29606 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 85 and 86 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0299; FRL–9149–9] 

RIN 2060–AP64 

Clean Alternative Fuel Vehicle and 

Engine Conversions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to simplify 

and streamline the process by which 

manufacturers of clean alternative fuel 

conversion systems may demonstrate 

compliance with vehicle and engine 

emissions requirements. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing to revise the 

regulatory criteria for gaining an 

exemption from the Clean Air Act 

prohibition against tampering for the 

conversion of vehicles and engines to 

operate on a clean alternative fuel. 

Under existing EPA regulations, an 

exemption from the tampering 

prohibition may only be granted to 

vehicles and engines covered by a 

certificate of conformity. The proposed 

revisions would create additional 

compliance options beyond certification 

that would protect manufacturers of 

clean alternative fuel conversion 

systems against a tampering violation, 

depending on the age of the vehicle or 

engine to be converted. The new options 

would alleviate some economic and 

procedural impediments to clean 

alternative fuel conversions while 

maintaining environmental safeguards 

to ensure that acceptable emission 

levels from converted vehicles are 

sustained. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 23, 2010. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) receives a copy of your 

comments on or before June 25, 2010. 

Public Hearing: EPA has tentatively 

scheduled a public hearing about this 

proposal for 9 a.m. June 23, 2010. EPA 

will hold the hearing only if any party 

notifies EPA by June 18, 2010 of interest 

in presenting oral testimony at the 

hearing. The hearing will start at 9 a.m. 

local time and continue until everyone 

has had a chance to speak. 

EPA will cancel the hearing if no one 

expresses interest by June 18, 2010. EPA 

will notify the public of a cancellation 

by publication in the Federal Register, 

via its alternative fuel conversion Web 

site, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

consumer/fuels/altfuels/altfuels.htm 

and via Enviroflash. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0299 by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 

2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0299. In addition, please mail a copy of 

your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 

17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Center, 

(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0299. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Public Hearing: The June 23, 2010 

hearing will be held at the EPA National 

Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 

2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan 48105. The hearing will start 

at 9 a.m. local time and continue until 

everyone has had a chance to speak. See 

the Supplementary Information for more 

information on the public hearing. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0299. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the following location: EPA Docket 

Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Bunker, Compliance and 

Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 

Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan 48105. Telephone: (734) 214– 

4160. E-mail Address: 

bunker.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Hearing 

Anyone wishing to present testimony 

about this proposal at the public hearing 

should notify the general contact person 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) 

no later than five days prior to the day 

of the hearing. The contact person 

should be given an estimate of the time 

required for the presentation of 

testimony and notification of any need 

for audio/visual equipment. Testimony 

will be scheduled on a first come, first 

serve basis. A sign-up sheet will be 

available at the registration table the 

morning of the hearing for scheduling 

those who have not notified the contact 

earlier. This testimony will be 

scheduled on a first come, first serve 

basis to follow the previously scheduled 

testimony. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29607 

1North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS). 

EPA requests that approximately 50 

copies of the statement or material to be 

presented be brought to the hearing for 

distribution to the audience. In 

addition, EPA would find it helpful to 

receive an advance copy of any 

statement or material to be presented at 

the hearing at least one week before the 

scheduled hearing date. This is to give 

EPA staff adequate time to review such 

material before the hearing. Such 

advance copies should be submitted to 

the contact person listed. 

The official record of the hearing will 

be kept open for 30 days following the 

hearing to allow submission of rebuttal 

and supplementary testimony. All such 

submissions should be directed to 

Docket No EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0299 

(see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be 

conducted informally, and technical 

rules of evidence will not apply. A 

written transcript of the hearing will be 

placed in the above docket. Anyone 

desiring to purchase a copy of the 

transcript should make individual 

arrangements with the court reporter 

recording the proceedings. 

Affected Entities 

This action will affect companies and 

persons that manufacture, sell, or install 

alternative fuel conversions for lightduty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

medium-duty passenger vehicles, and 

heavy-duty vehicles and engines. Such 

entities are categorized as follows: 

NAICS Codes 1 Examples of potentially regulated entities 

335312 ................................................................ Motor and Generator Manufacturing. 

336312 ................................................................ Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing. 

336322 ................................................................ Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing. 

336399 ................................................................ All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing. 

811198 ................................................................ All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance. 

This list is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide 

regarding entities likely to be affected by 

this action. To determine whether 

particular activities may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the regulations. You may direct 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to the contact as noted above 

in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Authority 

A. Vehicle and Engine Standards and 

Certification 

B. Useful Life 

C. ‘‘Tampering’’ Prohibition 

D. Exemption for Conversions 

E. Authority for Proposed Clean 

Alternative Fuel Conversions Program 

III. Program Design Elements Applicable to 

All Clean Alternative Fuel Conversions 

A. Clean Alternative Fuel Conversions 

B. Good Engineering Judgment 

C. Vehicle/Engine Groupings and Emission 

Data Vehicle/Engine Selection 

D. Flex-Fuel (Bi-Fuel) and Dual Fuel 

Conversions 

E. Vehicle and Packaging Labels 

F. Marketing 

G. Compliance 

1. Emission Standards 

a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicle Gross Vehicle Weight Classes 

and Alternative Fuel Exceptions 

b. Heavy-Duty Engine Types and Gross 

Vehicle Weight Classes 

c. Dual-Fuel Standards 

2. Useful Life 

3. On Board Diagnostics 

4. Durability Testing 

5. Warranty 

6. Other Provisions Applicable to 

Conversion Manufacturers 

7. Misapplication 

H. Regulatory Procedures for Small 

Volume Manufacturers and Small 

Volume Test Groups 

1. Definition of Small Volume 

Manufacturers, Small Volume Test 

Groups, and Small Volume Engine 

Families 

a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicles 

b. Heavy-Duty Engines 

2. Assigned Deterioration Factors 

3. Changes in Small Volume Manufacturer 

Status 

IV. Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion 

Program Details 

A. New Vehicle and Engine Clean 

Alternative Fuel Conversion Certification 

Program 

1. Applicability 

a. New Vehicles and Engines 

b. Older Vehicles and Engines 

2. Test Groups, Engine Families, and 

Evaporative Families 

a. Test Groups for Light-Duty and HeavyDuty Complete Vehicles 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

b. Engine Families for Heavy-Duty Engines 

and Vehicles 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

c. Evaporative/Refueling Families 

3. Certification Demonstration 

Requirements 

a. Exhaust Emissions 

i. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicles 

ii. Heavy-Duty Engines 

b. Evaporative/Refueling Emissions 

c. Durability Demonstration and Assigned 

Deterioration Factors 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

d. On-Board Diagnostics 

4. Certification Notification Process 

a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicles 

b. Heavy-Duty Engines 

c. Re-Certification 

5. In-Use Compliance 

B. Intermediate Age Vehicle and Engine 

Compliance Program 

1. Applicability 

a. Intermediate Age Vehicles and Engines 

b. Older Vehicles and Engines 

2. Test Groups, Engine Families, and 

Evaporative Families 

a. Test Groups for Light-Duty and HeavyDuty Complete Vehicles 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

iii. Dual-Fuel Vehicle Carry Across 

b. Engine Families for Heavy-Duty Engines 

and Vehicles 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

iii Dual Fuel Engine Carry Across 

c. Evaporative/Refueling Families 

3. Demonstration Requirements 

a. Exhaust Emissions 

i. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicles 

ii. Heavy-Duty Engines 

b. Evaporative/Refueling Emissions 

c. Durability Demonstration and Assigned 

Deterioration Factors 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

d. On-Board Diagnostics 

4. Notification Process 

a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicles and Heavy-Duty Engines 

b. Vehicles and Engines That Were 

Previously Certified Under the Clean 

Alternative Fuel Conversion Certification 

Program 

5. In-Use Compliance 

C. Outside Useful Life Clean Alternative 

Fuel Conversion Compliance Program 

1. Applicability 

a. Outside Useful Life Subcategory Option 

2. Test Groups, Engine Families, and 

Evaporative/Refueling Families 

3. Demonstration Requirements 

a. Option 1 

b. Option 2 

c. Option 3 

4. Notification Process 

D. Alternate Registration Approach for 

Newer Outside Useful Life Vehicles and 

Engines 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29608 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2 See CAA sections 202, 203, and 206. 

3CAA section 203. 

4See Section IV.A and proposed §§ 85.505 and 

85.510. Proposed §§ 85.505(b)(1) and 85.510 apply 

1. NOUL Vehicles and Engines 

Subcategory 

a. Applicability 

b. Demonstration Requirements 

V. Technical Amendments 

A. Exhaust Emission Technical 

Amendments 

B. Evaporative Emission Technical 

Amendments 

VI. Environmental Benefits 

VII. Associated Costs for Light-Duty and 

Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles 

VIII. Associated Costs for Heavy-Duty 

Engines 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

Amended by The Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority 

I. Introduction 

With the vast majority of vehicles in 

the United States designed to operate on 

gasoline or diesel fuel, there has been a 

longstanding and growing interest by 

the public in aftermarket fuel 

conversion systems. These systems 

allow gasoline or diesel vehicles to 

operate on alternative fuels such as 

natural gas, propane, alcohol, or 

electricity. Use of clean alternative fuels 

opens new fuel supply choices and can 

help consumers address concerns about 

fuel costs, energy security, and 

emissions. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible 

for ensuring that all vehicles and 

engines sold in the United States, 

including aftermarket conversions, meet 

emission standards. Today EPA is 

proposing to simplify and streamline 

the process by which manufacturers of 

clean alternative fuel conversion 

systems may demonstrate compliance 

with these vehicle and engine emissions 

requirements. The new options would 

reduce some economic and procedural 

impediments to clean alternative fuel 

conversions while maintaining 

environmental safeguards to ensure that 

acceptable emission levels from 

converted vehicles are sustained. 

The conversion of vehicles or engines 

to operate on fuels other than those for 

which they were originally designed 

may yield certain benefits, but it also 

presents several legal and 

environmental concerns. These 

concerns stem from Clean Air Act (CAA, 

the Act) provisions intended to ensure 

that vehicles and engines remain clean 

throughout their useful life. To this end, 

the Act requires EPA to establish motor 

vehicle emission standards that apply 

throughout useful life, and to verify 

through issuance of a certificate of 

conformity that any vehicle or engine 

entered into commerce complies with 

the established emission standards.2

Once certified, the vehicle or engine 

generally may not be altered from its 

certified configuration.3 The CAA 

prohibition against alteration or 

‘‘tampering’’ is important because 

emission standards apply well beyond a 

vehicle’s or engine’s initial entry into 

commerce. It is extremely difficult to 

reconfigure integrated and sophisticated 

modern automotive systems, precisely 

designed to achieve low pollution levels 

over time, without negatively affecting 

their durability or emissions 

performance. 

EPA has long recognized vehicle 

alteration for the purpose of clean 

alternative fuel conversion as a special 

case because while improperly designed 

or installed conversions can increase 

emissions, properly engineered 

conversions can reduce, or at least not 

increase, emissions. Furthermore use of 

alternative fuels can contribute to 

achieving other goals such as 

diversifying the fuel supply through use 

of domestic energy sources. Therefore, 

EPA has established policies through 

which conversion manufacturers can 

demonstrate that the conversion does 

not compromise emissions compliance. 

It has proven challenging however to 

design an appropriate demonstration 

that ensures long-term compliance 

while not imposing overly burdensome 

testing and administrative requirements, 

especially for the small businesses that 

largely comprise the conversion 

industry. 

The existing compliance 

demonstration required of conversion 

manufacturers for a regulatory 

exemption from tampering involves 

obtaining a certificate of conformity. 

This means that converters must follow 

essentially the same rigorous 

certification process that EPA requires 

of original equipment manufacturers 

(OEMs). The certification requirements 

currently in place for all converters give 

EPA sufficient oversight from an 

emissions perspective but 

implementation can be problematic in 

certain conversion situations. The 

current regulations were finalized on 

September 21, 1994 (59 FR 48472) and 

are located in 40 CFR part 85, subpart 

F (‘‘the subpart F regulations’’). In the 15 

years since these regulations were 

promulgated, experience has shown that 

the OEM-like certification program for 

aftermarket conversions is not an 

optimal mechanism for ensuring 

compliance with applicable emission 

standards, particularly for older vehicles 

and engines. EPA has encountered 

several practical difficulties when using 

pre-production certification test 

procedures on older vehicles and 

engines. Similarly, certain aspects of the 

certification procedure are not well 

suited to aftermarket manufacturers. 

