11 administrator has the authority to make this pathway 

 12 available and to allow manufacturers the opportunity to 

 13 prove you wrong. 

 14 The administrator is authorized under the 

 15 Clean Air Act section 7521 (a)1 and 2 to set emission 

 16 standards for heavy duty engines and to look at the 

 17 effect of engine rebuilding practices in the 7521 (a) 3 

 18 and (D). EPA has also granted CARB a waiver to set 

 19 retroactive emission standards for heavy duty engines 

 20 both on and off road for engines of all ages and 

 21 mileage. Many in this industry anticipate EPA will 

 22 adopt similar retroactive standards in the near future. 

 23 Why not create a certification process for these older 

 24 engines to meet lower emission standards via natural gas 

 25 conversion prior to mandating these engines meet a new 

 26 
 1 clean air standard. 

 2 California heavy duty fleet owners right now 

 3 are spending sums nearly equal to the complete cost of 

 4 converting a CNG -- to CNG just to install a Diesel 

 5 Particulate Filter, an item which actually increases 

 6 greenhouse gas production, fuel consumption and 

 7 operating costs through decreased engine efficiency and 

 8 the need to burn out these filters periodically. 

 9 Wouldn't it make more sense to allow those fleets to 

 10 convert to natural gas to eliminate particulate matter 

 11 pollution while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and 

 12 getting our country off its dependence on oil imports? 

 13 All of this could be accomplished if a pathway 

 14 to certification existed that allowed in use 

 15 intermediate and past useful life HD vehicles to be 

 16 certified to the CARB on road 2004 to '07 emission 

 17 standard. I am asking the administrator to seriously 

 18 consider adding this option to the proposed new rules 

 19 and give consumers the ability to join the effort to get 

 20 America off its dependence on oil for transportation 

 21 fuel while protecting and improving our air. 

 22 MS. COHEN: Thank you. 

 23 MR. REED: All right. 

 24 MS. COHEN: Any questions? 

 25 MR. REINEMAN: I had a few. It would be 

 27 
 1 useful if you would submit some written comments for 

 2 some of the things that you said here. For example, I 

 3 think for our purposes we would like to know more about 

 4 what you see as the low quality kit versus a certified 

 5 product? 

 6 MR. REED: Sure. Well, obviously those don't 

 7 exist yet in the U.S. because of the rules, but there 

 8 are kits that come out of Korea that we've had to 

 9 compete against in Thailand that, you know, many engines 

 10 failed and fleets decided not to go with CNG that were 

 11 originally going to go with our product because it was 

 12 $10, $20, $50 cheaper they went with the Korean kit and 

 13 it failed. And that business went away. 

 14 MR. REINEMAN: Okay. I think we're interested 

 15 in describing the technology that constitutes the low 

 16 quality versus -- 

 17 MR. REED: Sure. 

 18 MR. REINEMAN: -- high quality, so if you 

 19 could describe that to us I think that would be useful. 

 20 MR. REED: Okay. Actually, I have one other 

 21 comment I haven't put it. It's not in the written 

 22 thing. One of the things I did put in the docket on the 

 23 website was the CARB, Addendum A, which is their rules 

 24 currently in force for meeting certification for an 

 25 alternative fuel conversion. And in many ways it's very 

 28 
 1 similar to what you were asking for the intermediate 

 2 life engines. The difference is it would actually get 

 3 certified through CARB. And you don't have to do an 

 4 emission test prior, all you have to do is use the 

 5 standard that the engine was certified to when it was 

 6 new as your baseline. So you don't have to do a 

 7 baseline on the engine first. You can, that's one way 

 8 to do it. There's multiple ways in the CARB addendum. 

 9 But if you simply take the baseline that the 

 10 old engine was at as a diesel engine, do your conversion 

 11 and then do the test, you actually have a 1.1 times 

 12 factor. So it's not like it's more than 10 percent 

 13 dirtier. You can get CARB certification. 

 14 My understanding is that if we got a CARB 

 15 certification on one of these conversions that EPA would 

 16 recognize that. So it seems like there's a little bit 

 17 of a conflict there in what you're proposing when it's 

 18 already being enforced in California. Granted, those 

 19 rules in California were written in 1995 or passed in 

 20 1994, so they are antiquated, but they're on the books 

 21 and that's what we could do if we wanted to. 

 22 MS. COHEN: Have you already submitted the 

 23 comments? 

 24 MR. REED: Yes. 

 25 MS. COHEN: Okay. Well, if you would like to 

 29 
 1 include additional comments, please feel free to -- 

 2 MR. REED: Sure. 

 3 MS. COHEN: -- add that -- 

 4 MR. REED: Okay. 

 5 MS. COHEN: -- and submit it to us. 

 6 MR. REED: All right. 

 7 MR. REINEMAN: And then again any information 

 8 or ideas that you have concerning alternative 

 9 certification protocol for heavy duty engines versus the 

 10 current engine certification process we use, such as 

 11 chassis testing concept, if you have experience or 

 12 knowledge or ideas about that, we would like to see 

 13 that. 

 14 MR. REED: Okay. 

 15 MS. COHEN: Thank you. 

 16 MR. REED: All right. Thank you. 

 17 MS. COHEN: Mr. Peterson. 

 18 MR. PETERSON: Good morning, Everyone. My 

 19 name is Pete Peterson and I'm the VP of Engineering with 

 20 Core Power, and really I'm just providing a minor 

 21 addendum to what Dr. Reed has said. 

 22 In bringing systems to much of Asia, 

 23 South America, the problems that we've encountered with 

 24 low quality systems really have been in many cases 

 25 ruined the market and just slowed the -- the progression 

 30 
 1 of conversion down to a point where it -- it hurts 

 2 everybody. And we find that there is a critical set of 

 3 features that a system should have in order to function 

 4 well and durably and in this marketplace. 

 5 You know, the -- the problems we found is that 

 6 when a system's installed by basically a totally 

 7 unqualified vender the first thing people do is they 

 8 start to tamper with it to get more power out of the 

 9 engine, of course, and it throws off your ability to 

 10 control and it results in blown engines or engines that 

 11 are just terrible with emissions. 

 12 And so tamper proof, tamper resistant type of 

 13 features are critical on these engines. If you set one 

 14 up on a dyno and somebody can simply loosen a locknut 

 15 and change one screw a quarter of a turn, you have no 

 16 idea where the emissions are on that vehicle out in the 

 17 field. They're completely changed. And so that as a -- 

 18 as a baseline is a critical feature. 

 19 The -- the durability in terms of the emission 

 20 stability really requires the use of on-board 

 21 diagnostics. The system should have on-board 

 22 diagnostics for at least all the critical sensors that 

 23 are used on the engine so that you could tell if the 

 24 sensors are operating in their normal range, if they're 

 25 out of the range, or if they've shorted ground or open. 

 31 
 1 Those type of features we find are critical. 

 2 Also, basic diagnostics for all critical 

 3 actuators, so if you have fuel injectors, if you have 

 4 fuel modulating control valves, any -- any item on the 

 5 engine that can affect the air fuel ratio spark timing, 

 6 for example, those systems should have diagnostics to 

 7 tell and to signify the driver with a check engine light 

 8 that they're working within normal parameters. It's 

 9 also helpful if the systems have data reporting 

 10 features, such as engine abuse statistics. 

 11 Because without engine abuse statistics, 

 12 again, the driver always want ten, fifteen more power. 

 13 And they will go out and try -- try and tweak these 

 14 systems. Modern systems with adaptive controls can 

 15 easily monitor boost pressures, several features within 

 16 the engine control parameters that pretty much 

 17 characterize what the power level of the engine is. 

 18 Systems that we produce all have torque estimation 

 19 routines built into them so we know what torque the 

 20 engine is producing at any given time. And these 

 21 features basically prevent anyone from going out and 

 22 changing the torque curve of an engine. So even if they 

 23 do tamper, our system will adjust back in. But with 

 24 those type of systems in place basically you have a -- 

 25 an inherently stable emissions control system. 

 32 
 1 And we've found that in almost any market with 

 2 varying fuel quality, with many variations in the -- in 

 3 the input system we obtain consistent low emissions over 

 4 the life of the vehicle. We have a very high catalytic 

 5 efficiency. And that's in A -- you know, for Thailand, 

 6 we have systems in Myanmar, at this point we have 

 7 systems in China, and we see great results with this 

 8 type of technology feature set in place. 

 9 Regarding Martin's questions on the low 

 10 quality kits, that's -- the systems that we have found 

 11 out there, and we will respond in writing to your 

 12 questions, but basically those systems they have never 

 13 been used in any type of system that had to go -- 

 14 undergo emissions testing, and we feel that that's a 

 15 critical part of this whole process. And so as John was 

 16 saying having some level of emissions level is critical. 

 17 With conversion of heavy duty engines we feel 

 18 that a great option is to go of -- of a lean burn, 

 19 because basically you achieve the highest efficiency on 

 20 a dedicated natural gas engine with a lean burn -- or 

 21 with lean burn combustion. 

