Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55635

(Or E-Mail

Farmer.Sandy@epamail.epa.gov)

and

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: October 17, 1997.

Richard Westlund,

Acting Director, Regulatory Information

Division.

[FR Doc. 97–28369 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5914–2]

Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle

Engines; Tampering Enforcement

Policy for Alternative Fuel Aftermarket

Conversions; Addendum to Mobile

Source Enforcement Memorandum 1A

September 4, 1997.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this

document is to clarify and revise the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA’s) ‘‘tampering’’ enforcement policy

for motor vehicles and motor vehicle

engines originally designed to operate

on gasoline or diesel fuel and

subsequently modified to operate

exclusively or in conjunction with

compressed natural gas (CNG) or

liquified petroleum gas (LPG or

propane), hereinafter referred to as

‘‘alternative fuels’’. The provisions of

this Addendum shall apply to all

persons subject to the tampering

prohibition of Section 203(a) of the Act.

For the purpose of this policy

Addendum, the term manufacturer will

apply to any person who designs,

produces, and/or assembles components

for converting vehicles or engines to

operate on alternative fuels and is

responsible for complying with all

applicable requirements of this policy

Addendum.

B. Background. EPA’s policy is and

has been that any alteration from an

original configuration of a vehicle or

engine as certified under Title II of the

Act may constitute tampering under

Section 203(a)(3). Routine maintenance

and repair of vehicles and engines

requires the use of replacement parts

which may be non-original or

‘‘aftermarket’’ parts or systems. EPA’s

Office of Enforcement and General

Counsel issued Mobile Source

Enforcement Memorandum 1A (Memo

1A) on June 25, 1974 to provide

guidance to covered parties regarding

how the Agency intended to enforce the

‘‘tampering’’ prohibition under Section

203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act) with

respect to maintenance and the use of

aftermarket parts.

Memo 1A provides, in part, that the

use of an aftermarket part, alteration or

add-on part will not constitute

tampering if the dealer has a

‘‘reasonable basis’’ to believe that such

acts will not adversely affect emissions

performance. It also provides specific

procedures or options by which the

dealer would have a ‘‘reasonable basis’’.

One available procedure is emissions

testing performed in accordance with

‘‘40 CFR 85’’ (subsequently revised and

incorporated under 40 CFR Part 86)

demonstrating compliance with

emission standards for the useful life of

the vehicle or engine. An alternate

option is that ‘‘a Federal, state or local

environmental control agency

represents that a reasonable basis exists’

based on testing done in accordance

with procedures specified by that

agency. Many vehicles converted from

gasoline fueled to CNG or propane have

relied on the second option utilizing

procedures established by California or

Colorado for demonstrating emissions

compliance.

EPA has recently become aware of

federal emission test data generated

under a program conducted by the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(NREL) which indicate that a significant

number of these vehicles modified to

run on alternative fuels may be

exceeding one or more applicable

federal emission standards. The

installers involved in the NREL program

had attempted to comply with Memo 1A

by using conversion systems certified by

the state of California under the

‘‘California Exhaust Emission Standards

and Test Procedures for Systems

Designed to Convert Motor Vehicles

Certified for 1993 and Earlier Model

Years to Use Liquefied Petroleum Gas or

Natural Gas Fuels’’ (pre-1994 California

Procedures). EPA has subsequently

reviewed emission test data from other

sources which generally substantiate the

NREL results.

In response to concerns raised by

these data, the Agency conducted a

public stakeholders meeting on

February 21, 1997, with representatives

of the affected industries, regulatory

agencies and interested fleet operators.

The purpose of the meeting was to

discuss these data and the causes of the

emission failures as well as to explore

all available options to identify and

remedy the problems. Many reasons

were provided for the emission

problems, including inadequate initial

testing, insufficient durability

evaluations, overly broad vehicle

application based on limited testing,

inadequate systems/parts specifications,

improper installation and fuel

variability. The concerns of the affected

industries and fleets subject to several

alternative fuel statutory mandates were

also discussed.

The most significant conclusion

reached at that meeting, and from

extensive data review and discussions

subsequent to that meeting, was that the

pre-1994 California and Colorado

procedures as currently structured do

not provide an adequate demonstration

or assurance that a vehicle or engine

modified to operate on an alternative

fuel using an aftermarket conversion

system will comply with the applicable

emission standards for its useful life. As

a result of the above and in light of the

number of vehicles and engines that

may be converted to alternative fuels in

the near future, EPA believes it is

appropriate to issue this Addendum to

Memo 1A (this Addendum) to provide

additional guidance to the regulated

community, including manufacturers

and installers of alternative fuel

conversion systems.