Some small conversion manufacturers, 

furthermore, have expressed concerns 

that the complexity of the certification 

process presents a barrier to entry into 

the alternative fuel conversions market. 

For all these reasons, EPA believes it 

is reasonable to modify the current 

certification requirement for clean 

alternative fuel converters seeking 

exemption from the tampering 

prohibition. The new program would 

expand compliance options to include 

less burdensome demonstration 

requirements that would nonetheless 

sustain EPA’s oversight and 

longstanding commitment to the 

environmental integrity of clean 

alternative fuel conversions. 

Today, EPA is proposing a new 

approach that streamlines the regulatory 

process and introduces new flexibilities 

for conversion manufacturers, while 

ensuring that converted vehicles and 

engines retain acceptable levels of 

emission control. The revised program 

would also address the uncertainty 

some converters may experience in 

determining whether a conversion 

constitutes tampering that could result 

in liability. EPA proposes to amend the 

regulatory procedures in 40 CFR part 85, 

subpart F and part 86 to remain 

consistent with the CAA yet reflect the 

concept that it is appropriate to treat 

conversion requirements differently 

based on vehicle or engine age. The new 

program would facilitate ageappropriate testing and compliance 

procedures by placing alternative fuel 

conversions into one of three categories: 

(1) Conversions of vehicles or engines 

that are ‘‘new and relatively-new’’ 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘new’’ solely for 

the purpose of this preamble),4 (2) 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29609 

to ‘‘new and relatively-new’’ vehicles or engines, 

i.e., where the date of conversion is in a calendar 

year that is not more than one year after the original 

model year of the vehicle or engine. In this 

preamble, we refer to these ‘‘new and relativelynew’’ vehicles and engines as ‘‘new’’ only as a 

shorthand reference to the proposed category of 

‘‘new and relatively-new’’ engines or vehicles. This 

shorthand use of ‘‘new’’ is not intended to mean that 

these engines or vehicles are ‘‘new’’ under the Act 

or any EPA regulations. 

5CAA section 203(a)(1). 

6CAA sections 202 and 206. 

7 40 CFR 86.1848–01. 

8CAA section 202. 

9Regulations may also include optional standards 

such as in 40 CFR 86.1805–04(b) and (e). 

10 40 CFR 86.1805–04. 

11 40 CFR 86.1805–04. 

12 40 CFR 86.004–2. 

13 40 CFR 86.004–2. 

14Any alteration of a motor vehicle or engine, its 

fueling system, or the integration of these systems, 

which may be classified as ‘‘tampering’’ under 

section 203(a) and which does not satisfy the 

proposed exemptions would be a violation of the 

CAA for which section 205 authorizes EPA to assess 

penalties, currently set at up to $37,500 per vehicle 

or engine. See 40 CFR part 19. 

15CAA section 203(a). 

conversions of vehicles or engines that 

are no longer new (i.e., no longer ‘‘new 

and relatively-new’’) but that still fall 

within EPA’s definition of full useful 

life, ‘‘intermediate age vehicles’’, and (3) 

conversions of vehicles or engines that 

are outside EPA’s definition of useful 

life. 

EPA is also requesting comment on 

whether to establish a subcategory for 

vehicles and engines that exceed the 

useful life threshold in mileage before 

they reach the threshold in years, with 

its own demonstration requirement. 

Under our proposal, for the first 

category, conversions of new vehicles 

and engines, EPA believes that a 

requirement for a certificate of 

conformity remains appropriate because 

those vehicles and engines were entered 

into commerce as the subject of a 

recently issued OEM certificate of 

conformity. Such vehicles would 

typically have the majority of their 

useful life remaining and the condition 

of a relatively new vehicle or engine is 

still likely to be representative of an 

OEM vehicle or engine used in 

certification testing. Furthermore, a 

certification requirement for new 

vehicle and engine conversion would 

eliminate any perceived incentive that 

might otherwise exist for OEMs to 

circumvent certifying originalconfiguration alternative fuel vehicles/ 

engines, by instead converting alreadycertified traditional fuel configurations 

to operate on an alternative fuel. Thus, 

EPA proposes to largely retain the 

current certification requirements for 

manufacturers of conversion systems for 

new vehicles and engines, while 

providing some new flexibility in 

grouping such vehicles for certification 

purposes. For the second category, 

intermediate age vehicles and engines, 

we are proposing that manufacturers of 

conversion systems demonstrate 

through testing that the converted 

vehicle or engine still meets applicable 

emission standards promulgated under 

the authority of the CAA section 202. 

For the third category, vehicles and 

engines outside their full useful life, 

there is no longer an applicable 

standard to serve as a benchmark. Since 

it is not possible to assess compliance 

by comparing emissions to a standard, 

EPA is seeking comment on three 

options through which manufacturers of 

conversion systems for older vehicles 

and engines could demonstrate that the 

conversion is technically viable and will 

not increase emissions. The options are 

described in detail in Section IV.C. 

EPA is also offering an alternate 

approach for comment that would create 

two subcategories of outside useful life 

vehicles. The alternate approach is 

described in detail in Section IV.D. 

The primary purpose of the new 

program EPA is proposing today is to 

facilitate the compliance process for 

clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers. Consistent with this 

intent, EPA would require any 

conversion to be technically sound, 

regardless of the vehicle or engine age 

category, and would continue to hold 

the conversion manufacturer 

accountable for acceptable emissions 

performance once the converted vehicle 

or engine is in customer service. EPA 

would employ compliance tools as 

appropriate, such as confirmatory 

testing and in-use vehicle emissions 

monitoring to check fleet performance, 

as it does with OEM vehicles. 

II. Authority 

A. Vehicle and Engine Standards and 

Certification 

The CAA grants EPA authority to 

establish, administer, and enforce 

emission standards for motor vehicles 

and engines. The CAA states that a new 

vehicle or engine may not be introduced 

into commerce unless it has been issued 

a certificate of conformity (‘‘certificate’’) 

by EPA.5 A certificate is issued when a 

manufacturer has demonstrated to EPA 

through a regulatory testing and data 

submission process that the vehicle or 

engine will conform for its useful life to 

the standards promulgated by EPA.6

Each certificate is valid for up to one 

model year.7

B. Useful Life 

The CAA directs EPA to promulgate 

emission standards that are applicable 

for a vehicle or engine’s ‘‘useful life,’’ 

and to establish the useful life period 

through regulation.8 The full useful life 

varies among pollutant standards and 

among vehicle or engine categories.9 For 

example, recent model year light-duty 

vehicles (cars and small trucks) have a 

useful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles, 

whichever comes first.10 Recent model 

year heavy-duty complete vehicles and 

medium-duty passenger vehicles have a 

useful life of 11 years or 120,000 miles, 

whichever comes first.11 For current 

Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines, the 

useful life is 110,000 miles or 10 years, 

whichever first occurs.12 For current 

diesel heavy-duty engines (also referred 

to as ‘‘compression-ignition’’ or ‘‘diesel 

cycle’’), there are different useful life 

definitions based on gross vehicle 

weight, pollutant being controlled, and 

test procedure, ranging from 10 years or 

110,000 miles, whichever first occurs, to 

10 years or 435,000 miles or 22,000 

hours of engine operation, whichever 

first occurs.13

C. ‘‘Tampering’’ Prohibition 

Under CAA section 203(a)(3), it is 

prohibited: 

(A) For any person to remove or render 

inoperative any device or element of design 

installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle engine in compliance with 

regulations under this subchapter prior to its 

sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser, 

or for any person knowingly to remove or 

render inoperative any such device or 

element of design after such sale and delivery 

to the ultimate purchaser; or 

(B) For any person to manufacture or sell, 

or offer to sell, or install, any part or 

component intended for use with, or as part 

of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

engine, where a principal effect of the part 

or component is to bypass, defeat, or render 

inoperative any device or element of design 

installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor 

vehicle engine in compliance with 

regulations under this subchapter, and where 

the person knows or should know that such 

part or component is being offered for sale or 

installed for such use or put to such use. 

The CAA prohibition against 

tampering applies to vehicles regardless 

of age or mileage accumulation.14

D. Exemption for Conversions 

The CAA provides for several 

statutory exemptions to the prohibition 

on tampering. One of these exemptions 

is for actions which are ‘‘for the purpose 

of a conversion of a motor vehicle for 

use of a clean alternative fuel (as 

defined in this subchapter) and if such 

vehicle complies with the applicable 

standard under section 202 when 

operating on such fuel.’’ 15


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29610 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

16 59 FR 48478 (Sep. 21, 1994). 

17Note that other Federal agencies may define the 

terms dual-fuel and bi-fuel differently than EPA 

definitions. 18See 40 CFR 86.1840–01. 

E. Authority for Proposed Clean 

Alternative Fuel Conversions Program 

The regulatory issue posed by vehicle 

and engine clean alternative fuel 

conversions is how to design a program 

that allows manufacturers to 

demonstrate that their conversion 

system warrants an exemption from the 

prohibition against tampering. The 1994 

rulemaking that created the subpart F 

regulations stated, ‘‘It has always been 

the Agency’s policy that an aftermarket 

conversion not degrade the emissions 

performance of the original vehicle as a 

condition of being exempt from 

prosecution for tampering violations.’’ 16

Today’s proposal is based on EPA’s 

interpretation that section 203(a) 

provides a tampering exemption for 

clean alternative fuel conversions. The 

section 203(a) exemption from 

tampering applies when the otherwise 

prohibited act is for ‘‘the purpose of a 

conversion of a motor vehicle for use of 

a clean alternative fuel (as defined in 

this subchapter) and if such vehicle 

complies with the applicable standard 

under section 202 when operating on 

such fuel.’’ Thus, the threshold 

qualification for the exemption is the 

proper purpose (i.e. ‘‘conversion * * * 

for use of a clean alternative fuel’’). The 

second criterion for the exemption is 

compliance with the applicable 

standard. 

EPA is proposing a program that 

requires a demonstration to satisfy both 

of these criteria for vehicles and engines 

that are still within their useful life. For 

vehicles and engines that are outside 

their useful life, even though a standard 

under CAA Section 202 is no longer 

applicable, EPA believes it is important 

to provide a legal path under which 

outside useful life vehicles and engines 

can be converted to use alternative 

fuels. Only clean alternative fuel 

conversion systems that comply with 

the proposed regulations would qualify 

for the CAA section 203(a) exemption 

from the tampering prohibition for 

application to outside useful life 

vehicles and engines. Thus, EPA is 

proposing a program that requires the 

conversion manufacturer to demonstrate 

that the threshold criterion is met (i.e. 

‘‘conversion * * * for use of a clean 

alternative fuel’’). To meet the threshold 

criterion, the conversion manufacturer 

would be required to demonstrate that 

emissions have not degraded as a result 

of the clean alternative fuel conversion. 

Such a demonstration would serve to 

maintain air quality, consistent with the 

congressional intent in creating the 

exemption. 

III. Program Design Elements 

Applicable to All Clean Alternative 

Fuel Conversions 

The clean alternative fuel conversion 

program EPA is proposing is designed to 

increase flexibility for conversion 

manufacturers while ensuring that 

converted vehicles retain acceptable 

emission levels. Certain aspects of the 

program design depend on the age of the 

vehicle or engine being converted, while 

other program elements are common to 

all conversions. This section describes 

those program elements which are 

applicable to all clean alternative fuel 

conversions, regardless of vehicle or 

engine age. 