 22 And so for the beyond useful life engines the 

 23 2004 emissions level of 2.4 grams per NOx plus 

 24 hydrocarbons is a useful number because those engines 

 25 can be converted to burn -- lean burn. And hence 

 33 
 1 they're going to have the lowest greenhouse gas 

 2 signature and the highest efficiency available for a 

 3 dedicated engine. 

 4 For the newer, beyond the -- for intermediate, 

 5 the 2007 standard, basically the family emissions limits 

 6 under the 2007 allow emissions levels of 1.2 to 1.5 

 7 grams NOx. We feel that that's a more aggressive 

 8 target. That's probably beyond the range of the lean 

 9 burn engines. And yet it is I think a good target for 

 10 those intermediate engines. 

 11 Natural gas is an amazing fuel, and we need to 

 12 take advantage of that for high performance and low 

 13 emissions. And it can all be done. And the 2007, the 

 14 main portion, calling out the .2 grams NOx, as opposed 

 15 to really the 2010 numbers, and they're achievable but 

 16 at a much higher cost, and I think that does prohibit 

 17 the adoption of natural gas at this point. And so what 

 18 I would recommend or what I see as the 2007 family 

 19 emissions limits as being sort of the -- the highest 

 20 level that I would go to on those intermediate engines 

 21 and then for new, of course, it's the 2010. And so 

 22 that's basically a summary of my comments on Dr. Reed's 

 23 speech. 

 24 MS. COHEN: Thank you. Mr. Natkin. 

 25 MR. NATKIN: Good morning. I'm Bob Natkin. 

 34 
 1 I'm the Chief Engine Engineer at American Power Group. 

 2 I'm here to quickly explain our comments and -- on the 

 3 proposed new ruling for alternative fuel conversion. 

 4 And in -- in the packet that you've received and in the 

 5 handout also and what's been -- been put into the 

 6 website we've -- we've put background information on the 

 7 APG technology because it's different from the typical 

 8 lengthy spark ignited engine conversion systems that EPA 

 9 probably has the most experience with. But I'm not 

 10 going to take the time to review it other than to let 

 11 you know that the information is there. It's specific 

 12 to compression ignition or diesel engines in the medium 

 13 duty and heavy duty vehicle. In EPA vernacular, it 

 14 would be called a bi-fuel or a flex fuel or a co-fuel 

 15 technology, which introduces natural gas and allows the 

 16 use of natural gas and diesel fuel simultaneously, so. 

 17 Let's see. Do I point it at you or -- there 

 18 we go. Okay. So then we'll go to the next slide. 

 19 And then -- this is the diagram of the system. 

 20 I'm not going to go through the schematic. You can go 

 21 look at it at your own convenience. It's not too much 

 22 different than what you've already seen with -- with a 

 23 few differences. It is a patented system. It's been 

 24 around for quite a few years. 

 25 And then the next page is features and 

 35 
 1 benefits, which again you can review at your own 

 2 convenience, but they're going to be similar to what 

 3 you've -- you've heard some -- from some of my 

 4 predecessors. 

 5 Okay. Let's move directly to comments. 

 6 And although there's a lot of words on this 

 7 page, I'm going to summarize it down pretty quickly. 

 8 Under the current regulations engines must be 

 9 tested, quote, unquote, in the same manner as the OEM's 

 10 original certification. We are asking under the 

 11 categories of intermediate and outside useful life to 

 12 include chassis roll emission testing and/or road 

 13 testing with Part 1065 compliant Portable Emission 

 14 Measurements Systems or PEMS. 

 15 We are also asking that testing be allowed to 

 16 be conducted in a back to back fashion to establish a 

 17 baseline with the OEM fuel system and a comparative test 

 18 with the upfitted system to show no degradation in the 

 19 exhaust emissions or engine or after treatment systems. 

 20 And these are easily done through test data both of 

 21 emissions, engine temperatures, and use of after 

 22 treatment system temperatures, which can easily be 

 23 measured. 

 24 Okay. Comment 2 is outside useful life 

 25 definition. There was some request for comments on 

 36 
 1 this. And APG contends that the primary wear and 

 2 degradation factors for engines and after treatment 

 3 systems is operational time and operational mileage in 

 4 properly maintained vehicles. And we would ask that 

 5 outside useful life definition be primarily associated 

 6 with vehicle milage and operational time as opposed to 

 7 mere age. 

 8 Okay. Comment 3. Under the proposed 

 9 regulation stating that the alternative fuel delivery 

 10 system would employ technology that is equivalent to the 

 11 OEM fuel delivery system, and while this might be 

 12 appropriate for spark ignited, stoichiometric engine 

 13 conversion systems, we believe it's unnecessarily 

 14 restrictive for compression ignition, lean operation 

 15 diesel bi-fuel delivery system. It's impractical and 

 16 unnecessary to add a set of natural gas de -- direct 

 17 injective -- injection injectors, fuel rails and 

 18 modifications to the engine for such systems. And we 

 19 can achieve virtually the same function by using a 

 20 digitally controlled fueling system with a proper 

 21 induction mixer or fumigator, as you've seen before. 

 22 We respectfully request that this section be 

 23 rewritten to allow mixed fuel delivery systems in the 

 24 case of an upfitted diesel bi-fuel application as long 

 25 as they can demonstrate no degradation in exhaust 

 37 
 1 emissions or engine or after treatment systems. 

 2 Okay. So moving to comment 4. APG agrees 

 3 with outside useful life Option 1 and understands that 

 4 you're going to need some emission data. Okay. You 

 5 just -- I've been -- I worked at a major OEM for 

 6 32 years. I put engines into production. You need 

 7 data. There's just -- I don't -- I just don't believe 

 8 that you can -- you can write up something and say, you 

 9 know, the physics say this. I think you're going to 

 10 need data. 

 11 So we are requesting, respectfully requesting, 

 12 that vehicles of 8,500 # GVW and higher that EPA approve 

 13 chassis roll testing and/or road testing using the 

 14 appropriate PEMS to allow said testing to be done in a 

 15 back to back fashion to establish baseline and compare 

 16 test data for diesel bi-fuel upfit systems. 

 17 Comment 5 is APG agrees with the outside 

 18 useful life Option 2 and again respectfully requests for 

 19 vehicles of 8,500 # GVW and higher that EPA approve 

 20 chassis roll testing and/or road testing also using -- 

 21 and using -- using the appropriate devices be allowed. 

 22 Okay. Comment 6. APG agrees with the greater 

 23 flexibility and test group definition and asks for 

 24 clarification with regard to heavy duty diesel engines 

 25 which may be used in many OEM vehicle applications. If 

 38 
 1 an upfit bi -- bi-fuel system can be demonstrated to 

 2 have no degradation in emissions or jeopardy to the 

 3 engine or after treatment system in one vehicle 

 4 application via approved EPA chassis roll or road load 

 5 testing, APG would wish to seek approval for the upfit 

 6 system with the same engine, same emission systems, in 

 7 similar vehicle applications. 

 8 In other words, you're going to find Cummins 

 9 engines of specific size and -- and technology in 

 10 multiple class A tractors. What we're asking for is 

 11 that we -- if we demonstrate on one vehicle and then 

 12 we -- we achieve appropriate approval that we can carry 

 13 that over to possibly another OEM vehicle but, you know, 

 14 that utilizes the exact same engine after treatment 

 15 system and control system and so forth. 

 16 We, APG, also respectfully request that 

 17 similar approval across model years of OEM engines 

 18 control systems and emission technology be approved 

 19 if -- if it's shown that that technology is unchanged 

 20 across the model years. And obviously we are aiming 

 21 this towards intermediate and outside useful life 

 22 categories. 

 23 And then finally comment 7 is APG agrees with 

 24 a no certification no recertification requirements for 

 25 intermediate age and outside useful life categories. 

 39 
 1 MS. COHEN: Thank you. As you were -- I want 

 2 to speak to all the presenters. If you have any data 

 3 that you can provide to us that demonstrate what you've 

 4 been talking about, about no more recertification with 

 5 your -- your systems, that would be very, very helpful. 

 6 And any thoughts or information or data that you can 

 7 provide us specifically on the type of procedures you 

 8 would recommend. 

 9 MR. NATKIN: We're somewhat familiar with the 

 10 EPA test procedures for light duty, the chassis roll 

 11 testing. And I actually have been negotiating with 

 12 Washington about what would be suitable. And we would 

 13 like to work with EPA just to sort out suitable test 

 14 procedures and then go to suitable test facilities, 

 15 chassis roll facilities, because as you've heard, to 

 16 take a vehicle, strip the entire system, the engine 

 17 system, the control system, wiring harness, the after 

 18 treatment system, all that out, place it on a -- on an 

 19 approved dyno facility and then run your heavy duty 

 20 engine cycle is two to three times the cost of just 

 21 taking the entire vehicle for everything that's already 

 22 there and approved for the money in running your test. 

 23 So we would be desirous of negotiating with EPA to get 

 24 an approved set of EPA type tests on chassis roll that 

 25 would -- that EPA would be satisfied with, satisfied and 

 40 
 1 then do the back to back. 