C. Revised Policy. Effective

immediately, EPA will no longer accept

a representation based on the pre-1994

California Procedures for alternative

fuel conversion systems or on the test

procedures under Colorado Regulation

No. 14 in effect prior to the date of this

Addendum as a ‘‘reasonable basis’’

under paragraph 3(c) of Memo 1A.

Consequently, any future installation of

an alternative fuel conversion system, or

the modification of any motor vehicle or

motor vehicle engine in compliance

with Title II of the Clean Air Act to

operate exclusively or in part with an

alternative fuel, or the causing thereof,

may constitute tampering under Section

203(a) of the Act, where the installer or

manufacturer has relied exclusively on

a representation by Colorado or

California, as described above, that a

reasonable basis exists in accordance

with paragraph 3(c) of Memo 1A.

Effective immediately, the ‘‘reasonable

basis’’ under paragraph 3 of Memo 1A

that EPA agrees may be relied on by any

person, including a manufacturer,

installer or operator, when converting,

or causing the conversion of, a motor

vehicle or motor vehicle engine to

operate on an alternative fuel is limited

to one of the three options listed below.

1. A Federal Certificate under 40 CFR

Part 86 demonstrating compliance with

the applicable standards or under 40

CFR Part 88 demonstrating compliance

with Clean Fuel Fleet standards for each

engine family to be converted in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 85,

Subpart F; or
55636 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices

2. A Retrofit System Certification

under the ‘‘California Certification and

Installation Procedures For Alternative

Fuel Retrofit Systems for Motor Vehicles

Certified for 1994 and Subsequent

Model Years’’ for a conversion system

installed and tested under the above

procedures on a vehicle or engine from

a ‘‘50-state engine family’’ for use

nationwide, or for a conversion system

installed and tested under the above

procedures on a vehicle or engine from

a ‘‘California engine family’’ for use in

California only; or

3. Until December 31, 1998, the use of

an alternative fuel conversion system

designed, tested and installed on a

single engine family, or multiple engine

families as provided under paragraph

b.(4) below, if testing is completed by

March 31, 1998, as follows:

a. With the alternative fuel conversion

system installed on the certified engine

family, the manufacturer shall perform,

or cause the performance of, one federal

emission test while operating with the

alternative fuel and one test with the

original certification fuel, if dual fuel

operation is retained, in accordance

with the applicable test procedures

under 40 CFR Part 86 or Part 88 for that

class and model year vehicle or engine.

Prior to testing, the vehicle or engine

shall be operated with the conversion

system installed for at least the number

of miles or hours equal to the service

accumulation period needed to stabilize

the emission control system specified by

the original manufacturer in its

certificate application submitted to EPA.

EPA encourages manufacturers to

conduct at least one baseline emission

test with the certification fuel prior to

conversion to ascertain that the vehicle

or engine meets the applicable

standards.

b. (1) With the application of an

appropriate deterioration factor (DF) to

the above test results, the vehicle or

engine shall meet the applicable federal

exhaust emission standards to which

the vehicle or engine was originally

certified. The DF shall be determined

either based on full useful life durability

testing, predictions based on

engineering judgement for a similar

light duty vehicle or heavy-duty engine

with a similar emission control system

using the same alternative fuel

conversion system, or determined in

accordance with the appropriate

protocol contained in the ‘‘Dear

Manufacturer’’ letter of September 27,

1995—Assigned Deterioration Factors

for Gaseous-Fueled Vehicles and

Engines, identified as CD–95–14. For

heavy-duty engines with aftertreatment

(such as a catalyst), the deteriorated

emissions are calculated by multiplying

the DF with the exhaust emission

results. For heavy-duty engines without

aftertreatment, the deteriorated

emissions are calculated by adding the

DF with the exhaust emission results.

For a vehicle or engine converted and

tested prior to accumulating 50% of its

useful life, the manufacturer shall apply

the full DF. For a vehicle or engine

converted and tested subsequent to

accumulating 50% of its full useful life,

apply a DF that is the midway point

between no DF and the full DF. For

example, an additive DF of 1.0 may

become 0.5 and a multiplicative DF of

2.0 may become 1.5. For a vehicle or

engine converted and tested subsequent

to accumulating its full useful life,

apply no DF.

(2) For heavy-duty engines used in

vehicles with a gross vehicle weight

rating (GVWR) less than or equal to

10,000 lbs, the manufacturer may

demonstrate compliance with the

applicable light-duty truck standards in

accordance with the preceding

paragraph.