In general there are three types of 

typical alternative fuel conversions: 

(1) Those that result in dedicated 

alternative fueled vehicles or engines; 

(2) those that result in dual-fueled 

vehicles or engines; and (3) those that 

result in flex-fueled (also known as bifueled) vehicles or engines.17 The first 

type, dedicated alternative fueled 

vehicles or engines, are only capable of 

operating on one type of fuel. Dualfueled vehicles or engines, the second 

type, can operate on two types of fuel, 

either the fuel they were originally 

designed for or on a new alternative 

fuel. The third type, flex-fueled or bifueled vehicles or engines, are able to 

operate on either the original fuel or the 

alternative fuel, or on a mix of the two 

fuels. For example, an ethanol flexfueled vehicle operates on 100% 

gasoline or on any combination of 

gasoline and ethanol, up to an 85% 

mixture of ethanol (known as ‘‘E85’’). 

EPA currently regulates all types of 

alternative fuel conversions pursuant to 

the regulations specified in 40 CFR part 

85, subpart F and certification 

provisions in 40 CFR part 86 and part 

1065. EPA would continue to regulate 

the typical types of conversions under 

today’s proposal, along with newer or 

innovative types of fuel conversions that 

do not fit neatly into one of the general 

categories listed above. These include 

conversions of conventional gasoline or 

diesel vehicles to hybrid-electric 

vehicles, and conversions from hybridelectric vehicles to plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles. Since alternative fuel 

conversion activity often acts as a 

laboratory for new fuels and new 

technology, it is not possible to present 

an exhaustive list of covered categories 

or special cases. Each special case may 

require unique test procedures that are 

appropriate to new and developing 

technologies.18

A. Clean Alternative Fuel Conversions 

Under today’s proposal, only clean 

alternative fuel conversions that are 

designed in accordance with EPA 

requirements, and for which the 

manufacturer has complied with the 

proposed regulations would qualify for 

the CAA section 203(a) exemption from 

the tampering prohibition. EPA 

proposes clean alternative fuel 

conversion (also referred to as ‘‘fuel 

conversion’’ or ‘‘conversion system’’) to 

be any alteration of a motor vehicle or 

engine, its fueling system, or the 

integration of these systems, that allows 

the vehicle or engine to operate on a 

fuel or power source different from the 

fuel or power source for which the 

vehicle or engine was originally 

certified; and that is designed, 

constructed, and applied consistent 

with good engineering judgment and in 

accordance with all applicable 

regulations. A clean alternative fuel 

conversion also includes the 

components, design and instructions to 

perform this alteration. A clean 

alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturer (also referred to as 

‘‘conversion manufacturer’’ or 

‘‘converter’’) is a company or individual 

that manufactures, assembles, sells, 

imports, or installs a motor vehicle or 

engine fuel conversion for the purpose 

of use of a clean alternative fuel. To 

demonstrate clean alternative fuel 

conversion compliance, conversion 

manufacturers would be required to 

submit data and/or other information to 

EPA. For purposes of this proposal we 

will refer to the appropriate submission 

as a ‘‘demonstration’’ and to the process 

of submitting the demonstration as 

‘‘notification.’’ The specifics of the 

demonstration would depend on the age 

of vehicles or engines being converted, 

but the general demonstration and 

notification requirements would apply 

to all conversion systems. Section IV 

contains a detailed description of the 

age-specific demonstration and 

notification requirements. EPA will 

maintain lists of conversion systems 

that have satisfied the age-appropriate 

demonstration requirements through the 

EPA notification process and will make 

this information publicly available. 

Any requirement in the existing 

subpart F regulations, testing or 

otherwise that is not specifically 

addressed in this proposal would 

remain in place. EPA seeks comment 

about whether there are aspects of 40 

CFR part 86 or part 1065 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29611 

19Certain fuels such as diesel fuel do not have 

heavy-duty evaporative emissions standards. 

20See, e.g., 40 CFR 86.1810–01, 40 CFR 86.1811– 

04, 40 CFR 86.1812–01, 40 CFR 86.1813–01, 40 CFR 

86.1814–01, 40 CFR 86.1814–02, 40 CFR 86.1815– 

01, 40 CFR 86.1815–02, 40 CFR 86.1816–05, 40 CFR 

86.1816–08. 

implementation that have direct 

implications for clean alternative fuel 

conversions and that should be updated 

to reflect the proposed changes in 

requirements for clean alternative fuels 

conversion. 

B. Good Engineering Judgment 

A clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturer would be eligible for the 

exemption from the CAA tampering 

prohibition only if the conversion 

system is designed, constructed, and 

applied using good engineering 

judgment. EPA understands that in the 

context of exempting clean alternative 

fuel conversions from the CAA 

tampering prohibition, certain aspects of 

good engineering judgment may vary as 

a function of clean alternative fuel type, 

OEM technology, and other factors. In 

general, good engineering judgment 

would mean that the conversion 

manufacturer has provided sufficient 

technical documentation for EPA to 

ascertain that the converted vehicle or 

engine will continue to satisfy 

emissions requirements, such as 

meeting standards within useful life or 

maintaining emissions performance 

after conversion. Such documentation 

would need to be submitted to EPA in 

writing before any conversion kit is 

distributed or installed. EPA would 

evaluate several factors in assessing 

whether a conversion system represents 

good engineering judgment. These 

factors may include the following: 

whether the system employs technology 

that is at least equivalent and equally 

effective in design, materials and overall 

sophistication to that of the OEM 

system; uses components that are sized 

to match the engine power 

requirements; uses instantaneous 

feedback control; and maintains proper 

On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) system 

function. Documentation provided to 

support a claim of good engineering 

judgment may include emissions test 

data or other engineering analysis to 

demonstrate that the conversion 

technology will sustain acceptable 

emissions performance in the intended 

vehicles or engines. Good engineering 

judgment also dictates that any testing 

or data used to satisfy demonstration 

requirements must be generated at a 

quality laboratory that is capable of 

performing emission tests that comply 

with EPA regulations and that exercise 

good laboratory practices. 

C. Vehicle/Engine Groupings and 

Emission Data Vehicle Selection 

The unit of vehicle certification and 

compliance under the CAA and under 

EPA’s implementing regulations is a 

group of vehicles that share similar 

technologies, design features, and 

emission control characteristics. Thus 

each OEM certificate of conformity can 

and usually does cover several vehicle 

models that have in common a unique 

combination of exhaust emissions, 

evaporative emissions, and on-board 

diagnostic (OBD) system features. The 

common exhaust emission system 

characteristics are represented by a 

grouping called a ‘‘test group.’’ The 

common evaporative emission system 

characteristics are represented by an 

‘‘evaporative/refueling family.’’ The OBD 

system features are represented by an 

‘‘OBD group.’’ Light-duty vehicles and 

Otto-cycle complete heavy-duty 

vehicles receive a single certificate 

covering a unique combination of test 

group, evaporative/refueling family, and 

OBD group. 

The unit of certification is slightly 

different for heavy-duty engines. Instead 

of receiving a single certificate that 

covers both exhaust and evaporative 

emission control characteristics, heavyduty engines are issued separate 

certificates by ‘‘engine family’’ for 

engines having common exhaust 

characteristics, and by evaporative/ 

refueling families, if applicable.19 Even 

though heavy-duty engine certificates 

are based on a different unit, the 

concept behind allowable groupings 

remains consistent between light-duty 

vehicle and heavy-duty engine 

certification and compliance. Groupings 

share similar technologies, design 

features, and emission control 

characteristics. In this proposal, EPA is 

proposing to expand the grouping 

flexibility for conversion manufacturers 

by permitting somewhat broader 

grouping criteria for both light-duty 

vehicles and heavy-duty engines than 

those available for OEM certification. 

The general concept behind groupings 

for the conversion program would apply 

to all vehicle and engine age categories, 

although the specific criteria for 

designating conversion groups would 

vary somewhat among the new, 

intermediate age, and outside useful life 

programs (see Section IV). Conversion 

manufacturers would use the applicable 

criteria to designate a conversion group, 

and would select a ‘‘worst case’’ 

emissions data vehicle (EDV) or 

emission data engine (EDE) to represent 

the group for demonstration and 

notification purposes. Consistent with 

current requirements, the conversion 

EDV/EDE would be expected to 

represent the most challenging 

emissions compliance technology of all 

the models it represents. Use of a worstcase emission data vehicle or engine 

gives EPA confidence that all models 

covered by a certificate in the case of 

OEM certification, or by EPA’s 

acceptance of the conversion group 

demonstration in the case of conversion, 

comply with all applicable emission 

requirements. These may include 

exhaust emission standards, evaporative 

emission standards, OBD compliance 

requirements, and other criteria. 

Therefore conversion manufacturers 

may need to submit data from more than 

one EDV or EDE to represent the worst 

case condition for each of the applicable 

requirements. 

D. Flex-Fuel (Bi-Fuel) and Dual-Fuel 

Conversions 

EPA regulations require flex-fueled 

and dual-fueled vehicles and engines to 

comply with all requirements 

established for each fuel or blend of 

fuels on which the system is capable of 

operating.20 These requirements would 

continue to apply to flex- and dual-fuel 

conversions. Certain demonstration 

requirements could potentially be 

waived for clean alternative fuel 

conversions if the conversion 

manufacturer has not altered the OEM 

configuration of the vehicle or engine 

when operating on its original fuel. 

However, if the conversion of the 

vehicle or engine to dual-fuel or flexfuel operation alters the OEM certified 

configuration in any way while 

operating on the original fuel, then EPA 

would require the conversion 

manufacturer to demonstrate 

compliance for each fuel with all 

applicable exhaust emissions, 

evaporative/refueling emissions, and 

OBD demonstration and notification 

requirements, appropriate for the age of 

the vehicle as described in Section IV. 

EPA proposes to continue to allow a 

statement of compliance in lieu of test 

data for operation on the original fuel if 

the conversion manufacturer can attest 

that the conversion retains all the OEM 

fuel system, engine calibration, and 

emission control system functionality 

when operating on the fuel with which 

the vehicle was originally certified and 

the conversion retains all the 

functionality of the OEM OBD system (if 

so equipped) when operating on the fuel 

with which the vehicle was originally 

certified. The conversion manufacturer 

would still be required to submit data 

demonstrating compliance with the 

applicable requirements when the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29612 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

21Compliance testing and data submission 

requirements will vary by vehicle age and mileage. 

See Section IV. 

22Compliance testing and data submission 

requirements will vary by vehicle age and mileage. 

See Section IV. 

23 If any marketing material implies or states that 

the installation of the conversion system is legal or 

appropriate for vehicles/engines not listed in the 

documentation provided to EPA, EPA would deem 

the marketing material to be evidence that the 

marketer caused a customer to install an 

inappropriate conversion system and thus tampered 

with the vehicle. 24 40 CFR 85.503 and 85.504 and 59 FR 48478. 25 59 FR 48488. 26 In almost all cases the standards in place for 

an OEM vehicle or engine will continue to apply 

to the converted vehicle or engine. The only 

exceptions involve fuel specific standards (or 

exemptions from standards) that were not 

applicable to the OEM configuration but are 

applicable to the converted configuration, or vice 

versa. In those cases the converted vehicle/engine 

will be held to the fuel-specific standard that would 

have been in place for an OEM vehicle/engine 

certified to operate on that fuel. For example, 

diesel-fueled vehicles are currently exempt from 

evaporative emission standards but vehicles fueled 

with most other fuels are not. If a diesel fuel vehicle 

is converted to run on an alternative fuel, the 

converted vehicle would be held to the evaporative 

emission standards that would have applied to an 

OEM vehicle certified operating on that fuel. 

vehicle is operating on the new 

alternative fuel.21

Because a flex-fuel vehicle or engine 

operates on a fuel mixture, with the 

fuels combusted together at a variety of 

fuel ratios, EPA would generally require 

a flex fuel vehicle or engine conversion 

manufacturer to demonstrate 

compliance with applicable 

requirements for each fuel. The 

conversion manufacturer may need to 

conduct testing on multiple fuel ratios 

to adequately represent worst case 

emission scenarios.22 Conversion 

manufacturers should work with EPA to 

make good engineering judgment 

decisions about the worst case emission 

data vehicle or engine requirements for 

flex-fuel vehicles and engines. 