 2 Basically you shut off the bi-fuel system, run 

 3 the base 100 percent diesel fuel, and then turn on the 

 4 bi-fuel system, run the same amount of -- the same 

 5 testing and compare the data. It's a little bit chicken 

 6 or egg. You're asking us for data. We're saying we 

 7 want to make sure that the data that we go after is 

 8 something that you're going to be happy with as the EPA. 

 9 So, and we're-- we're more than willing to negotiate and 

 10 discuss and sort out whatever testing. 

 11 We can do over-the-road testing with 

 12 a portable emission analyzer system, approved portable 

 13 emission analyzer system, but we need to make sure that 

 14 whatever testing we run you're going to say, okay, we're 

 15 happy with that. So we need further discussion on that. 

 16 MS. COHEN: Any other questions? 

 17 MR. REINEMAN: The only other thing I would 

 18 suggest is that if you have opinions about the 

 19 difference, if you will, between engine and chassis 

 20 testing options that exist now between 8,500 and 14,000 

 21 if you would express that in writing that would be 

 22 useful for us as well. 

 23 MR. NATKIN: We've put together a set of 

 24 suggestions and submitted them. 

 25 MR. REINEMAN: Okay. 

 41 
 1 MR. NATKIN: And then we're open to 

 2 suggestions coming back the other way. I mean, if you 

 3 want to see -- if what we submit is -- is not 

 4 necessarily everything that you want to see and you come 

 5 back and say, okay, we want to see steady state speeds 

 6 and loads of the following, we're happy to and open to 

 7 that kind of dialogue. 

 8 MR. REINEMAN: Okay. 

 9 MR. NATKIN: Thank you. 

 10 MS. COHEN: Mr. Disher. 

 11 MR. DISHER: Janet and members of the 

 12 administration, thank you so much for inviting us for 

 13 comment today. 

 14 My name's Chris Disher. I am one of the 

 15 co-founders of Flex Fuel U.S. With me is our other 

 16 co-founder Mitch, an inventor, Mitch Sremac in the room. 

 17 We are the developer and distributor of the Flex Box 

 18 Smart Kit, which is an E85 alternative fuel conversion. 

 19 So we allow a gasoline powered vehicle to operate just 

 20 as an OEM flex fuel vehicle kit would -- would operate. 

 21 Our mission is to focus solely on -- on 

 22 developing EPA certified kits. We don't produce or 

 23 market off route -- road technology. Our mission is to 

 24 focus on the fleet market, both public and -- and 

 25 private fleets. We are the only E85 converter that is 

 42 
 1 certified by the EPA today. There are other conversion 

 2 kits. Previous speakers mentioned illegal international 

 3 kits that are on the market today. We are -- we are 

 4 trying to enter a market that's got a very dirty way, 

 5 bad reputations as we get to our prospects and potential 

 6 customers. Because these kits do exist in we think 

 7 fairly large numbers within the United States, it's very 

 8 difficult for us to market something. And EPA 

 9 certification is -- is very important. It's important 

 10 that we develop their awareness that our products and 

 11 other products that might be like ours in the future 

 12 have that -- have passed that standard. 

 13 The suggestions and comments that we have were 

 14 gathered from not just our staff but experts in the 

 15 field that we work with in the development of our kit, 

 16 including Roush Laboratories. Our CEO is a chemical 

 17 engineer and former senior executive of British 

 18 Petroleum in the fuels refining and distribution 

 19 business. We regularly consult with former OEM 

 20 consultants from -- such as Ford and -- and also 

 21 Mercedes. 

 22 We also gathered relevant insights from 

 23 government agencies such as -- and independent test labs 

 24 such as Oak Ridge Laboratories, Renewable Fuels 

 25 Association. We spent time with the Department of 

 43 
 1 Transportation and General Service Administration in 

 2 understanding their needs and directions for 

 3 technologies like ours and its application to help with 

 4 executive orders that are improving the use of 

 5 alternative fuels. 

 6 So we offer these comments in the spirit of 

 7 helping our nation move forward in the alternative fuels 

 8 market. 

 9 Our understanding of the EPA proposed rules 

 10 for alternative fuels conversion is that EPA has had a 

 11 longstanding growing interest by the public in 

 12 aftermarket fuel conversion systems certainly since our 

 13 inception in 2006 as we observe the documentation from 

 14 the EPA and interest in getting more alternative fuel 

 15 certifications out there and having guidelines for 

 16 convertors. This opens up new fuel supply choices for 

 17 consumers. We think conversion market is important. 

 18 Consumers today if they want to use the fuel have to buy 

 19 an OEM produced vehicle or one of the ones that we have 

 20 that is certified. And in the market we see that while 

 21 there is a growing number of FFVs the challenge we have 

 22 is making sure that there is demand for the fuel so that 

 23 the fuel distribution -- distributers and retailers make 

 24 the fuel available for people that have these vehicles 

 25 and want to -- choose to use the fuel. 

 44 
 1 The -- obviously the interest in alternative 

 2 fuel is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foreign 

 3 oil independence, and we -- we support that. You are -- 

 4 we sup -- we endorse your efforts to reduce the burden 

 5 on converters. It's important to us because our market 

 6 is quite small compared to the OEM production size. 

 7 Instead of tens of thousands of vehicles or hundreds of 

 8 thousands of vehicles in production we're talking about 

 9 thousands. And when you try to develop a conversion 

 10 product for each specific engine group, model family 

 11 year, that burden is significant enough that it -- it 

 12 does not make it economically viable to produce a large 

 13 number of vehicles for the growing retail market. So, 

 14 hence, we focus on the fleet market, which is a small 

 15 number of models that enable us to have a viable -- 

 16 viable company. So -- so it -- it -- we think it's 

 17 important to move in this direction. 

 18 We -- I mentioned the importance of reducing 

 19 economic burden. The rules as we see them today do not 

 20 neatly fit our market. As I said, they're written for 

 21 OEMs, new vehicles, large production volumes. We're in 

 22 the thousands in terms of production. And we would like 

 23 to see that, while our market is to convert the used car 

 24 vehicles, that the tests that we have to meet are 

 25 consistent with those such as you've developed with the 

 45 
 1 intermediate age group for in -- you know, and for 

 2 in-use testing. That's important to us because as we 

 3 need to acquire used vehicles, such as the 2006 Crown 

 4 Victoria, we need to have something that we can bring 

 5 into the lab and test and we're required to bring that 

 6 vehicle up to new start -- new car standards. So as we 

 7 want to do more and more vehicles it becomes more and 

 8 more difficult to find vehicles that were -- are -- are 

 9 in new enough condition to pass the existing test. 

 10 In the aftermarket the ability to demonstrate 

 11 the conversion meets federally recognized standard 

 12 product. The intermediate age group that's being 

 13 proposed should be viewed as a legitimate and 

 14 appropriate, not viewed as inferior to conform -- 

 15 confirmatory. 

 16 In order to ensure intermediate group 

 17 conversions are used, legitimate conversions, the EPA 

 18 should issue a waivered document, not just posting it on 

 19 the website. When we're in the market, as strange as it 

 20 might sound, almost any -- any prospect wants to know 

 21 about our EPA certification. We believe -- you know, 

 22 there's -- there's a heightened awareness about the need 

 23 to have that, and -- and we observe the illegal 

 24 convertors are -- that are at conferences and so forth 

 25 selling their kits and -- and misrepresenting what the 

 46 
 1 kits can do and misrepresenting what they have approved 

 2 or not approved from the -- from the EPA. 

 3 Our prospects want to see a physical 

 4 certification. We think it's important to be able to 

 5 demonstrate that and show that to them. So waiver -- a 

 6 waiver in a document form that is easily accessible as 

 7 well on the web would be important. 

 8 We'd propose several enhancements and changes 

 9 to the proposed rules to fully realize the EPA's 

 10 conversion market objectives for E85 flex fuel vehicles. 

 11 I'm going to work my way down this page. This 

 12 summarizes the changes that we're proposing, and then 

 13 I'll go through why we think each one of these are 

 14 important. 

 15 Number 1, a fuel specification should be 

 16 issued and it should represent fuel sold in the market 

 17 for testing. The fuel that -- that -- the fuels that we 

 18 can buy are fuels that are available in the market and 

 19 meet ASTM standards. The test fuel that we have to test 

 20 with and -- and -- and get our computer to conform to 

 21 that fuel is something we cannot legally buy. And it is 

 22 outside the ASTM. So it's our -- our test re -- results 

 23 can be erratic. And I'll get into that more later. 

 24 There's some clarifications that we would 

 25 like; clarification when to conform -- confirmatory 

 47 
 1 testing is required. We think one successful test 

 2 should be enough for the same engineering design of the 

 3 product. And this -- this theme kind of carry -- 

 4 carries through. There's a lot of tests that we have to 

 5 do from a -- an engineering judgment standpoint. 

 6 There -- there should not be any need to continue to 

 7 burden us with a test. 

 8 Clarification that existing certification can 

 9 be used with the proposed intermediate age rules to 

 10 carry forward and carry back. So as we have a 2006 

 11 Crown Victoria certification with the new rules can we 

 12 carry forward. And that fact wasn't clear to us in 

 13 the -- in the proposed rules if we can -- we can do 

 14 that. It makes logical sense that we can we think. 