(3) In lieu of engine dynamometer

testing for on-highway heavy duty

vehicles with a GVWR less than or equal

to 14,000 lbs, the manufacturer may

conduct two or three emission tests as

described below in accordance with the

most current amendments to ‘‘California

Exhaust Emissions Standards and Test

Procedures for 1988 and Subsequent

Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty

Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles’’.

These shall consist of one baseline test

using the certification fuel prior to

conversion, one test after conversion

with the alternative fuel and one test

after conversion with the certification

fuel if the vehicle is intended to be dual

fuel. The two tests after conversion shall

not result in any exhaust emissions that

exceed 1.10 times any of the baseline

emission levels. In the case of pure CNG

operation, the after conversion NMHC

emissions shall not exceed 0.9 times the

THC emissions before conversion. For

heavy-duty vehicles operating on a

mixture of CNG and either diesel fuel or

gasoline, the conversion system

manufacturer should contact EPA’s

Mobile Source Enforcement Branch to

determine the appropriate ratio of

NMHC emissions after conversion to

THC emissions before conversion.

(4) With respect to light duty vehicles,

light duty trucks, or heavy-duty engines

meeting the requirements of paragraph

(2) above, the above demonstration may

be applied as a reasonable basis for up

to a maximum of three additional light

duty engine families to that tested,

provided:

A. The results from testing done in

accordance with the above procedures

demonstrate compliance with low

emission vehicle (LEV) or more

stringent emission standards under 40

CFR 88.104,

B. The additional engine families

have engine displacements equal to, or

within 0.8 liters (50 CID) less than, the

engine tested,

C. The additional engine families

comprise vehicles equal to or less than

the gross vehicle weight of the vehicles

covered by the engine family tested, and

D. The additional engine families are

equipped with the same catalytic

converter type (i.e. beaded vs monolith,

OC vs OC/RC) and the same primary

emission control technology (eg. EGR,

Air Injection, EFI vs carburetor, closed

loop vs open loop) as the engine family

tested.

(5) Option 3 of this policy is not

available for conversion of California

only engine families.

(6) An alternative fuel conversion

system that degrades a closed loop

feedback system to a continuous nonfeedback open loop system is not

allowed under this option.

(7) Compliance with this policy may

be demonstrated based on existing data

provided such data are the result of

testing in accordance with the

procedures and protocols specified

herein.

(8) Demonstration with the Cold CO

requirements under 40 CFR Part 86

Subpart C is not required under Option

3 of this policy.

(9) The Certification Short Test

requirements under 40 CFR Part 86,

Subpart O is not required under Option

3 of this policy.

(10) The evaporative emissions

requirements under 40 CFR 86.094–8(b)

and 86.094–9(b) are not required under

Option 3 of this policy.

c. The manufacturer of the conversion

system shall specify all part numbers/

calibrations associated with that

conversion system and provide all such

information, specifications and

installation requirements, including a

permanent conversion system label

which appropriately identifies the

conversion system with reasonable

specificity, with each system that is sold

or provided for installation.

d. In order to demonstrate that it has

a reasonable basis to believe that its

conversion system will not adversely

affect emissions over the useful life of

the vehicle or engine, the conversion

system manufacturer should retain

records including but not limited to all

emission test data, including test

results, description of vehicles and/or

engines modified, all maintenance and

modifications performed, laboratory

data sheets, identification of test
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55637

laboratory, test dates, test personnel and

test procedures followed, engine

families tested, data to support

additional engine family coverage, if

applicable, VIN’s, vehicle and engine

mileage and/or age as applicable, fuel

specifications, conversion system part

numbers and calibrations, durability

procedures followed including all

durability data and all calculations and

engineering analyses performed to

determine compliance with the above

requirements.

e. In order to meet the requirements

of this policy, any installation of a

conversion system designed and tested

in accordance with the above shall be

done in accordance with the applicable

part numbers/calibrations installed on

the vehicle or engine that was tested,

completed in accordance with

manufacturer’s specifications and/or

instructions and the conversion system

label affixed to the vehicle or engine.

The system shall only be installed on a

vehicle or engine of the same engine

family as that tested or as permitted

under paragraph 3.b.(4) above.

f. In support of an appropriate

installation, the installer should retain

records of each vehicle or engine

converted in accordance with the above,

including the VIN, make and year of

each vehicle or engine so modified, the

name of the installer, the date of

installation and a copy of the

manufacturer’s or marketer’s/

distributor’s representation that the

conversion system has been

demonstrated on that engine family to

meet the requirements of this policy.

g. In support of any marketer’s or

distributor’s compliance with the

requirements of this policy, such parties

should retain records of each conversion

system sold or distributed, copies of the

representation from the manufacturer

that the system meets this policy and

records of sales to others including the

name of the purchasers, part numbers,

dates of sales and the numbers of

systems sold.

h. Colorado has indicated that it will

revise its administrative procedures

under Colorado Regulation No. 14 to

require that conversion system

manufacturers conduct testing in

accordance with option 3 of this

Addendum in order to receive a

Colorado Letter of Certification.