EPA has specific concerns about 

canister purge in dual-fuel conversions 

because of potential for uncontrolled 

evaporative emissions when the 

converted vehicle or engine is operating 

on the new alternative fuel. Although 

much of the OEM functionality is likely 

to remain fully operational on the 

original fuel after conversion to dualfuel, OEM canister purge may have been 

designed to depend on the frequency 

and duration of engine operation on the 

original fuel. Therefore, for dual-fuel 

conversions, EPA proposes to require 

the conversion manufacturer either to 

test canister purge and submit data, or 

to provide a separate attestation for 

evaporative emission canister purge. For 

vehicles and engines converted to dualfuel operation, the attestation would 

include statements that the evaporative 

emissions canister purge continues to 

operate as originally designed while 

operating on each fuel. EPA would 

expect the clean alternative fuel 

conversion manufacturer to supply a 

description of the canister purge 

operation while the vehicle or engine is 

operating on the alternative fuel. EPA 

would expect that the canister purge 

while operating on the alternative fuel 

is identical to the OEM canister purge 

operation. 

E. Vehicle and Packaging Labels 

Vehicle and engine labeling 

requirements for clean alternative fuel 

conversions are currently set forth in 40 

CFR 85.505. These regulations list the 

information that must be included on 

the label and require the label to be 

permanently affixed adjacent to the 

OEM vehicle emissions control 

information (VECI) label. EPA proposes 

to maintain these labeling requirements 

for clean alternative fuel converted 

vehicles and engines. We also propose 

to require some additional content on 

the vehicle conversion label. The newly 

required content would include the 

conversion manufacturer’s evaporative/ 

refueling family and test group or 

engine family and a statement 

specifying the minimum age and/or 

mileage requirements, OEM model year 

of vehicles, and the specific OEM test 

groups or engine families to which the 

conversion system is applicable. 

Conversion manufacturers would be 

required to submit the vehicle label 

information to EPA as part of the 

notification process. Failure to supply 

or install compliant labels would leave 

conversion manufacturers and installers 

subject to prosecution for tampering. 

It has been suggested that conversion 

manufacturers be required to submit to 

EPA Vehicle Identification Numbers 

(VIN) information for all converted 

vehicles, in addition to vehicle label 

information. The reason for VIN 

tracking would be to assist automotive 

dealers or repair facilities, State 

Inspection and Maintenance program 

personnel, and others who might need 

to know whether a vehicle or engine has 

been altered from its OEM 

configuration. EPA requests comment as 

to whether converters should submit 

VIN tracking information to EPA and 

whether EPA should make such 

information publicly available. 

EPA proposes that any packaging 

label information must be consistent 

with the conversion manufacturer’s 

demonstration and notification to EPA. 

This would include the minimum 

vehicle or engine age requirements and 

OEM manufacturer, model year, carline 

(model) and vehicle test groups or 

engine families to which the clean 

alternative fuel conversion may be 

applied. 

EPA seeks comment on whether the 

proposed information content of the 

vehicle and packaging labels is 

appropriate for vehicles and engines 

that have been converted to operate on 

a clean alternative fuel. 

F. Marketing 

EPA would continue to expect that 

any marketing material associated with 

any aftermarket fuel conversion product 

would be consistent with and not 

contravene the information required on 

the vehicle or packaging labels. For 

instance, the marketing of the 

applicability of the product must be 

consistent with the label information to 

ensure the product would not be 

misapplied to other vehicles or 

engines.23

G. Compliance 

Clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers would continue to be 

subject to all certification requirements 

and warranty, defect, and recall 

requirements applicable to new vehicle 

and engine manufacturers in 40 CFR 

parts 85 and 86.24

EPA plans to audit conversion 

manufacturers and enforce against 

violations. 

1. Emission Standards 

EPA has previously determined that it 

is appropriate to require vehicle and 

engine fuel conversions to meet the 

same emission standard as required for 

the originally certified OEM vehicle or 

engine.25 OEM standards would 

continue to apply for the required test 

cycles, including intermediate useful 

life standards and full useful life 

standards where applicable.26 If a 

converter designates a conversion group 

that combines multiple OEM test 

groups/engine families, the most 

stringent OEM standards represented 

within that group would become the 

applicable standards for the conversion 

group. For example, if a converter 

establishes a conversion test group that 

includes OEM test groups originally 

certified to Tier 2, Bin 4 and Bin 5 

standards, all the vehicles in the 

combined conversion test group would 

be subject to more stringent Tier 2, Bin 

4 standard. 

a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicle Gross Vehicle Weight Classes 

and Alternative Fuel Exceptions 

Emission standards for light-duty 

passenger cars, light-duty trucks, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29613 

27For purposes of this NPRM, this group of 

vehicles will be described as light-duty and heavyduty complete vehicles from this point forward. 

28All medium-duty passenger vehicles are also 

currently exempt from SFTP standards, regardless 

of fuel type. 40 CFR 85.1811–04(f)(1). Medium duty 

passenger vehicles, operating on gasoline, do have 

a cold CO standard (40 CFR 86.1811–04(g)). 

29 40 CFR 86.1810–01(i)(4) and 40 CFR 86.1811– 

04(g). 

30 40 CFR 86.1811–04(f). 

31As described in Section III.G.1.a of this 

preamble. 

32Compliance testing and data submission 

requirements will vary by vehicle age and mileage. 

See Section IV. 

33 59 FR 48488. 

34Examples of optional useful life include those 

described in 40 CFR 86.1805–04(b) and (e). 

35OBD systems were phased in for light-duty and 

heavy-duty complete vehicles beginning in 1994. 

See 40 CFR 86.1806–01, 86.1806–04, and 86.1806– 

05. OBD systems were phased in for heavy-duty 

vehicles weighing less than 14,000 pounds GVWR 

beginning in 2004. 40 CFR 86.005–17. OBD 

requirements for heavy-duty engines for vehicles 

over 14,000 pounds begin phase-in in 2010. 40 CFR 

86.005–18. According to 40 CFR 86.010–18(o)(1)(v), 

engines in vehicles over 14,000 pounds GVWR 

certified on alternative fuels are exempt from OBD 

requirements for model years 2010–2012. 

36Multi-fueled vehicles must be compliant on 

both fuels. See, for example, 40 CFR 86.1811–01. 

medium-duty passenger vehicles, and 

Otto-cycle heavy-duty complete 

vehicles less than 14,000 pound gross 

vehicle weight are codified in 40 CFR 

part 86, subpart S.27 Standards are 

specific to vehicle type and gross 

vehicle weight ratings. 

Light-duty vehicles, both OEM 

vehicles and conversions, are currently 

exempt from Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedure (SFTP) standards and cold 

carbon monoxide (CO) standards when 

certified on alternative fuels.28

However, for dual-fuel and flex-fuel (bifuel) light-duty vehicles, SFTP and cold 

CO standards do apply while the 

vehicle is operating on gasoline or 

diesel fuel.29 At this time, EPA is not 

proposing any changes to the 

regulations in 40 CFR 86.1810–01(i)(4). 

However, EPA is requesting comment 

on whether SFTP standards and testing 

are appropriate for alternative fueled 

light-duty vehicles; both OEM vehicles 

and clean alternative fuel conversions 

(see Section IV.A.3.a).30 In the future, if 

SFTP standards are amended to apply to 

vehicles operated on alternative fuels, 

these standards and test procedures 

would also be applicable to fuel 

conversions. 

b. Heavy-Duty Engine Types and Gross 

Vehicle Weight Classes 

Heavy-duty engine standards are 

categorized in several ways. There are 

divisions by engine type, either 

compression ignition or spark ignition, 

and there are divisions by application 

gross vehicle weight. Standards for 

heavy-duty engines are described in 40 

CFR part 86, subpart A. Generally, 

heavy-duty engine standards apply to 

engines installed in vehicles with a 

gross vehicle rating (GVWR) greater than 

8,500 pounds. As noted in Section 

III.G.1, Otto-cycle complete vehicles 

must be certified using standards and 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 85, 

subpart F. In addition, Otto-cycle 

incomplete vehicles with GVWR up to 

14,000 pounds which were optionally 

certified by the OEM using the 

provisions found in 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart S, would also follow these 

provisions for conversion to a clean 

alternative fuel.31 OEM manufacturers 

of compression ignition engines in 

complete heavy-duty vehicles between 

8,500 and 14,000 pounds may 

optionally chassis certify using the 

provisions in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. 

The clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturer would use the same 

certification provisions (engine or 

chassis-certification provisions) that the 

OEM used at the time of the original 

certification. 

c. Dual-Fuel Standards 

EPA as a matter of policy requires 

dual fuel vehicles and engines to certify 

operation on both fuel types to the same 

emission standards. A dual-fuel natural 

gas-gasoline vehicle, for example, would 

need to certify to the same Tier 2 bin 

level for both natural gas and gasoline. 

The same policy applies to evaporative/ 

refueling standards and family emission 

levels (FELs) for engines. Therefore, 

conversion manufacturers of systems 

that convert single-fuel OEM systems to 

dual-fuel systems must certify to the 

OEM standard, even if test data 

demonstrate that the converted vehicle 

or engine is able to meet a lower 

standard while operating on the 

alternative fuel. If a conversion 

manufacturer wishes to certify to a 

lower standard on both fuels, a 

demonstration would be required on 

both fuels showing compliance with the 

said standard. This policy would 

continue to apply to all vehicle fuel 

conversions, regardless of age or 

compliance program.32 In each case the 

notification process for a dual-fuel 

vehicle will require separate 

submissions for groups of vehicles with 

different standards. However, test data 

from an EDV or EDE demonstrating 

compliance with a lower standard may 

be able to be carried across to other 

vehicles or engines that meet the criteria 

available for the combination of exhaust 

groups, such as test groups and engine 

families, described in Sections IV.A.2 

and IV.B.2. 

2. Useful Life 

In the rulemaking that established the 

existing aftermarket conversions 

certification program, EPA determined 

it was not appropriate to extend the 

useful life of a conversion beyond that 

of the original vehicle given that 

conversions generally rely on many 

original vehicle components for proper 

operation.33 EPA’s revised program 

would leave this determination 

unchanged such that the applicable 

useful life of a converted vehicle or 

engine would not extend beyond the 

useful life of the original vehicle or 

engine. Thus, the useful life of the 

conversion would continue to end at the 

same time as the useful life of the 

original vehicle, including any optional 

useful life standards to which the OEM 

certified the original vehicle.34

3. On Board Diagnostics (OBD) 

As part of the good engineering 

judgment requirement described in 

Section III.B, OEM vehicles or engines 

subject to OBD requirements would also 

be required to have properly functioning 

OBD systems once converted.35 OBD 

systems are designed to monitor critical 

vehicle or engine emission control 

components and to alert the vehicle 

operator or State emissions inspection 

official to malfunction, deterioration, or 

other problems that might cause 

excessive emissions. States rely on OBD 

systems to flag vehicles that exceed 

Inspection and Maintenance thresholds 

and may require repair. OBD systems 

are also designed to store diagnostic 

information in the vehicle’s computer to 

assist technicians in diagnosing and 

repairing the problem EPA is proposing 

that the conversion OBD system would 

need to include any new monitoring 

capability necessary to identify 

potential emission problems associated 

with the new fuel. In addition, 

consistent with other EPA regulations, 

EPA proposes that any dual-fuel clean 

alternative fuel conversion would 

require the OBD to remain fully 

functional on the original fuel.36

4. Durability Testing 

Manufacturers must conduct 

durability testing for both exhaust and 

evaporative emissions to determine 

expected useful life deterioration. 

Durability procedures for light-duty 

vehicles and heavy-duty complete 

vehicles are codified in 40 CFR 

86.1823–01, 86.1824–01, 1824–07, 

1824–08, and 86.1825–01, 85.1825–08. 

Durability procedures for heavy-duty 

engines are currently set forth in 40 CFR 

86.096–24, 86.098–24, 86.001–24, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29614 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

37 42 U.S.C. 7541. 

38CAA section 207(i)(1). 

39CAA section 207(i)(2). 

40 40 CFR 86.004–2. 

41 59 FR 48488. 

42 40 CFR 85.504 and 59 FR 48478. 

43CAA section 207(c). 