 15 Publish the OBD group so we can determine 

 16 carry forward and carry back groups. So one of the 

 17 steps that we go through in determining which kits can 

 18 we convert is how large is the production volume that's 

 19 out there that we can address. We need to know what the 

 20 addressable size of the market is, and the only way to 

 21 do that is if we know what that those OBD groups are. 

 22 And those aren't published. We often have to check with 

 23 your staff on what that means. And I think that creates 

 24 a burden on them as well. We could -- we could do this 

 25 on our own. 

 48 
 1 Clarify that what we mean by outside useful 

 2 life. I'll talk about that. But obviously there's -- 

 3 there's a lot more mileage and a years thing. It's 

 4 difficult for us to market to a mileage standard. So 

 5 we'd like some clarification on that. 

 6 Require converters to certify vehicles as new 

 7 or nearly new before allowing use of intermediate or 

 8 outside useful life groups. We're quite proud of the 

 9 work that we put into our kit to make sure that it 

 10 maintains the very highest standards that the EPA 

 11 requires. As I said, we do compete with the -- the 

 12 black market kits as well. We are -- we are -- we know 

 13 about the technology. We know it does not deal with the 

 14 variety of conditions that -- that the car needs to deal 

 15 with, and we think that they need to -- they should be 

 16 proven to meet those standards as well before allowing 

 17 them to certify under a lower tiered bar. So the 

 18 technology, we think the technology should meet an EPA 

 19 standard before the lower tiers are -- are awarded. 

 20 Used vehicle types and engine classifications 

 21 for determining the certification groups. Eliminate the 

 22 OEM vehicle -- vehicle durability classification as it 

 23 does not meet the spirit of the change. 

 24 Okay. So those are some clarifications we 

 25 would like. We'd also like to modify some of the 

 49 
 1 proposed rules. One, allow the use of estimated NMOG 

 2 for flex fuel conversions throughout -- through an NMHC 

 3 NMOG ratio. This is being proposed for CNG and propane. 

 4 We'd like to have that same option as well. The NMOG 

 5 test is very expensive. It's not entirely useful in 

 6 our -- in our calibrations, so we'd like to see a ratio 

 7 be available to converters. 

 8 Don't require the cold start testing but if it 

 9 continues it be a required use an on spec fuel. Cold 

 10 start test -- testing is, of course, the most difficult 

 11 part of the test. The fuel that the lab uses has an RVP 

 12 of about 6.0. You can't buy that in the fuel, but it -- 

 13 but it doesn't -- it doesn't ignite very easily at all. 

 14 So it's very difficult to get the -- the conversion 

 15 system to work with a -- a fuel speced at that level. 

 16 Drop the suggestion for multiple fuel ratio 

 17 testing. It's not required by the OEMs, so this is in 

 18 reference to different blends of fuel that would have to 

 19 be tested. We think that if the OEM vehicles that were 

 20 converting of similar models have to meet that spec then 

 21 that's fine with us, but we shouldn't be held to a 

 22 standard that they're not held to. So -- so that's our 

 23 position on that. 

 24 Consistently apply the California NMOG 

 25 standards for -- or completely repair all the 

 50 
 1 inconsistencies. We've -- we've had many -- many 

 2 discussions with EPA about the use of the California 

 3 standard. In some cases some of the rules are used and 

 4 other cases they're not. We'd like a consistent 

 5 application of the rules, and if there -- if there are 

 6 problems with some of them that exist let's -- they 

 7 shouldn't be on the books. So let's -- let's get those 

 8 clarified. 

 9 Fourth, extend the use of good engineering 

 10 judgment where you can show past testing and -- and good 

 11 engineering judgment that conversions do not modify, 

 12 alter, or negatively impact OEM performance. A 

 13 statement of compliance should be allowed in lieu of the 

 14 demonstration, including OBDII, canister loading, and 

 15 shed test. In our -- in the case of our technology we 

 16 do not alter anything on the vehicle. It is 

 17 supplemental to the vehicle and in the kit in its 

 18 entirety. We don't change anything with the computer 

 19 and so forth. And -- and that engineering design does 

 20 not change for us from application to application, so. 

 21 Okay. 

 22 So the following pages, if I -- if I have the 

 23 time, I'd just like to just go through and -- and 

 24 clarify what we mean. 

 25 I -- this the first one is in regards to the 

 51 
 1 fuel spec. The RVP is too low and it is unstable. The 

 2 fuel is made from a neat ethanol. It is not denatured. 

 3 It is then engineered with a butane infusion to get the 

 4 RVP up. It's tested long -- the RVP is tested long 

 5 before the car is actually tested, so that -- it is an 

 6 unstable fuel and its RVP will degrade. So our -- our 

 7 test results are not -- we can't rely -- reliably test 

 8 for them when we can't get that fuel and try to 

 9 replicate what's -- what's going to be done, the 

 10 sampling done from the pressurized tank. So by the time 

 11 that that -- the fuel is tested in our vehicle the RVP 

 12 has changed. 

 13 Ethanol, we can't legally buy or produce this 

 14 test fuel at all. So we don't have an alcohol license, 

 15 so I can't get the -- I can't the fuel, nor can I -- can 

 16 I set up a facility where I can infuse the butane 

 17 into -- into the fuel. 

 18 The OEM test labs do use ASTM standard fuels 

 19 in their conformity applications, so we've seen them, we 

 20 understand what they are. They're consistent with the 

 21 fuel that's available in the market, so that's what's 

 22 run in the car when the application is put in. We'd 

 23 like to have that same option. 

 24 So -- so what -- and EPA will often test the 

 25 in-use cars with -- with that fuel, but DF factors are 

 52 
 1 applied. So even though they're using the same fuel the 

 2 standard is a little bit easier. So we'd like to -- if 

 3 you're going to use a fuel, let us -- let us use the 

 4 same calculations with not -- by not applying the DF 

 5 factors. We think it creates an unfair advantage for 

 6 OEMs over the conversion market so this is why we'd like 

 7 that. Intermediate classified tests should be 

 8 consistent with the OEM test procedures. That's -- 

 9 that's the fuel. 

 10 On the -- on the clarification, clarify when 

 11 confirmatory test is required. I mentioned that our -- 

 12 if our design is the same we should not have to have to 

 13 retest. Clarify that an existing certification can be 

 14 used with the proposed intermediate age groups. I 

 15 mentioned publishing the OBDII groups that helps us in 

 16 selection. 

 17 Outside useful life -- having trouble. Two. 

 18 Okay. 

 19 We're not clear what the goals are on the 

 20 outside useful life. I -- we -- we -- we think they're 

 21 good goals. We're just not clear how it is we can apply 

 22 them when -- when mileage varies so much. We're focused 

 23 mostly on cars and -- and light -- light duty trucks, so 

 24 the variability out there is pretty significant. So 

 25 it's difficult. 

 53 
 1 Require converters to certify vehicles as new 

 2 or nearly new. I mentioned that lowering the bar, we 

 3 believe alternative fuel conversion technology 

 4 convertors should prove the technology works, so we -- 

 5 we're very supportive of that. But we don't think we 

 6 should allow inferior technology that can't meet the 

 7 standard to be applied on older vehicles. 

 8 Use vehicle type and engine classification to 

 9 determine certification groups, eliminate the OEM 

 10 vehicle durability classification, it doesn't meet the 

 11 spirit of the change. Durability groups are fragmented 

 12 and very complex. It doesn't add value in design and 

 13 the testing, and it substantially increases the burden 

 14 by requiring multiple tests against the same 

 15 application, for example, 4.6 liter vehicles. 

 16 Now we go three. Reduce the testing burden. 

 17 Here's some ideas on that. I mentioned NMOG. Use the 

 18 on spec fuel. I talked about the 6.0 RVP is simply too 

 19 low. And it's very -- it's -- while -- while there are 

 20 some classifications where this is viable, not at 

 21 75 degrees in the -- in the class 2 test conditions. 

 22 Consistently apply multiple fuel ratio testing and 

 23 consistently apply the California NMOG standard. The 

 24 standards and equations applied in the lab are 

 25 different. Converters rely on California standards and 

 54 
 1 the CFR. For -- if there's errors, we'd like to see 

 2 those fixed. 

 3 And then, lastly, we'd just ask that we use -- 

 4 we could extend the use of good engineering judgement. 

 5 We've had a lot of success with you in doing that 

 6 before. We'd like to be able to see that we don't have 

 7 to do the OBDII testing, again as we're loading the shed 

 8 test, where it's clear that these things are not -- not 

 9 effective. In most if not all cases alternative fuel 

 10 conversion technology is based on a standard design, and 

 11 previous demonstrations should -- should suffice. 

 12 So those are the -- the highlights. I'm again 

 13 delighted to be here and be able to hear the testimony 

 14 from the other converters interested in this. I'm 

 15 heartened to see that, you know, the consistency in some 

 16 of our needs. Can I answer any questions? 