Consequently, until December 31, 1998,

EPA will not consider as tampering the

sale and installation of a conversion

system in Colorado pursuant to a

Colorado Letter of Certification issued

after the above-referenced

administrative procedure revisions have

been made by Colorado, provided

testing in support of the Letter of

Certification is done in accordance with

option 3 of this Addendum and is

completed by March 31, 1998.

D. Conclusion. EPA believes that the

maximum degree of assurance that

vehicles or engines modified to operate

on alternative fuels will meet emissions

standards throughout their useful life

can only be achieved through full

certification demonstration in

accordance with 40 CFR Parts 86 or 88.

However, the cost and time associated

with such a demonstration may be

prohibitive for some conversion system

manufacturers in the short term and

may not provide sufficient equipment

for fleets currently subject to various

alternative fuel mandates to comply

with those mandates. In addition, EPA

will be attempting to implement various

procedures to streamline federal

certification for alternative fuel vehicles

and on-highway engines, but it is likely

that implementation of those procedures

will take some time. In the interim, the

procedures and requirements outlined

in option 3 above should allow

alternative fuel conversion systems to be

developed and evaluated more quickly

and at less cost, while providing a

reasonable assurance that emissions will

not be deteriorated. After December 31,

1998, manufacturers, marketers and

installers must utilize equipment which

meets the requirements of option 1 or

option 2 above to be covered by the nontampering policy of Memo 1A.

EPA will be reviewing Memo 1A more

thoroughly in the near future to

determine if additional changes are

required for other vehicle or engine

modifications, parts or systems. Any

questions regarding this interim policy

should be directed to the Mobile Source

Enforcement Branch at (202) 564–2255.

Bruce C. Buckheit,

Director, Air Enforcement Division, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 97–28368 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5914–1]

Regulatory Reinvention (XL) Pilot

Projects

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of signing of OSi Project

XL Final Project Agreement.

SUMMARY: EPA, the West Virginia

Department of Environmental

Protection, and OSi Specialties, Inc. (a

subsidiary of Witco Corporation) signed

a proposed Project XL Final Project

Agreement (FPA) for OSi in Sistersville,

West Virginia. The FPA is a voluntary

agreement developed collaboratively by

OSi, stakeholders, and state and federal

regulators. The availability of the draft

FPA and related documents was

announced in the Federal Register on

June 27, 1997 (FRL–5849–5). Project XL,

announced in the Federal Register on

May 23, 1995 (FRL–5197–9), gives

regulated sources the flexibility to

develop alternative strategies that will

replace or modify specific regulatory

requirements on the condition that they

produce greater environmental benefits.

EPA has set a goal of implementing a

total of fifty projects undertaken in full

partnership with the states.

Under the FPA, OSi will install an

incinerator and route the process vents

from its polyether methyl capper

production unit to that incinerator for

control of organic air emissions. OSi

estimates this will reduce the facility’s

organic air emissions by about 309,000

pounds per year for substantially lower

cost than compliance with regulations

to be deferred under the Project. In

addition, OSi will recover and reuse an

estimated 500,000 pounds per year of

methanol that would otherwise be

disposed of through the facility’s on-site

wastewater treatment system and would

divert about 50,000 pounds per year of

organic air emissions from the

wastewater treatment unit to the

incinerator. This will result in a

reduction in sludge generation from

OSi’s wastewater of 815,000 pounds per

year. Lastly, OSi will conduct a waste

minimization/pollution prevention

(WMPP) study which is expected to

result in additional reductions in waste

generated at the facility. As an incentive

for OSi to take these environmentally

beneficial actions, EPA has agreed to

propose for public comment and

promulgate (subject to review of public

comment) regulations deferring the

application, to the facility’s two

hazardous waste surface

impoundments, of subpart CC of 40 CFR

parts 264 and 265 which was

promulgated under the authority of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA subpart CC). Also, the West

Virginia Department of Environmental

Protection (WVDEP) has agreed to enter

into a consent order with OSi to defer

application of the state equivalent of

RCRA subpart CC to the surface

impoundments. Subsequently, WVDEP

has agreed to propose and promulgate

(subject to review of public comment

and legislative approval) regulations

incorporating EPA’s deferral of RCRA

subpart CC by reference. In addition,

EPA has agreed to propose and