86.094–26, 86.001–26, 86.0004–26, 

86.094–28, et al. In lieu of durability 

testing, these regulations provide that 

small volume manufacturers may be 

eligible to utilize EPA assigned 

deterioration factors to predict the 

emission rates at the end of a vehicle or 

engine’s useful life. See Section IV.B.3.c 

for more information. 

EPA requests comment as to whether 

the durability procedures that would be 

established under this proposal are 

appropriate for small and large volume 

conversion manufacturers. EPA also 

requests comment on whether the 

proposed procedures provide adequate 

assurance that the emission control 

systems in converted vehicles and 

engines will continue to function 

properly over time. 

5. Warranty 

The CAA requires manufacturers to 

warrant that a vehicle or engine is (1) 

designed, built, and equipped to 

conform to applicable regulations and 

(2) free from defects in material and 

workmanship which cause the vehicle 

or engine to fail to conform to 

applicable regulations for its useful 

life.37 For light-duty vehicles, this defect 

warranty is applicable through two 

years or 24,000 miles of use (whichever 

first occurs).38 Specified major emission 

control components, including catalysts, 

engine control units (ECUs), and OBD 

are warranted for eight years or 80,000 

miles of use (whichever first occurs).39

For Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and 

vehicles (complete and incomplete) and 

light heavy-duty diesel engines, the 

warranty period is at least 5 years or 

50,000 miles, whichever first occurs. 

For all other heavy-duty diesel engines, 

the warranty period is at least 5 years or 

100,000 miles, whichever first occurs. 

For all heavy-duty engines the warranty 

period may not be shorter than the basic 

mechanical warranty period that the 

original equipment manufacturer 

provides.40 Conversion manufacturers 

must accept in-use liability for warranty 

and recall as a condition for gaining 

exemption from tampering under EPA’s 

current aftermarket conversions 

certification program. 

EPA would continue to apply this 

approach to in-use liability for warranty 

under the revised clean alternative fuel 

conversions program being proposed 

today. Under this policy, the clean 

alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturer would normally be held 

accountable for fixing problems that 

occur as the result of conversion, while 

the OEM would generally retain 

responsibility for the performance of 

any parts or systems that retain their 

original function following conversion 

and are unaffected by the conversion. It 

is important that both clean alternative 

fuel conversion manufacturers and 

consumers understand these provisions 

because they could result in a transfer 

of warranty liability for certain failed 

components from the OEM to the 

converter. A reasonable indicator of 

cause and accountability might be 

whether the failure of the part or system 

is also occurring in non-converted 

configurations of the same vehicle. If so, 

the problem is most likely not related to 

conversion and the OEM would 

typically remain liable for performing 

repairs. If only converted vehicles are 

experiencing the problem, it would be 

appropriate to trace the problem to the 

conversion and to hold the converter 

responsible for warranty repairs. These 

views are consistent with the liability 

provisions in the existing subpart F 

regulations.41 EPA seeks comment on 

the best way to inform consumers about 

the possibility that converting their 

vehicle or engine, even with an EPA 

compliant system, may transfer portions 

of their OEM warranty liability to the 

converter. 

6. Other Provisions Applicable to 

Conversion Manufacturers 

As stated above, all clean alternative 

fuel conversion manufacturers would 

continue to be subject to labeling, 

warranty, and certification requirements 

applicable to new vehicle and engine 

manufacturers in 40 CFR parts 85 and 

86.42 In addition, there are recall and 

defect reporting requirements in 40 CFR 

85.503 and 85.504 which would also 

continue to apply. 

Conversion manufacturers are subject 

to the recall regulations in 40 CFR part 

85, subpart S and the emission defect 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 

85, subpart T. If EPA determines that a 

substantial number of vehicles or 

engines in a class or category do not 

meet applicable emission standards in 

actual use even though they are 

properly maintained and used, EPA can 

require the manufacturer to recall and 

fix affected vehicles.43 All 

manufacturers are also required to 

report to EPA certain defects affecting 

emission-related parts. 

Sections 206, 207 and 208 of the Act 

authorize EPA to establish procedures to 

ensure that production vehicles and 

engines comply with emission 

standards when they are new and 

continue to comply with emission 

requirements after they are in customer 

service. These provisions provide EPA 

broad authority to conduct testing as the 

Administrator deems necessary to 

monitor in-use vehicle and engine 

compliance. EPA intends to extend 

these emission testing programs to cover 

clean alternative fuel conversions as 

well as OEM vehicles. 

7. Misapplication 

EPA may revisit the age-based 

approach being proposed today should 

there at any time be evidence of 

widespread conversion system 

misapplication that can be traced to 

differences among the age-based 

demonstration or notification 

requirements. For example, if exempted 

outside useful life conversion systems 

are commonly marketed to vehicles that 

are still within their useful life, EPA 

would not only consider the 

misapplication to be tampering, but 

would also consider revising this rule to 

eliminate or constrain the age-based 

demonstration approach. 

H. Regulatory Procedures for Small 

Volume Manufacturers and Small 

Volume Test Groups 

EPA regulations afford certain 

flexibilities to small volume 

manufacturers in recognition of special 

compliance challenges they may face. 

The clean alternative fuels industry has 

historically been comprised of 

companies that qualify for small volume 

manufacturer status. Existing eligibility 

criteria and special procedures available 

to small volume conversion 

manufacturers, along with changes 

under today’s proposal, are discussed 

below. 

1. Definition of Small Volume 

Manufacturers, Small Volume Test 

Groups, and Small Volume Engine 

Families 

a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicle Small Volume Manufacturers 

and Small Volume Test Groups 

EPA has regulatory procedures 

specific to light-duty and heavy-duty 

complete vehicle small volume 

manufacturers and small volume test 

groups, set forth in 40 CFR 86.1838–01. 

A manufacturer is eligible for small 

volume manufacturer status for lightduty and heavy-duty complete vehicle 

procedures, if the manufacturer’s annual 

model year motor vehicle and engine 

total sales volume in all States and 

territories of the United States (or 

aggregate sales volume for 

manufacturers in an aggregate 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29615 

44 40 CFR 86.1838–01. 

45 40 CFR 86.1838–01(c)(1). Manufacturers not 

eligible for small volume manufacturer or small 

volume test group status are required to follow 

durability procedures in 40 CFR 86.1823–01, 

86.1923–08, 86.1824–01, 86.1824–07, 86.1824–08, 

86.1825–01, and 86.1825–08. 

46The current light-duty light duty and heavyduty complete vehicles assigned deterioration factor 

guidance document issued pursuant to 40 CFR 

86.1826(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(i)(c), is available 

electronically at http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/ 

display_file.jsp?docid=14285&flag=1. The current 

heavy-duty engine assigned deterioration guidance 

letter is available electronically at http:// 

iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/ 

display_file.jsp?docid=14183&flag=1. 

47 40 CFR 86.094–14, 40 CFR 86.095–14, 40 CFR 

86.096–14, 49 CFR 86.098–14. 

48Manufacturers of conversion systems for 

intermediate age and outside useful life vehicles 

would use calendar year sales volume to determine 

small volume manufacturer status. 

relationship) is less than 15,000 units.44

(For sales aggregation rules for related 

manufacturers, refer to 40 CFR 86.1839– 

01(b)(3)). A large volume manufacturer 

may also use small volume 

manufacturer certification procedures 

for test groups of vehicles which total 

less than 15,000 units. For small volume 

test group eligibility criteria for large 

volume manufacturers who participate 

in aggregate relationships, refer to 40 

CFR 86.1838–01(b)(2) for more details. 

b. Heavy-Duty Engine Small Volume 

Manufacturers 

The EPA regulatory provisions for 

small volume heavy-duty engines are 

promulgated in 40 CFR 86.094–14, 

86.096–14 and 86.098–14. Heavy-duty 

engine small volume manufacturer 

status is tiered. Certain procedures 

apply to manufacturers with aggregate 

sales of less than 301 units, and other 

procedures may apply to manufacturers 

with aggregate sales volumes less than 

10,000 units. For sales aggregation rules, 

refer to 40 CFR 86.094–14(b)(2) and 

86.094–14(b)(5). 

2. Assigned Deterioration Factors 

All light-duty and heavy-duty 

complete vehicle small volume 

manufacturers or qualified small 

volume test groups are eligible to use 

assigned deterioration factors (DFs) in 

lieu of durability testing to predict 

emission rates at the end of a vehicle’s 

useful life.45 EPA assigned deterioration 

factors are authorized in 40 CFR 

86.1826–01 and are periodically 

updated by EPA via manufacturer 

guidance letters.46

Heavy-duty engine small volume 

manufacturers may also be eligible for 

assigned DFs instead of conducting 

durability demonstrations.47 Under the 

regulations, manufacturers with sales 

volumes of less than 10,000 units are 

eligible to use assigned DFs determined 

by EPA. 

Because assigned deterioration factors 

are determined assuming the vehicle or 

engine is new, EPA proposes to allow 

small volume conversion manufacturers 

to use deterioration factors, 

proportionate to the vehicle or engine 

age under certain conditions. This 

would help create a level playing field 

for older vehicles and engines that have 

already experienced some of their 

expected emissions degradation. EPA 

proposes that conversion manufacturers 

are eligible to use scaled DFs for 

vehicles or engines that have 

accumulated more than 10,000 miles. 

EPA proposes to allow a proportionate 

scaling of the EPA assigned 

deterioration factor, if applicable, to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

intermediate and/or full useful-life 

standards. See Section IV.B.3.c.i for 

more detail. 

3. Changes in Small Volume 

Manufacturer Status 

If a conversion manufacturer’s annual 

sales volume may surpass the threshold 

for small volume manufacturer or test 

group status for a given model year,48

the conversion manufacturer must 

satisfy the regulatory requirements 

required for large volume manufacturers 

or test groups, even if the conversion 

manufacturer initially complied 

properly (in a previous model year) with 

the small volume requirements. 

Conversion manufacturers should be 

aware that this status change could 

result in new demonstration and 

notification requirements involving new 

testing under both the new and 

intermediate age programs. EPA 

proposes to require conversion 

manufacturers to report to EPA the 

number of conversion systems they have 

sold annually in an end-of year 

submission. 

A change from small volume status to 

large volume status could occur in 

several different situations. First, if a 

conversion manufacturer is required to 

recertify a vehicle or engine (see Section 

IV.A.4.c for an explanation of 

recertification) after a sales volume 

status change, all large volume test 

procedures and requirements would 

need to be conducted prior to the 

issuance of the new certificate. Second, 

if a small volume conversion 

manufacturer crosses the annual sales 

volume threshold and becomes a large 

volume conversion manufacturer, the 

conversion manufacturer would need to 

update their demonstration and 

complete all applicable large volume 

requirements for the intermediate age 

vehicle or engine conversions which are 

no longer eligible for small volume 

manufacturer or test group. 

IV. Clean Alternative Fuel Conversion 

Program Details 

As summarized earlier in this Notice, 

EPA is proposing to revise the 

demonstration and notification 

procedures for clean alternative fuel 

conversions based on the age of the 

vehicle or engine to be converted. All 

conversion manufacturers would be 

required to demonstrate to EPA that the 

conversion satisfies technical criteria to 

qualify as a clean alternative fuel 

conversion, but demonstration and 

notification requirements would be 

different depending on vehicle or 

engine age. The age-specific 

requirements are summarized in Table 

IV–1 and are presented in detail below. 

The age-based demonstration and 

notification requirements that EPA is 

proposing stem from both legal and 

practical considerations. The proposed 

distinctions between the demonstration 

required for new, intermediate age, and 

outside useful life vehicles and engines 

address the issues posed by the absence 

of applicable emission standards for 

converted vehicles and engines that 

have exceeded full useful life. At the 

same time, the proposed approach 

recognizes that new vehicles and 

engines, at the time of conversion, 

should resemble the certified OEM 

configuration from the perspective of 

emissions degradation and should 

therefore be held to the same durability 

and deterioration factor demonstrations 

required for OEM certification. 

Intermediate age vehicles and engines 

fall between the new and outside useful 

life categories. While useful life 

standards still apply, certain 

certification requirements are no longer 

suitable for aging vehicles and engines. 

As with demonstration protocols, EPA 

believes different notification protocols 

are appropriate for the three age classes. 