 17 MS. COHEN: Thank you very much. To the 

 18 extent things in our proposal are not clear to you, 

 19 please put those questions into writing for us, and then 

 20 we will be able to respond to them when we respond to 

 21 them -- 

 22 MR. DISHER: Absolutely. 

 23 MS. COHEN: -- in the rulemaking process. 

 24 MR. DISHER: Absolutely. 

 25 MS. COHEN: Thank you. 

 55 
 1 MR. DISHER: Thank you. 

 2 MS. COHEN: Questions? 

 3 MR. REINEMAN: Yeah, Chris, if you don't mind, 

 4 maybe you could provide written comments back to us with 

 5 a little more support for why you believe that shed 

 6 testing is not necessary for your system if you add any 

 7 hardware to your vehicle, and also your comments about 

 8 why you believe that reduced confirmatory testing is 

 9 appropriate for your technology. In particular if 

 10 there's anything beyond the standard concept or design, 

 11 but if you're changing fuel maps with the vehicle, for 

 12 example, is it still appropriate to have kind of a 

 13 one size fits all or a much reduced burden of 

 14 confirmatory testing seems to be an issue. 

 15 MR. DISHER: Yeah. 

 16 MR. REINEMAN: And support for those things, 

 17 we would like to see some more comments about that. 

 18 MR. DISHER: Gladly, Martin. As you know, 

 19 our -- our kit is largely altered just to the fuel map 

 20 technology, so we think anything outside of that we'll 

 21 provide support for that. And -- and the other points 

 22 as well, we'll get you analytics and facts. 

 23 MR. REINEMAN: Okay. Thanks. 

 24 MR. DISHER: Thanks. 

 25 MS. COHEN: Mr. Clarke? 

 56 
 1 MR. CLARK: Good morning. My name is Jeff 

 2 Clarke. I'm pleased to offer the following statement on 

 3 behalf of NGV America. NGV America is a national trade 

 4 association demoted -- devoted to promoting the 

 5 increased use of natural gas vehicles. 

 6 I'm not going to read all my prepared 

 7 statement that we've entered in for the record today. 

 8 Rather I'll do my best to summarize those -- the 

 9 statement. And I will offer some additional thoughts on 

 10 today -- on this rulemaking. 

 11 NGV America believes that the national -- that 

 12 national transportation and energy policies should 

 13 encourage increased use of natural gas as a 

 14 transportation fuel. Natural gas vehicles can play an 

 15 important role in increasing energy security, creating 

 16 U.S. jobs, providing cleaner air, and reducing 

 17 greenhouse gas emissions, while also generating economic 

 18 benefits for fleets and consumers. These benefits 

 19 result from the fact that natural gas is a domestic fuel 

 20 with an abundant resource base here in the U.S. and in 

 21 North America. Natural gas is also a low-carbon fuel 

 22 that -- with a proven record of reducing harmful 

 23 pollutants that contribute to ground level ozone, ground 

 24 level pollution, and other air quality concern. 

 25 We congratulate EPA for its effort in 

 57 
 1 developing this proposed rulemaking. It has been a long 

 2 time coming and is welcome. We believe that the 

 3 proposal issued by the EPA will go a long way toward 

 4 encouraging and expanding the use of non-petroleum motor 

 5 fuels and vehicles powered by alternative fuels. This 

 6 action is possibly as important as any the government is 

 7 currently considering in order to advance the use of 

 8 non-petroleum fuels. Only time will tell how much of an 

 9 impact this rule making will have. Never the less, it 

 10 is an important step in the right direction. 

 11 We continue to believe that certification of 

 12 aftermarket systems is important to ensuring the 

 13 environmental integrity of alternative fuel systems. 

 14 That is why we have supported emission certification 

 15 procedures for many years going back to the early 1990s 

 16 when it was first proposed. And today we continue to 

 17 support the certification requirements. However, we 

 18 believe that the current regulatory requirements are -- 

 19 are unduly restrictive. So we commend the EPA for 

 20 recognizing that its regulations as currently written 

 21 are not a good fit for aftermarket conversion and that 

 22 they should be modified to be more accommodating of 

 23 alternative fuel conversion. 

 24 The preamble for this proposed rulemaking 

 25 acknowledges that the current certification process is 

 58 
 1 not optimal for ensuring compliance with emission 

 2 standards, and the complexity of the certification 

 3 process presents a barrier to entering into the 

 4 alternative fuel conversion market. These are important 

 5 acknowledgments. These factors and the potential that 

 6 alternative fuel conversions hold for advancing the use 

 7 of alternative fuels, replacing petroleum, and reducing 

 8 harmful emissions are ample reason to move forward with 

 9 this rulemaking and adopt a more flexible -- and adopt 

 10 more flexible procedures for aftermarket systems. 

 11 Why are conversions important? Our industry 

 12 for many years embraced a notion that the only way to 

 13 grow this market was through the OEM alternative fuel 

 14 vehicles, but what we have seen is an industry that has 

 15 struggled to realize the potential and one that has 

 16 grown much too slowly over the years. In order to grow 

 17 this market, we need OEMs and conversions -- and 

 18 aftermarket conversions. Until there are sufficient 

 19 number of OEM products available in the marketplace, our 

 20 industry will continue to need aftermarket conversions 

 21 to help us grow, to help us justify the necessary 

 22 investments in fueling infrastructure, and to help us 

 23 increase our market penetration. 

 24 Conversions fill a void unmet by OEMs and 

 25 demonstrate consumer demand for new applications. 

 59 
 1 Conversions also provide a ready means of addressing the 

 2 emissions and fuel consumption of medium and heavy duty 

 3 vehicles that will continue to be in operation for many 

 4 years to come. 

 5 I think a number of the speakers addressed 

 6 that market potential and we're pretty excited about 

 7 that -- those applications for in-use, medium and heavy 

 8 duty vehicles. 

 9 In some cases the manufacturers of conversion 

 10 systems will become suppliers to the OEMs and they will 

 11 be instrumental in helping OEMs get new product into the 

 12 market. 

 13 We've seen that before where the OEMs are 

 14 partnered with the same companies that are vying for the 

 15 aftermarket industry. 

 16 The increased availability of these 

 17 conversions I think will actually help to more quickly 

 18 get us to the day when most OEMs offer a full line-up of 

 19 NGVs and other alternative fueled vehicles. Therefore, 

 20 it is important to take the steps to advance the use of 

 21 conversions. 

 22 Comments on the EPA Proposal. We plan to file 

 23 more extensive comments before the deadline next month. 

 24 For today I just will offer the following comments. 

 25 With respect to new vehicles, we support EPA's plan to 

 60 
 1 adopt and include in its regulation the flexible 

 2 provisions that it has been providing via guidance 

 3 today. Including these procedures in the regulations 

 4 provides greater certainty for the market with respect 

 5 to being able to use these procedures in the future. So 

 6 that's helpful. 

 7 We also believe that the additional 

 8 flexibility to certify multiple engine families or test 

 9 groups is warranted even beyond what EPA has proposed in 

 10 its proposal. We have supported the adoption of 

 11 legislation directing the EPA to develop procedures 

 12 allowing manufacturers of aftermarket systems to combine 

 13 test groups of vehicles manufactured by different OEMs. 

 14 We believe that with appropriate safeguards this type of 

 15 certification can be appropriate. At the very least we 

 16 believe that manufacturers of aftermarket systems should 

 17 be given the opportunity to demonstrate they can 

 18 successfully employ strategies that allow them to 

 19 combine test groups or engine families of different 

 20 manufacturers. 

 21 Certification Fees. We believe that EPA 

 22 should modify the certification fee process to allow 

 23 aftermarket manufacturers to pay these fees at the back 

 24 end instead of upfront. Currently manufacturers must 

 25 pay their fees upfront based on expected sales. If 

 61 
 1 these sales do not materialize, they can request a 

 2 refund. I'm told. I've never paid the fees or 

 3 requested a refund. The requirement to submit these 

 4 fees and then later request a refund ties up valuable 

 5 funds, funds that small manufacturers need to develop 

 6 additional systems. We therefore would propose the EPA 

 7 adopt procedures that allow these manufacturers the 

 8 option of paying the fees at the end of the quarter or 

 9 annually based on the total number of vehicles actually 

 10 sold under a certificate. 

 11 Approval Process for Intermediate Age 

 12 Vehicles. We support the proposal -- the proposed 

 13 approval process for vehicles that are two years or 

 14 older. Currently most of our members do not opt to 

 15 convert such vehicles or offer products for such 

 16 vehicles. However, additional flexibility offered for 

 17 such systems and the fact that EPA is waiving fees for 

 18 such systems could potentially be an incentive for 

 19 businesses to pursue conversion systems for older in-use 

 20 vehicles. 

 21 And we think there's going to be just a 

 22 tremendous interest in this approval process, and you're 

 23 going to see a lot more companies come to the table if 

 24 this rule is finalized. 

 25 Mixed Fuel Vehicles or Bi-fuel Heavy Duty 

 62 
 1 Engines, which the first couple speakers addressed this 

 2 market. We are seeing a growing interest in vehicles 

 3 that operate on a mixture of natural gas and diesel 

 4 fuel. This is a relatively new development for us as an 

 5 association, NGV America. From what we have learned 

 6 about these systems and how they operate, we believe EPA 

 7 should consider providing additional flexibility for 

 8 such systems, particularly in those systems that do not 

 9 make any changes to the diesel operation of the vehicle 

 10 or engine other than making it possible for the vehicle 

 11 to operate on a mixture of diesel and natural gas. 

 12 And we will provide additional information on 

 13 this issue in our July comments. 

 14 Chassis versus bench testing. We support the 

 15 comments that you've heard earlier today regarding the 

 16 ability to do in-use chassis testing for over being 

 17 required to do bench testing because of the cost and 

 18 just the difficulty of -- of doing that sort of testing. 

 19 US06 Testing. EPA requested comment to when 

 20 it would be appropriate to require US06 testing. At 

 21 this point we would not support such a requirement given 

 22 that it's not required for the OEM manufacturers, and we 

 23 would see that as potentially putting something in place 

 24 more burdensome as opposed to more flexible for the 

 25 aftermarket industry. 

 63 
 1 Beyond Useful Life Vehicle. We current have 

 2 not reached an agreement on what -- which of the three 

 3 proposals we plan to support. However, we do support 

 4 the idea of requiring submission of information to EPA, 

 5 including the beyond useful life engines in your 

 6 approval process. We think that would be valuable to 

 7 have EPA reviewing these documentation and providing 

 8 information on its website about these systems. So we 

 9 would support that. 

 10 Warranty Issues. We would urge EPA to include 

 11 a strong statement on the issue of warranty coverage in 

 12 its final rule. 

 13 We still get a lot of calls about warranties 

 14 and whether converting a vehicle with an OEM warranty. 

 15 Previous rulemaking and the guidance, I've 

 16 addressed this issue in a way so as to make it clear 

 17 that converting a vehicle to operate on alternative fuel 

 18 does not void the original OEM warranty. Such a 

 19 statement should be included in the rulemaking, possibly 

 20 in the preamble if not in the regulation itself. 

 21 California Air Resource Support. More and 

 22 more states are adopting the California requirements for 

 23 new vehicles. We would like to see EPA provide clear 

 24 guidance regarding the legality of converting vehicles 

 25 in states that have adopted the CARB regulations for new 

 64 
 1 vehicles. Our industry supports the continued ability 

 2 to convert vehicles in such states using EPA-approved 

 3 systems as long as the vehicle to be converted is a 

 4 49- or 50-state vehicle and the state at issue has not 

 5 specifically adopted California's regulation for 

 6 aftermarket conversions. We believe this is the legally 

 7 correct approach. However, it would be very useful to 

 8 have EPA publicly state this in its -- in its rulemaking 

 9 discussion. Otherwise it becomes an issue that 

 10 continues to cause confusion and lead to doubt as to 

 11 whether converting vehicles in such states is legal. 

 12 And we essentially have to go state by state 

 13 and try and get some sort of decision from these 

 14 officials. And a lot of times when we talk to these 

 15 officials about this issue it's completely new to them 

 16 and it takes them many, many months to figure out what 

 17 the answer is, if we can even get an answer from them on 

 18 this issue. So that would be helpful. 

 19 That concludes my remarks. And thank you very 

 20 much, and we will be submitting comments next month. 

 21 MS. COHEN: Thank you. I'd appreciate if 

 22 those comments could include -- include any -- you know, 

 23 a pretty detailed discussion of any criteria we will 

 24 have to look at to consider your suggestion of allowing 

 25 manufacturers of converters to combine manufacturers 

 65 
 1 into a single test group. 

 2 MR. CLARK: Yes. 

 3 MS. COHEN: We'll determine whether that's 

 4 appropriate or not for a vehicle system -- 

 5 MR. CLARK: There's a protocol -- 

 6 MS. COHEN: -- test group. 

 7 MR. CLARK: -- in the UN regulation for doing 

 8 that, too. We can submit that and some more 

 9 information. 

 10 MS. COHEN: Anything you have on that would be 

 11 really helpful. 

 12 MR. CLARK: Okay. 

 13 MS. COHEN: I have a request for a break, so 

 14 we will take a ten-minute break at this point, and then 

 15 we'll hear from the last couple speakers. I'd also ask 

 16 at this time if there's anyone else who wishes to speak 

 17 who did not sign up beforehand to do so now outside, and 

 18 we will have an opportunity to talk at the end of the 

 19 presentations. Thank you. 

 20 We convene at twenty minutes to 11:00. 

 21 (10:31 a.m. recess taken) 

 22 MS. COHEN: We are going to get started again, 

 23 please. The next presenter is Mr. Ambrozaitis with the 

 24 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 

 25 MR. AMBROZAITIS: Yeah, good morning, 

 66 
 1 Everybody. I'm Giedrius Ambrozaitis with the Alliance 

 2 of Automobile Manufacturers. I have brought some 

 3 testimony with me, some copies of it, but apparently it 

 4 didn't make it into the package, so it's outside if you 

 5 want to get it after -- after we're all done here. I 

 6 think everybody upfront, though, has copies of it. So 

 7 let me just go ahead and I will just read highlights 

 8 from my testimony. The full testimony covers a -- a 

 9 little bit more. And, of course, we will be giving the 

 10 written testimony to the comment document. 

 11 Again, I am Giedrius Ambrozaitis, the Director 

 12 of Environmental Affairs for the Alliance of Automobile 

 13 Manufacturers. Thank you again for the opportunity to 

 14 speak at this hearing. 

 15 The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is a 

 16 trade association of eleven car and light truck 

 17 manufacturers, including BMW Group, Chrysler, LLC, 

 18 Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, 

 19 Mazda, Mercedes Benz U.S.A., Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, 

 20 Toyota, and Volkswagen. Our member companies are 

 21 committed to providing safer, cleaner, and more fuel 

 22 efficient automobiles that operate on a number of 

 23 alternative fuels while meeting the nation's criteria 

 24 pollutant and greenhouse gas requirements. 

 25 Increasing the sales of clean alternative 

 67 
 1 fueled vehicles requires consumers remain engaged and 

 2 confident in their choice of alternative fuels. 

 3 Automakers recognize the importance of a positive 

 4 consumer experience with alternative fuel vehicles, both 

 5 for their company's reputations and for the future of 

 6 alternative fuels. Because consumers expect alternative 

 7 fuel vehicles to operate as a regular fuel vehicle, 

 8 automakers engineer and produce their alternative fuel 

 9 vehicles with the same care and diligence as regular 

 10 fuel vehicles. 

 11 We fully support EPA's efforts to revise the 

 12 alternative fuel conversions requirements and the steps 

 13 being proposed to ensure a vehicle's emission systems -- 

 14 emission's control system is compliant for the full 

 15 useful life of the vehicle. However, the proposed 

 16 changes by EPA to fuel conversion regulations if not 

 17 properly implemented possess the potential to negatively 

 18 impact the acceptance of alternative fuels by consumers; 

 19 therefore, we recommend that the following safeguards be 

 20 implemented to ensure proper emissions durability 

 21 engineering by converters to guarantee the long-term 

 22 operability of the vehicles on alternative fuels. These 

 23 safeguards will also ensure that warranty and in-use 

 24 responsibilities are reassigned to converters in an 

 25 enforceable manner. 

 68 
 1 EPA should retain current demonstration and 

 2 documentation requirements to ensure continued proper 

 3 engineering with conversions. EPA proposes to split the 

 4 current single certification category into three 

 5 categories depending on the age of the vehicle and the 

 6 mileage. The current requirements would continue for 

 7 converting one-year-old vehicles within their useful 

 8 life. For vehicles older than one year and for vehicles 

 9 whose mileage has exceeded their full useful life, EPA 

 10 is proposing a significant easing of certification 

 11 requirements. The removal of these certification 

 12 requirements creates an unwanted and undesired 

 13 opportunity for poorly engineered conversions being 

 14 marketed to the public. 

 15 Specifically for the two new categories, 

 16 intermediate age and outside full useful life, 

 17 automakers oppose making available a new definition for 

 18 conversion group which would cover multiple test groups 

 19 and even durability groups. Automakers also oppose 

 20 removing the requirement to submit a certification 

 21 application and request a certificate of conformity. 

 22 Both of these actions would have a great potential to 

 23 lead to poor engineering of conversions. 

 24 We recognize, however, that alternative fuel 

 25 conversion companies may see some economic and 

 69 
 1 procedural implements -- impediments to certify 

 2 alternative fuel conversions. However, small volume 

 3 converters are already provided with options not 

 4 available to larger OEMs, including reduced 

 5 certification fees, the ability to use assigned 

 6 emissions deterioration factors, and reduced IDVP 

 7 requirements. 

 8 To assist small volume companies while 

 9 preserving the effectiveness of the certification 

 10 process, we recommend that EPA could further reduce 

 11 certification fees or assign a dedicated person to 

 12 assist conversion companies with the certification 

 13 requirements in process. 