The proposed notification protocols 

reflect the level of detail EPA has 

determined to be necessary for 

conversion manufacturers to adequately 

document and for EPA to review the 

required emissions demonstration. The 

proposed age-based notification system 

would streamline the notification 

process and would create a simple 

system that both small and large 

conversion manufacturers could easily 

understand and follow. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29616 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

49See Section X of this preamble for more 

compliance details. 

50This example is for Light-duty Tier 2 vehicles 

which have a useful life of 10 years or 120,000 

miles. 

51Exhaust and Evap refers to all exhaust emission 

testing and all evaporative emission and refueling 

emission testing required for new vehicle 

certification, unless otherwise excepted. 

52EPA is proposing that the compliance 

notification process for intermediate age and 

outside useful life conversion would be electronic 

submission of data and supporting documents. 

53See footnote 4. 

54CAA 203(a)(3). 

55Conversion manufacturers would be able to use 

their certification data to qualify for a tampering 

exemption under the intermediate age vehicle/ 

engine program described in Section IV.B. 

56Technical amendment proposals are described 

in Section V. See section IV.B.3.c.i for a description 

of the proposed scaling of assigned deterioration 

factors for small volume manufacturers who 

conduct demonstration testing on a vehicle with 

over 10,000 miles. 57OEM model years are often introduced ahead 

of the calendar year. Thus, to calculate which 

conversions must be certified, subtract the original 

vehicle model year from the current calendar year. 

If the difference is one or less than one, then a 

certified conversion is required to qualify for the 

tampering exemption. If the difference is more than 

one, then the conversion may comply with the 

intermediate age or outside useful life provisions as 

applicable. 

TABLE IV–1—OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED PROGRAM ELEMENTS 49

Vehicle/engine age Conversion manufacturer requirement Certificate of 

conformity 

Compliance 

detail preCategory Applicability Example for 2010 amble section 50 Demonstration Notification 

New ........................ MY > = current calendar year ¥ 1.MY 2009, 2010, 

2011 and < useful life mileage.

Exhaust, Evap, and 

OBD testing 51.

Certification Application.Yes IV.A 

Intermediate age .... MY < = current calendar year ¥ 2 

and within useful 

life.

MY 2001, 2002, 

2003, 2004, 

2005, 2006, 

2007, 2008 and < 

useful life mileage.

Exhaust and Evap 

testing 51 + OBD 

attestation.

Data Submission 52 No IV.B 

Outside useful life ... Exceeds useful life MY 2000 and older 

or > full useful life 

mileage.

See Sec. IV.C for 

options.

See Sec. IV.C for 

options 52.

No IV.C 

A. New Vehicle and Engine Clean 

Alternative Fuel Conversion 

Certification Program 

EPA proposes to require that 

conversions of new vehicles and 

engines (as defined for purposes of this 

preamble) 53 be covered by a certificate 

of conformity in order to qualify for an 

exemption from the tampering 

prohibition. EPA also proposes to allow, 

but not require, conversions of 

intermediate age vehicles and engines to 

qualify for an exemption from the 

tampering prohibition by obtaining a 

certificate of conformity (see Sections 

IV.A.1.b. and IV.B). Certification would 

satisfy the statutory tampering 

exemption prerequisites that the 

conversion is ‘‘for use of a clean 

alternative fuel’’ and that the converted 

vehicle ‘‘complies with the applicable 

standards under section 202.’’ 54

EPA believes that certification of 

clean alternative fuel conversions 

remains an appropriate demonstration 

of compliance with useful life standards 

for new vehicles and engines. New 

vehicles and engines have not yet 

experienced deterioration and are still 

likely to be representative, for purposes 

of emissions, of the technical condition 

of the vehicle or engine that the OEM 

used for EPA certification. Thus the 

certification process is suitable for and 

may be directly applied to new vehicle 

and engine clean alternative fuel 

conversions. 

EPA also believes that a certification 

demonstration requirement for new 

vehicle and engine conversions is 

prudent to maintain a level playing field 

for OEMs and conversion 

manufacturers. We believe it is 

important to prevent the potential 

opportunity for an OEM to circumvent 

the new vehicle and engine certification 

process by choosing to certify and then 

convert a traditionally-fueled vehicle or 

engine rather than to certify it in an 

alternative fuel configuration in the first 

place. New vehicles represent the vast 

majority of clean alternative fuel 

conversion activity. For model year 

2009, only two light duty vehicle fuel 

conversion certificates out of 60 were 

issued based on data from a vehicle that 

was more than one year old. EPA 

believes that a new vehicle and engine 

certification requirement would 

continue to cover most newly developed 

clean alternative fuel conversion 

systems and therefore would preserve 

existing EPA control over their technical 

viability and environmental 

performance. While new vehicle and 

engine clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers would still be subject to 

certification requirements under today’s 

proposal, they would benefit from 

reduced burden because the 

intermediate age compliance program 

(see Section IV.B) would allow 

conversion manufacturers to continue to 

sell their products as vehicles and 

engines age without renewing 

certificates and paying certification fees 

after vehicles and engines are about two 

years old.55

This proposal leaves the existing 

regulatory procedures for 

demonstration, notification, and 

compliance documents relatively 

unchanged for clean alternative fuel 

conversion of new vehicles and engines. 

The demonstration of compliance with 

applicable standards would use the 

same certification procedures required 

of conversion manufacturers under the 

existing subpart F regulations with a 

few technical amendments and other 

allowances.56 The notification process 

in existing subpart F regulations would 

also remain unchanged for conversion 

of new vehicles and engines. 

Conversion manufacturers would 

continue to submit applications, 

including test data, certification fees, 

and other required information to EPA 

on an annual basis. The compliance 

document, a certificate of conformity, 

would also remain unchanged for 

conversion of new vehicles and engines. 

1. Applicability 

a. New Vehicles and Engines 

EPA proposes to define ‘‘new and 

relatively-new’’ (as discussed above in 

Section I in this preamble we refer to 

‘‘new and relatively-new’’ vehicles and 

engines as ‘‘new’’) vehicle or engine 

clean alternative fuel conversions as 

those for which the date of conversion 

is in a calendar year that is not more 

than one year after the original model 

year (MY) of the vehicle or engine.57 For 

example, in calendar year 2010, 

certified conversion systems would be 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29617 

58 40 CFR 86.1827–01. 

59 40 CFR 86.1826–01. 

60Of the criteria listed above, #4–#6 are from 40 

CFR 86.1827–01(a) and #7–#11 are from 40 CFR 

86.1820–01. To provide flexibility in combining 

OEM test groups, this proposal does not include the 

precious metal composition and catalyst grouping 

statistic criteria in CFR 86.1820–01. 

61Aftermarket fuel conversion manufacturers 

would continue to be able to use carry-over of test 

results from one model year to the next if the OEM 

exercised such flexibility in accordance with EPA 

regulations. 

62On rare occasion, an OEM test group contains 

multiple OBD groups. When this occurs, EPA 

proposes to allow the conversion test group to 

include the multiple OBD groups that are covered 

by the OEM test group. 

63These proposed criteria are consistent with the 

2009 guidance letter, CISD 09–14, which can be 

accessed electronically at http://iaspub.epa.gov/ 

otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=20194&flag=1. 

required for MY 2009, MY 2010, and 

MY 2011 vehicles or engines. 

As stated previously, EPA believes 

that certification is an appropriate 

requirement for new vehicles and 

engines because their emissions and 

mileage accumulation still largely 

reflect the vehicle’s condition at the 

time of OEM certification. For consumer 

and conversion manufacturer clarity, it 

makes sense to compare vehicle model 

year to the current calendar year. This 

can be accomplished by applying the 

formula presented in Table IV–1 above. 

In practice this means that certification 

would be required for vehicles or 

engines that are less than about two 

years old. 

EPA is proposing an age threshold of 

less than about two years old for the 

new vehicle and engine certification 

requirement on the basis of historical 

conversion certification age patterns. 

EPA requests comment regarding 

whether EPA has properly identified the 

vehicle and engine age range for which 

certification is appropriate and should 

be required for conversions. In 

particular EPA requests emissions or 

other data to support comments 

suggesting a different age range than the 

proposed two year period. 

b. Older Vehicles and Engines 

Manufacturers of conversion systems 

for vehicles and engines that are older 

than the age range defined above for 

new vehicles and engines, but still fall 

within the original vehicle’s or engine’s 

useful life, may opt for certification as 

their demonstration of compliance with 

useful life standards. These systems are 

also eligible for the intermediate age 

notification program described in 

Section IV.B. 

2. Test Groups, Engine Families and 

Evaporative/Refueling Families 

a. Test Groups for Light-Duty and 

Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

In seeking to streamline the 

certification process for clean 

alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturer, EPA proposes to allow 

conversion manufacturers to combine 

several OEM test groups into larger 

conversion test groups, where the 

regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 

86.1827–01 and 86.1820–01 are still 

satisfied. Test groups cannot span 

multiple durability groups.58 However, 

all clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers who meet the Small 

Volume Manufacturer criteria in 40 CFR 

86.1838–01 are eligible to use EPA 

assigned deterioration factors.59 By 

default the assigned deterioration 

factors define the durability group. As 

such, EPA proposes to use select criteria 

in the durability group determination, 

40 CFR 86.1820–01, the test group 

determination, 40 CFR 86.1827–01, and 

other additional criteria to allow OEM 

test groups to be combined into a single 

clean alternative fuel conversion test 

group. 

Vehicles can be placed into the same 

clean alternative fuel conversion test 

group using good engineering judgment 

if they satisfy the following: 60

(1) Same OEM and OEM model year 61

(2) Same OBD group 62

(3) Same vehicle classification (e.g. 

light-duty vehicle, heavy-duty vehicle) 

(4) Engine displacement is within 

15% of largest displacement or 50 CID, 

whichever is larger 

(5) Same number of cylinders or 

combustion chambers 

(6) Same arrangement of cylinders or 

combustion chambers (e.g. in-line, vshaped) 

(7) Same combustion cycle (e.g., two 

stroke, four stroke, Otto-cycle, dieselcycle) 

(8) Same engine type (e.g. piston, 

rotary, turbine, air cooled versus water 

cooled) 

(9) Same OEM fuel type (except 

otherwise similar gasoline and E85 flex 

fuel vehicles may be combined into 

dedicated alternative fuel vehicles) 

(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g. 

throttle body injection vs. port injection) 

(11) Same catalyst construction (e.g. 

beads or monolith, metal vs. ceramic 

substrate) 

(12) All converted vehicles are subject 

to the most stringent emission standards 

used in certifying the OEM test groups 

within the conversion test group 

EPA requests comment on the 

proposed conversion test group criteria 

and what additional criteria, if any, 

should be considered to adequately 

ensure that models within a conversion 

test group share emissions 

characteristics that would be similarly 

affected by the conversion system being 

certified. EPA also requests comment on 

whether the data generated from a worst 

case EDV will adequately represent the 

proposed allowable fuel conversion test 

groups. 

a. Dual-Fuel Vehicle Carry-Across 

Procedures for Small Volume 

Manufacturers 

As described in Section III.G.1.c, 

dual-fuel vehicles cannot be certified to 

different standards for each fuel. 

However, if the vehicles would 

otherwise meet the test group criteria 

described above, the exhaust emissions 

test data for the new, alternative fuel 

from dual-fueled emission data vehicles 

could be carried across to vehicles 

which otherwise meet the test group 

criteria above. Test data can only be 

carried across if the data demonstrate 

compliance with the most stringent 

standard among the vehicles to which it 

is being applied. This means that for 

dual-fuel conversions a manufacturer 

would have to apply for multiple 

certificates if the OEM vehicles in the 

proposed test group combination were 

originally certified to different 

standards; however, the data acquired 

on the alternative fuel may be 

applicable to multiple certificates when 

the test group criteria above are 

otherwise met and the data demonstrate 

that the most stringent standard within 

the group is met. 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

Large volume manufacturers must 

create test groups according to the 

regulations in 40 CFR 86.1827–01. As 

required by these regulations, the 

manufacturer must first create durability 

groups pursuant to 40 CFR 86.1820–01, 

and then divide those groups into test 

groups for the purposes of exhaust 

emissions testing. 

b. Engine Families for Heavy-Duty 

Engines 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

In seeking to streamline the 

certification process and maintain 

consistency with the policy for lightduty vehicles, EPA proposes to allow 

combinations of several original OEM 

engine families into larger conversion 

engine families. Engines can be placed 

into the same clean alternative fuel 

conversion engine family using good 

engineering judgment if they satisfy the 

following: 63

(1) Same OEM 

(2) Same OBD group after 2013 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29618 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

64See Section III.G.1.c. 65 61 FR 54871 (Oct. 22, 1996). 