 14 EPA proposes to require that all fuel 

 15 conversions have a supplemental label applied in the 

 16 area of the existing underhood veci label, which would 

 17 meet the following requirements: We agree with EPA's 

 18 requirements for the label and recommend that the label 

 19 also show the converted vehicle's estimated cruising 

 20 range and the converted vehicle's emission certification 

 21 standard. In addition, we strongly recommend that the 

 22 label should include the following statement be added at 

 23 the end: OEM warranties will not cover damage to 

 24 existing systems from damage caused by fuel conversions. 

 25 In addition, we recommend that a second label 

 70 
 1 identical to that one should be required to be 

 2 permanently affixed to the driver door B pillar or the 

 3 glove box door or the center console area to ensure that 

 4 the consumer or the potential next purchaser is properly 

 5 informed of the vehicle's conversion and warranty 

 6 status. 

 7 Similarly, if a reflash of the on-board 

 8 computer ECU is performed, a label should also be 

 9 required to be affixed in the vicinity of the OBD port. 

 10 We recommend that EPA publish a list of VINs of 

 11 converted vehicles and make this list available to OEMs 

 12 and to State inspection maintenance agencies to help 

 13 ensure that these organizations are properly informed of 

 14 the vehicle's conversion and warranty status. 

 15 By implementing these recommended changes to 

 16 its NPRM EPA will continue to support our Clean Air Act 

 17 goals by further ensuring key certification requirements 

 18 remain in place, thus avoiding negative impacts to 

 19 alternative fuel vehicle acceptance, full useful life 

 20 emissions compliance, OBD system effectiveness, and 

 21 ultimately customer satisfaction. 

 22 Ensuring that adequately engineered and 

 23 durable vehicles are properly certified is the best way 

 24 to promote our nation's goal for increased alternative 

 25 fuel usage while at the same time assisting small volume 

 71 
 1 conversion companies. 

 2 Thank you for your attention. If there's any 

 3 questions, I'll try and answer them now or in my written 

 4 comments. 

 5 MS. COHEN: Questions? 

 6 MR. REINEMAN: Maybe clarity on vehicles 

 7 outside full useful life. 

 8 MR. AMBROZAITIS: Anything more specific? 

 9 MR. REINEMAN: (Indicating). 

 10 MS. COHEN: Also what you were envisioning for 

 11 collecting vehicle VINs, proposing how to do that? 

 12 MR. AMBROZAITIS: We haven't given any thought 

 13 on that one, but we can flush that out in our comments. 

 14 MS. COHEN: Thank you. 

 15 MR. AMBROZAITIS: Thank you. 

 16 MS. COHEN: Mr. Webster? 

 17 MR. WEBSTER: Good morning. I wanted to say 

 18 thank you for having me. Also I wanted to say, Man, I 

 19 feel out of my league. But I really wanted to come up 

 20 and say a word. I'm from the Natgascar Company. We're 

 21 a small company. We just started within the past year. 

 22 Our biggest product is going to be a home refueling unit 

 23 that we're working on currently through the CSA 

 24 certified unit. But we are also working in conjunction 

 25 with CSI down in Asheville, North Carolina, on a 

 72 
 1 conversion kit for the 2010 Dodge 4.7 liter engine. 

 2 So in trying to kind of preface that, I don't 

 3 have as vast of the knowledge as a lot of the people 

 4 that spoke, but one of the things that I have been 

 5 involved with is kind of the check writing process, and 

 6 from a smaller company's standpoint seeing how expensive 

 7 and how limiting that -- that can be, so moving forward 

 8 and kind of my comments on that, so. 

 9 Like I said, we're right down in Cleveland, 

 10 Ohio, right down from where we are now and we'll be 

 11 doing a conversion kit. We have -- should be ready by 

 12 August 1st. As we progress further down the road, 

 13 development road with our kits, we have been faced with 

 14 the enormous overhead of getting a kit tested and 

 15 approved to EPA standards. The EPA has a crucial place 

 16 in the equation and -- to set the baseline and make sure 

 17 that everything is kept to standard. However, for a 

 18 small business like ourselves these costs are borderline 

 19 prohibitive and keep us out of -- and keep us and other 

 20 small businesses from further optimizing the alternative 

 21 fuels market. 

 22 In order to help Natgascar and others be 

 23 successful in the alternative fuels industry, we would 

 24 like to see some changes that are -- some of them are 

 25 currently in -- proposed and then some of them are added 

 73 
 1 on, and some -- most of these that were suggested to us 

 2 by the folks at CSI just because we're busy, we're -- 

 3 there's -- there's four of us and we're busy working on 

 4 engineering our product, and they're helping us to with 

 5 this one. 

 6 So first and foremost we support the need to 

 7 have a certification qualify for multiple years. Having 

 8 that for multiple model years will help small business 

 9 like ourselves distribute our investment costs over 

 10 several years as opposed to a single one. This in turn 

 11 will allow us to offer a more competitive price to our 

 12 consumers and thus get -- hopefully get more clean 

 13 vehicles on the road. 

 14 Secondly, there are some areas of testing 

 15 which seem quite redundant and delay the release of our 

 16 product. Having to submit to retesting from the EPA 

 17 labs after an EPA recognized lab such as Roush has 

 18 certified a kit is not only redundant but again very 

 19 costly for manufacturers. Besides the physical cost of 

 20 testing, preparing, shipping, et cetera, there's also 

 21 the time -- the cost of time which further delays our 

 22 product release behind the OEM. Additionally, a carry 

 23 forward sales exemption and eliminating multiple OBD 

 24 tests per manufacturer would help cost and time delays. 

 25 A carry forward sales exemption would allow companies 

 74 
 1 like ourselves who have certified a current model year 

 2 and plan to certify the following year to pursue 

 3 conversions when the vehicle is being released as 

 4 opposed to three to six months after. The multiple OBD 

 5 tests are extremely expensive and time consuming. Once 

 6 a company has proven O -- OBD compliance with a given 

 7 OEM it makes sense that it should be carry forward 

 8 through the entire OBD product line. 

 9 We're making every effort to do the right 

 10 thing and take the right steps, but as I mentioned, for 

 11 a small company the cost can be overwhelming. With a 

 12 few changes to the existing policy, we can make steps 

 13 easier and in the process create more domestic jobs, 

 14 reduce foreign dependency, and minimize our impact on 

 15 the environment. 

 16 Any questions? 

 17 MS. COHEN: Will you be submitting comments? 

 18 MR. WEBSTER: Yes. Yeah, I'll have a 

 19 formal -- like I said, they just kind of -- they sent me 

 20 up. And I'm sorry. But I'll -- I'll be submitting 

 21 formal -- formal comments. 

 22 MS. COHEN: Thank you. 

 23 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you. 

 24 MR. REINEMAN: We'd like clarification of your 

 25 carry forward concept. 

 75 
 1 MR. WEBSTER: Yes. 

 2 MR. REINEMAN: It wasn't clear exactly what 

 3 OEM test group flexibility you were speaking to there. 

 4 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thanks. 

 5 MS. COHEN: Thank you. We have had I believe 

 6 two additional requests for speakers. Karen Hay. 

 7 MS. HAY: Thank you. Good morning. My name 

 8 is Karen Hay. I'm with IMPCO Technologies. To give you 

 9 a brief background on IMPCO, we recently purchased a 

 10 company called BRC and together we formed a holding 

 11 company called Fuel Systems Solutions. Together IMPCO 

 12 and BRC last year sold about 500 million dollars -- or 

 13 had 500 million dollars in revenue and had our systems 

 14 installed on approximately one million engines 

 15 throughout the world. Non-U.S. market is obviously much 

 16 bigger than within the U.S. markets, everything from 

 17 primarily light duty vehicles to industrial engines. 

 18 Both companies are engaged in certifying the 

 19 systems, primarily propane and natural gas. And 

 20 together we have over 1,700 employees throughout the 

 21 world. So we're a pretty good size company. 

 22 Just want to start out by saying that IMPCO 

 23 commends EPA for recognizing the importance of 

 24 alternative fuel vehicles and they need to streamline 

 25 the certification process. But the aftermarket 

 76 
 1 alternative fuel vehicle industry as a whole is held to 

 2 a different standard than any other aftermarket parts 

 3 industry. Alternative fuel vehicle manufacturers must 

 4 undergo rigorous, costly, and time consuming 

 5 certification testing and diagnostic validation, adds 

 6 months and tens of thousands of dollars onto the cost of 

 7 a system, usually for only a couple hundred units. On 

 8 the other hand, aftermarket parts do not require 

 9 certification of any kind. 

 10 For example, anyone can manufacture and sell a 

 11 turbocharger or custom intake or modified exhaust 

 12 without any certification costs or EPA interface. And 

 13 while IMPCO is a firm believer in ensuring that all 

 14 vehicles continue to meet the emissions standards, we 

 15 also believe that there are multiple pathways that can 

 16 be used to -- to achieve the same net results. 

 17 There are just a few items that I wanted to 

 18 touch on here. I'll be submitting comments later with 

 19 more detail, but sorry, I don't have any handouts. 