(3) Same service class (e.g. light 

heavy-duty diesel engines, medium 

heavy-duty diesel engines, heavy heavyduty diesel engines) 

(4) Engine displacements is within 

15% of largest displacement or 50 CID, 

whichever is larger 

(5) Same number of cylinders 

(6) Same arrangement of cylinders 

(7) Same combustion cycle 

(8) Same method of air aspiration 

(9) Same fuel type (e.g. diesel/ 

gasoline) 

(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g., 

mechanical direct or electronic direct 

injection) 

(11) Same catalyst/filter construction 

(e.g., metal vs. ceramic substrate) 

(12) All converted vehicles are subject 

to the most stringent emission 

standards. For example, 2005 and 2007 

heavy-duty diesel engines may be in the 

same family if they meet the most 

stringent (2007) standards 

(13) Same emission control 

technology (e.g., internal or external 

EGR) 

a. Dual-Fuel Engine Carry-Across 

Heavy-duty dual-fuel engines cannot 

be certified to different standards for 

each fuel.64 However, if the engines 

would otherwise meet the engine family 

criteria described above, the exhaust 

emissions test data for the new, 

alternative fuel from dual-fueled test 

engines could be carried across to 

engines which otherwise meet the 

engine family criteria above. Test data 

can only be carried across if the data 

demonstrates compliance with the most 

stringent standard among the engines to 

which it is being applied. This means 

that for dual-fuel conversions, a 

manufacturer would have to apply for 

multiple engine family certificates if the 

OEM engines in the proposed engine 

family combination were originally 

certified to different standards; 

however, the data acquired on the 

alternative fuel may be applicable to 

multiple certificates when the engine 

family criteria above are otherwise met 

and the data demonstrates that the most 

stringent standard within the 

conversion engine family is met. 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

All large volume heavy-duty engine 

manufacturers must create engine 

families as set forth in 40 CFR 86.001– 

24. 

c. Evaporative/Refueling Families 

Conversion manufacturers would be 

required to follow the regulatory 

provisions for designating evaporative 

and refueling families. These provisions 

are located in 40 CFR 86.1821–01 for 

light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty 

complete vehicles and in 40 CFR 

86.096–24(a)(12)–(13) for heavy-duty 

engines. If the clean alternative fuel 

conversion system continues to use the 

OEM evaporative/refueling emissions 

system in their original configurations, 

the conversion evaporative/refueling 

families will remain identical to the 

OEM evaporative/refueling families. If, 

however, the conversion requires a new 

evaporative/refueling system (as for 

pressurized fuels, such as CNG and 

LPG), then the conversion manufacturer 

may create a single evaporative/ 

refueling family as long as the 

regulatory criteria for evaporative/ 

refueling families are met. Small volume 

manufacturers may use EPA assigned 

evaporative/refueling deterioration 

factors in lieu of evaporative/refueling 

durability demonstrations. 

Clean alternative fuel conversion 

evaporative families for dual-fueled 

vehicles and engines may not include 

vehicles and engines which were 

originally certified to different 

evaporative emissions standards. 

3. Certification Demonstration 

Requirements 

EPA proposes that certification for 

clean alternative fuel conversions be 

based on the certification procedures 

specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, 

B and/or S and 40 CFR part 1065 as 

applicable, subject to the exceptions and 

special provisions described in Section 

III.G.1.a and Section V, if applicable. 

a. Exhaust Emissions 

i. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicles 

The exhaust emissions testing 

demonstration for light-duty and heavyduty complete vehicles would be 

conducted on a test group basis. The 

worst-case emission data vehicle from 

each test group would be used to 

demonstrate compliance with the most 

stringent standards represented among 

the OEM vehicles when they were 

originally certified. All exhaust 

certification requirements and test 

procedures which are required in 

regulations for OEM certification would 

be required for fuel conversion 

certification. Test procedures and 

certification requirements are currently 

located in 40 CFR part 86, subparts B 

and S. 

The certification test procedures for 

conventionally-fueled vehicles include 

test cycles designed to represent a 

variety of ‘‘real world’’ driving 

conditions. One of these, the US06 test 

procedure and drive cycle, is intended 

to emulate high speeds, aggressive 

accelerations, and other typical driving 

patterns not captured by the FTP 

(Federal Test Procedure). The US06 

drive cycle is required for 

conventionally-fueled vehicles, but 

alternative fuel vehicles were excepted 

from the current regulations.65 It has 

been suggested that the US06 exhaust 

emissions test is valuable for confirming 

catalyst protection when vehicle 

operation results in high exhaust 

temperatures. EPA seeks comment about 

the need to add a US06 demonstration 

or statement of compliance with the 

US06 standard to the exhaust 

certification demonstration requirement 

for clean alternative fueled vehicle 

conversions. 

ii. Heavy-Duty Engines 

The exhaust emissions testing 

demonstration for heavy-duty engines 

would be conducted on an engine 

family basis. The worst-case emission 

data engine from each engine family 

would be used to demonstrate 

compliance with the most stringent 

standards represented among the OEM 

engines when they were originally 

certified. All exhaust certification 

requirements and test procedures which 

are required in regulations for OEM 

certification would be required for fuel 

conversion certification. Test 

procedures and certification 

requirements are currently located in 40 

CFR part 86 and part 1065. 

b. Evaporative/Refueling Emissions 

EPA proposes to retain the 

evaporative and refueling emissions test 

procedures and requirements 

promulgated in 40 CFR part 86 and part 

1065 as the demonstration requirement 

for clean fuel conversion certification. 

Please see the technical amendments 

discussed in Section V for fuel-specific 

amendments that apply to conversions 

to CNG (or LNG), LPG, or hydrogen 

fuels. 

c. Durability Demonstration and 

Assigned Deterioration Factors 

i. Small Volume Manufacturer Assigned 

Deterioration Factors 

a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicles 

As noted in Section III.H.2 above, 

small volume light-duty and heavy-duty 

complete vehicle manufacturers and 

eligible small volume test groups are 

permitted to use EPA-assigned 

deterioration factors in lieu of exhaust 

and evaporative/refueling durability 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29619 

66This is due in part to the Fuel Economy testing 

requirements which effectively limit the testing of 

vehicles with more than 10,000 miles. 

67The certification process may permit several 

statements of compliance or attestations in lieu of 

test data. Some of these are found in the OEM 

certification regulations in 40 CFR part 86, subparts 

A and S and 40 CFR part 1065. In addition we are 

proposing attestation statements specific to 

conversion to a clean alternative fuel. These would 

include: 

1. The test group or engine family converted to 

dual fuel operation retains all the OEM fuel system, 

engine calibration, and emission control system 

functionality when operating on the fuel with 

which the vehicle was originally certified. 

2. The test group or engine family converted to 

dual fuel operation retains all the functionality of 

the OEM OBD system (if so equipped) when 

operating on the fuel with which the vehicle was 

originally certified. 

3. The test group or engine family converted to 

dual fuel operation properly purges hydrocarbon 

vapor from the evaporative emission canister when 

the vehicles/engines are operating on the alternative 

fuel. 

4. The test group or engine family converted to 

an alternative fuel has fully functional OBD systems 

(if the OEM vehicles or engines are OBD equipped) 

and therefore meet the OBD requirements in 40 CFR 

Part 86, subpart S or subpart A, as appropriate, 

when operating on the alternative fuel. 

68The original subpart F rulemaking weighed 

several options for useful life determination of a 

fuel converted vehicle or engine, and it was 

determined that the useful life of the original 

vehicle or engine would not be extended after fuel 

conversion. 59 FR 48488. This proposal leaves this 

determination unchanged. 

demonstrations. If the emission data 

vehicle (EDV) has accrued more than 

10,000 miles, we propose to allow the 

conversion manufacturer to utilize the 

scaled assigned deterioration factors 

described in Section IV.B.3.c below.66

b. Heavy-Duty Engines 

For consistency with light-duty 

vehicles, EPA also proposes that heavyduty engine manufacturers who are 

eligible to use EPA assigned 

deterioration factors would be permitted 

to use scaled assigned deterioration 

factors when the emission data engine 

has accrued more than 10,000 miles. 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturer 

Durability Procedures 

Large volume manufacturers would be 

required to conduct all applicable 

durability testing demonstrations. 

d. On-Board Diagnostics 

EPA believes that a fully functional 

OBD system is valuable in sustaining 

long-term emissions control and 

therefore proposes that the same OBD 

requirements that apply to OEMs would 

continue to apply to clean alternative 

fuel conversion systems. The 

certification demonstration would 

require a submission of emissions data 

to prove that the OBD continues to 

function and the Malfunction Indicator 

Light (MIL) illuminates at the proper 

thresholds as set forth in 40 CFR 

86.1806–01, 86.1806–04, and 86.1806– 

05 for light-duty vehicles and heavyduty complete vehicles. EPA also 

proposes that if an OEM heavy-duty 

engine was certified with an OBD 

requirement, the conversion should 

follow those requirements, unless an 

alternative fuel OBD requirement is 

otherwise excepted from the OBD 

regulations. Heavy-duty engine OBD 

requirements are promulgated in 40 CFR 

86.007–17, 86.007–30, 86.010–18, and 

86.010–38. 

4. Certification Notification Process 

EPA proposes a conversion 

certification notification process based 

on the OEM certification procedures 

specified in 40 CFR part 86, as 

applicable. The proposed notification 

requirement is intended to continue to 

incorporate the entire OEM certification 

process. If the OEM process is amended 

in the future, the fuel conversion 

certification procedures would also 

change, unless specifically excepted. 

The following is a brief overview of the 

current light-duty and heavy-duty 

complete vehicle certification process, 

but should not be considered an 

exhaustive list of all certification 

requirements: 

1. Manufacturer requests an EPA 

manufacturer code and creates a data 

entry (Verify) account. Instructions for 

this are located at http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/verify/mfr-code.htm. 

Manufacturers are assigned an EPA 

certification representative. 

2. Manufacturer contacts their 

assigned EPA certification 

representative to describe the 

certification plan, including a 

discussion on how emissions durability 

will be demonstrated. 

3. Manufacturer conducts all testing, 

including exhaust emission testing, 

evaporative/refueling emission testing, 

and on-board diagnostics 

demonstrations. 

4. Manufacturer enters data in webbased data entry system (Verify) and 

fills out a confirmatory testing waiver 

request to request a place in the EPA 

confirmatory testing queue. 

5. EPA conducts confirmatory testing 

based on the need to test the first 

vehicle from a new manufacturer, a 

random selection of an emission data 

vehicle through the computerized Verify 

system, the desire to test a vehicle 

employing new technology, or other 

EPA reasons as appropriate. 

6. Certification fees are paid to EPA. 

Reduced fees may be available. See 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/guidance.htm 

for instructions and forms pertaining to 

fee payment. 

7. Manufacturer submits an 

application for certification according to 

40 CFR 86.1843–01 and 86.1844–01. 

The application must contain any 

applicable statements of compliance or 

attestations 67 and an OBD approval 

letter from the California Air Resources 

Board or an EPA OBD approval letter if 

the vehicle will be sold only in States 

which have not adopted the California 

emissions standards. 

8. If EPA testing confirms that all 

standards are met, based on testing at 

the EPA NVFEL laboratory, or based on 

a review of the data submitted by the 

manufacturer if no EPA confirmatory 

testing is conducted, a Certificate of 

Conformity is issued to the 

manufacturer for the appropriate fuel 

conversion test group and evaporative 

emissions family of vehicles. The 

certificate is valid until December 31st 

of the model year on the certificate. 

a. Re-Certification 

Conversion manufacturers who wish 

to renew a certificate that has expired 

may re-certify the same conversion 

group in subsequent years using the 

same data. To re-certify, the 

manufacturer would update the cover 

page of the application, re-enter the 

necessary data into EPA’s on-line data 

submission Web site, and submit the 

certification fees. 