 20 One of the first things is the definition -- 

 21 the definition and duration of a certificate of 

 22 conformity. Model year and certificate duration are 

 23 defined as follows. The conversion model year means -- 

 24 and this is from the preamble, conversion model year 

 25 means the clean alternative fuel conversion 

 77 
 1 manufacturers annual production period which includes 

 2 January 1st of such calendar year. A specific model 

 3 year may not include January 1st from the previous year 

 4 or the following year. Effectively the conversion model 

 5 year is effective for two years minus one day. A 

 6 certificate issued under the section is valid starting 

 7 with the indicated effective date but is not valid for 

 8 any clean alternative fuel conversion systems you 

 9 manufacture after December 31st of the conversion model 

 10 year. So it's also saying that the certificate is the 

 11 same as the model year, which is two years minus one day 

 12 is the maximum length. 

 13 In IMPCO's opinion the existing definition of 

 14 model year under the Clean Air Act, which are the 

 15 definitions that I -- I just stated, are for new 

 16 vehicles. Because the Clean Air Act does not specify 

 17 the duration for an aftermarket vehicle, IMPCO believes 

 18 that EPA has the authority to define certificate -- the 

 19 certificate duration and also the model year and 

 20 definition differently as compared to that for the OEM. 

 21 And one thing that I wanted to point out is 

 22 that CARB aftermarket certificates are valid 

 23 indefinitely. There is absolutely no expiration date on 

 24 them. We actually have some dating back 20 plus years. 

 25 So those don't require annual recertification of any 

 78 
 1 form. 

 2 Next topic, certificate of conformity versus 

 3 notification. Many alternative fuel vehicles qualify 

 4 for various state or federal incentives. However, 

 5 certificate of conformity may be required to qualify for 

 6 these incentives. Therefore, the certificate will have 

 7 to be renewed annually as was previously defined per the 

 8 current procedures. And so you will also have to 

 9 continue paying the certification fees if you want to be 

 10 able to keep that certificate so that your end user can 

 11 actually take advantage of incentives that might be 

 12 available. And this is also where your definition of 

 13 certificate or model year is appropriate. 

 14 Next is the VIN tracking information. You had 

 15 requested comments on tracking the VIN numbers. It 

 16 states -- the preamble states the reason for VIN 

 17 tracking would be to assist automotive dealers or repair 

 18 facilities, state inspection and maintenance program 

 19 personnel, and others who might need to know whether a 

 20 vehicle or engine has been altered from its OEM 

 21 configuration. 

 22 Now, in order to do this, and especially, for 

 23 example, for an I and M test, this would require an 

 24 instant and up to date, some tracking mechanism that EPA 

 25 would have to put together and make available on its 

 79 
 1 website. I believe that this would call -- cause an 

 2 unnecessary administrative burden on EPA. And if, for 

 3 example, somebody goes in, they have a certified system, 

 4 there's an underhood label stating as such, but their 

 5 VIN isn't in the system, are they going to be turned 

 6 away? Will they not be able to register that vehicle? 

 7 That's -- that's one of my concerns is the timeliness 

 8 and also the burden given the net result and how 

 9 effective this will be. 

 10 EPA had also requested comments on SFTP and 

 11 cold CO testing. Given that these tests are not 

 12 required for the OEM, we don't consider it to be fair 

 13 that the alternative fuel system would be required to 

 14 meet something that the OEM system is not designed to 

 15 meet. 

 16 The next is CARB states. Certain states have 

 17 adopted California emission standards for only vehicles 

 18 with a CARB executive order maybe sold in that state -- 

 19 in that state. There are certain restrictions. It has 

 20 to be either a new vehicle or a used vehicle with more 

 21 than 7,500 miles, but for the most part new vehicles 

 22 have to have a CARB certificate. For this to occur, 

 23 however, each state much must specifically adopt the 

 24 applicable California regulations. In some cases 

 25 certain states adopted new vehicle CARB regulations. In 

 80 
 1 some states they adopted new and aftermarket 

 2 requirements. So there are specific differences between 

 3 the two adoptions. The California code of regulations 

 4 2030 is what specifies the California aftermarket 

 5 requirements. If a state does not explicitly put in 

 6 that they adopted 2030, that state should accept an EPA 

 7 certified system. There's been some question in the 

 8 past that for these CARB states whether or not they 

 9 should accept an EPA certified aftermarket system, and 

 10 so as Jeff had mentioned we've been going state to state 

 11 speaking with people that really are not familiar with 

 12 this issue and it's -- it's caused quite a headache. 

 13 And there are about 13 states so far that have 

 14 adopted the CARB regulations, I'm sure more will be 

 15 coming up soon, and the burden that's put on us, the 

 16 small guy is, is truly unnecessary. So we would like 

 17 some sort of clarification be put in the preamble or in 

 18 regulation itself clarifying this issue. Because, 

 19 again, getting to the right person and getting them to 

 20 issue some sort of a definitive statement is a very, 

 21 very difficult thing to do. 

 22 Let's see. And finally greenhouse gases and 

 23 CO2 emissions. The proposal states that if the engine 

 24 was certified with the family emission limit for NOx, 

 25 hydrocarbon plus NOx, or particulate matter as noted on 

 81 
 1 the vehicle emission control information label, the 

 2 modified vehicle or engine may not exceed this family 

 3 emission limit. 

 4 Given the new greenhouse gas regulations that 

 5 recently came into effect for both CO2, greenhouse 

 6 gases, and who knows what else future requirements will 

 7 be required, I'd like to propose that you include other 

 8 types of emission standards under the family umbrella -- 

 9 under the family umbrella limit. So instead of 

 10 explicitly restricting it right now to NOx and 

 11 hydrocarbon plus NOx as stated in the reg, open it up 

 12 not only for CO2 emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, 

 13 but also for any other family limits that may come out. 

 14 Like I mentioned before, we're going to be 

 15 submitting formal comments and I'll be submitting some 

 16 more detail on that. If you have any questions? 

 17 MS. COHEN: Any questions? 

 18 MR. REINEMAN: I don't think I do if you're 

 19 going to submit more detail here. We'll see it then. 

 20 MS. HAY: Sure. 

 21 MS. COHEN: All right. Thank you very much. 

 22 The last presently today is Mr. Roger Galloway of BAF. 

 23 MR. GALLOWAY: Good morning. I'm Roger 

 24 Galloway with BAF Technologies. I appreciate the 

 25 opportunity to be here, thankful for EPA's efforts in 

 82 
 1 streamlining the process. 

 2 I just had one question. BAF will be posting 

 3 our -- our comments to your docket, but in reading the 

 4 regulations as proposed it's not clear to me whether EPA 

 5 is going to accept in the area of OBDII compliance, 

 6 whether an added on or a separate aftermarket conversion 

 7 system, whether you could diagnose that through a 

 8 separate proprietary port or whether the complete 

 9 on-board diagnostics for the entire system -- for the 

 10 entire vehicle would have to be run through the original 

 11 DLC utilizing the OEM now function indicator. 

 12 MS. COHEN: Well, if you -- if you will put 

 13 that question specifically in your comments -- 

 14 MR. GALLOWAY: I will. I will. 

 15 MS. COHEN: -- we will get it. 

 16 MR. GALLOWAY: It just seems counter-intuitive 

 17 to think that you could have a separate on-board 

 18 diagnostic system that wasn't fully integrated into the 

 19 original system. 

 20 MS. COHEN: That plus the quality, of course, 

 21 of any -- any alternative approach that you think would 

 22 be appropriate. 

 23 MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you for your time. 

 24 MS. COHEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else 

 25 who wishes to speak? 

 83 
 1 If there's no other party who wishes to 

 2 present testimony to this hearing panel and there are no 

 3 other comments to be presented, then we will proceed to 

 4 close this hearing. 

 5 As noted at the outset, the public comment 

 6 period for this proposed rule will remain open until 

 7 July 23rd, 2010. All interested parties are encouraged 

 8 to provide their written test -- written comments on the 

 9 proposed rule, as well as any comments, testimony, 

 10 information, data, and evidence presented by persons who 

 11 testified at today's hearing. 

 12 These written comments should be submitted in 

 13 accordance with the May 26, 2010 Federal Register 

 14 noted -- notice. This hearing is hereby closed. Thank 

 15 you. 

 16 (11:00 a.m. hearing concluded.) 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 84 
 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN ) 

 2 

 3 COUNTY OF WASHTENAW ) 

 4 

 5 I certify that this transcript is a complete, true, 

 6 and correct record of the testimony of ENVIRONMENTAL 

 7 PROTECTION AGENCY HEARING, Office of Transportation and Air 

 8 Quality, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, 

 9 6-23-10, Ann Arbor, Michigan, to the best of my ability. 

 10 

 11 I also certify that I am not a relative or employee 

 12 of a party, or a relative or employee of an attorney for a 

 13 party, have a contract with a party, or am financially 

 14 interested in the aforementioned action. 

 15 

 16 

 17 _______________________________ 

 18 Jacqueline D. Duchene, CSR-4182 

 Ann Arbor Reporting Service, Inc. 

 19 2551 Jade Court 

 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 

 20 

 21 JULY 7, 2010 

 Notary Public, Washtenaw County, Michigan 

 22 Acting in Washtenaw 

 My Commission Expires: 12-15-12 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 85