5. In-Use Compliance 

Clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers are subject to in-use 

requirements. Many of these are 

described in Section III above, including 

warranty, defect reporting and recall 

requirements, as well as EPA’s authority 

to perform in-use testing. 

B. Intermediate Age Vehicle and Engine 

Compliance Program 

EPA is proposing an alternative to 

certification to satisfy the compliance 

demonstration and notification 

requirements for vehicles and engines 

that are no longer new but still fall 

within their useful life.68 The 

intermediate age vehicle and engine 

compliance program (intermediate age 

program) would require conversion 

manufacturers to demonstrate through 

testing that the converted vehicle or 

engine will continue to meet applicable 

standards through its useful life. 

Alternatively, to qualify for an 

exemption to the tampering prohibition, 

manufacturers could opt to certify 

conversion systems for intermediate age 

vehicles and engines as if they were 

new vehicles and engines. See Section 

IV.A. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29620 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

69This is due in part to fuel economy testing 

regulations which limit the accrued mileage for a 

fuel economy test vehicle to 10,000 miles. 40 CFR 

600.007–08(b)(1). 

70The technical amendment proposals described 

in Section V and the proposed scaling of assigned 

deterioration factors described in section IV.B.3.c.i 

would be available. 

71See Section IV.B.4 for more information about 

the required OBD attestations. 

72CFR part 1027. 

73Aftermarket fuel converters are currently 

permitted to use carry-over of test results from one 

model year to the next if the OEM exercised such 

flexibility in accordance with EPA regulations. 

74Note that a functional OBD system means that 

it must not be disabled, there are no false MILs or 

false DTCs, and all readiness flags must be set. 

The proposal to create an alternative 

to certification for intermediate age 

vehicle and engine conversion systems 

addresses EPA’s interest in creating a 

streamlined compliance process that is 

appropriate for vehicles and engines 

that have been subject to real-world 

aging. EPA does not believe certification 

of intermediate age vehicles and engines 

is necessary because they are generally 

no longer representative of certification 

vehicles, as described in 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart S. EPA originally developed the 

certification test procedures for new 

OEM vehicles and engines. Typical 

OEM vehicles delivered to EPA for 

confirmatory testing are recently 

manufactured pre-production models 

with about 4,000 miles of engine and 

emission control system stabilization 

mileage. No OEM vehicles with more 

than 10,000 miles are tested for 

certification.69

The proposed program for 

intermediate age vehicles and engines 

maintains many of the existing 

certification test procedures, but departs 

from the existing subpart F 

requirements in several notable areas. 

The demonstration of compliance with 

applicable standards would use the 

same procedures required of certified 

conversion manufacturers for exhaust 

and evaporative emissions testing.70

However, the OBD demonstration 

requirement would be significantly 

different. Instead of requiring OBD 

demonstration testing as required for 

certification, an attestation that the OBD 

system is fully functional would be 

required to meet the OBD demonstration 

requirement for conversion of an 

intermediate age vehicle or engine.71

The notification process would also be 

significantly different for intermediate 

age vehicles and engines. Conversion 

manufacturers would still submit test 

data, attestations, and other required 

information to EPA; however the 

application process would be 

significantly streamlined. Certification 

fees would not be assessed unless EPA 

updates its fees rule in the future.72

Conversion manufacturers participating 

in the intermediate age program would 

not receive a certificate of conformity. 

Rather, EPA would maintain a publicly 

available list identifying conversion 

systems that have satisfied the 

intermediate age demonstration and 

notification requirements, and that 

therefore have qualified for the 

tampering exemption. 

1. Applicability 

Vehicles and engines would become 

eligible for the intermediate age 

compliance program when the date of 

their conversion is in a calendar year 

that is at least two years after the 

original model year of the vehicle or 

engine, i.e. when they are about two 

years old. For example, in calendar year 

2010, model year 2008 and earlier 

vehicles and engines would be eligible 

for the intermediate age program. 

EPA proposes that manufacturers of 

conversion systems for vehicles and 

engines that are outside their full useful 

life may also use the intermediate age 

program as a demonstration sufficient to 

qualify for the clean alternative fuel 

conversion exemption from tampering. 

Conversion manufacturers that choose 

to participate in the intermediate age 

program would need to demonstrate 

compliance with the full useful life 

standards, even if the vehicle or engine 

has surpassed its useful life in age or 

mileage. In that case it would not be 

required to generate or use deterioration 

factors. 

2. Test Groups/Engine Families and 

Evaporative/Refueling Families 

a. Test Groups for Light-Duty and 

Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles 

i. Small Volume Manufacturer Test 

Groups 

EPA proposes that small volume 

manufacturers of conversion systems for 

intermediate age vehicles be permitted 

some additional flexibility in creating 

test groups to which the conversion is 

applicable. The primary difference 

between proposed test group criteria for 

the new and intermediate age programs 

is the elimination of the OBD group 

criterion under the intermediate age 

program. Vehicles can be placed into 

the same clean alternative fuel 

conversion test group using good 

engineering judgment if they satisfy the 

following: 

(1) Same OEM and OEM model year 73

(2) OBD still functional 74

(3) Same vehicle classification (e.g., 

light-duty vehicle, heavy-duty vehicle) 

(4) Engine displacement (within 15% 

of largest displacement or 50 CID, 

whichever is larger) 

(5) Same number of cylinders or 

combustion chambers 

(6) Same arrangement of cylinders or 

combustion chambers (e.g., in-line, vshaped) 

(7) Same combustion cycle (e.g., two 

stroke, four stroke, Otto-cycle, dieselcycle) 

(8) Same engine type (e.g., piston, 

rotary, turbine, air cooled versus water 

cooled) 

(9) Same OEM fuel type (except 

otherwise similar gasoline and E85 flex 

fuel vehicles may be combined into 

dedicated alternative fuel vehicles) 

(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g., 

throttle body injection vs. port injection) 

(11) Same catalyst construction (e.g., 

beads or monolith, metal vs. ceramic 

substrate) 

(12) All converted vehicles are subject 

to the most stringent emission standards 

used in certifying the OEM test groups 

within the conversion test group 

EPA especially seeks comment 

regarding whether the 15% engine 

displacement criterion should apply to 

intermediate age vehicles and engines. 

EPA seeks comment on allowing 

additional flexibility by permitting 

combinations of vehicles based on any 

other criteria. EPA would like to receive 

relevant data supporting any 

combination suggestions. 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

EPA proposes to allow large volume 

manufacturers the same test group 

combination flexibility as small volume 

manufacturers when designating 

intermediate age vehicle test groups. See 

Section IV.B.2.a.i for details. However, 

large volume manufacturers are required 

to conduct durability testing, as noted 

below. 

iii. Dual-Fuel Vehicle Carry-Across 

Under the proposed rule, dual-fuel 

vehicles which have different standards 

would need to create a separate 

submission to EPA for each OEM test 

group with different standards. 

However, as is described above in 

Section IV.A.2.a.i.a, test data from an 

emission data vehicle on the alternative 

fuel may be used to satisfy the 

demonstration requirement of multiple 

OEM test groups if the conversion test 

group criteria described above are 

otherwise met and the data demonstrate 

compliance with each standard. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29621 

75 Intermediate standards only apply to those 

vehicles originally certified with intermediate 

standards. 

b. Engine Families for Heavy-Duty 

Engines 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

EPA proposes to allow the same 

engine family combination criteria that 

are described in Section IV.A.2.b.i for 

clean alternative fuel conversion of new 

engines. 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturers 

EPA proposes to allow large volume 

manufacturers the same flexibility as 

small volume manufacturers when 

designating intermediate age heavy-duty 

engine families. See Section IV.B.2.b.i 

for details. However, large volume 

manufacturers are required to conduct 

durability testing. 

iii. Dual-Fuel Engine Carry-Across 

EPA proposes to allow the same data 

carry-across procedures for intermediate 

age dual-fuel engines described in 

Section IV.A.2.b.i.a. 

c. Evaporative/Refueling Families 

EPA proposes that evaporative family 

criteria under the intermediate age 

program remain as provided in 40 CFR 

part 86. If the OEM evaporative system 

is no longer functionally necessary (e.g., 

conversion to dedicated CNG or LPG), 

then conversion manufacturers may 

create new evaporative conversion 

groups following the criteria in 40 CFR 

86.1821–01 for light-duty and heavyduty complete vehicles and 40 CFR 

86.096–24(a)(12)–(13) for heavy-duty 

engines. Clean alternative fuel 

conversion evaporative/refueling 

families for dual-fueled vehicles cannot 

include vehicles that were originally 

certified to different evaporative 

emissions standards. 

3. Demonstration Requirements 

EPA proposes that the demonstration 

requirements for clean alternative fuel 

conversions be based on the 

certification procedures specified in 40 

CFR part 86, subparts A, B and/or S and 

40 CFR part 1065 as applicable, subject 

to the exceptions and special provisions 

described in this section, Section 

III.G.1.a and Section V, if applicable. 

a. Exhaust Emissions 

Exhaust emissions testing 

demonstration is conducted on a test 

group (light-duty) or engine family 

(heavy-duty) basis. The worst-case 

emission data vehicle or engine from 

each test group or engine family would 

be used to demonstrate compliance with 

the most stringent standards represented 

among the OEM vehicle or engines 

when they were originally certified. All 

exhaust demonstration requirements 

and test procedures which are required 

in regulations for OEM certification 

would be required for fuel conversion 

compliance. Test procedures and other 

requirements are currently located in 40 

CFR part 86, subparts A, B, C, O, P, S 

and 40 CFR part 1065. 

b. Evaporative/Refueling Emissions 

The acceptable test procedures to 

demonstrate that a vehicle or engine 

will meet evaporative standards during 

normal vehicle operation, including 

refueling, are specified in 40 CFR part 

86 and part 1065. EPA proposes that 

these test procedures and other 

requirements continue to apply for the 

intermediate age vehicle and engine fuel 

conversion program. Please see the 

technical amendments discussed in 

Section V for fuel-specific amendments 

which apply to conversions to CNG (or 

LNG) and LPG or hydrogen fuels. 

c. Durability Demonstration and 

Assigned Deterioration Factors 

i. Small Volume Manufacturers 

As noted in Section III.H.2 above, 

small volume manufacturers and 

eligible small volume test groups are 

permitted to use EPA-assigned 

deterioration factors in lieu of exhaust 

and evaporative/refueling durability 

demonstrations. EPA proposes to 

continue this practice for purposes of 

evaluating conversion systems that will 

be applied to intermediate age vehicles 

and engines. In addition, EPA is 

proposing a new concept which would 

be applicable to emissions data vehicles 

and engines with more than 10,000 

miles. EPA proposes to allow small 

volume manufacturers to use ‘‘scaled 

deterioration factors.’’ Scaled 

deterioration factors would be derived 

using current assigned deterioration 

factors to determine mileage applicable 

deterioration factors from 10,000 miles 

through intermediate useful life and 

from intermediate useful life through 

full useful life.75 Although the actual 

rates of emissions deterioration from 

10,000 miles to intermediate useful life 

and from intermediate useful life to full 

useful life may vary, EPA may assume 

a linear increase of emissions with 

increasing mileage in order to facilitate 

a simple scaling of the EPA-assigned 

deterioration factors. In the future, EPA 

may adjust these scaled assigned 

deterioration factors if we find the rate 

of deterioration non-constant or the rate 

differs by fuel type. Mathematically, a 

constant rate of deterioration can be 

expressed as: 

Δ

Δ

Mileage Constant

gpm = (Eq. 1)

Note: This does not mean that the 

deterioration factor increases linearly with 

mileage. The equation assumes that the 

grams of pollutant per mile increases at a 

constant rate as vehicle mileage increases. 

In addition to this primary 

assumption, EPA proposes to use these 

two definitions: 

( )1 ADF(FUL)= FULgpm

INITgpm (Eq. 2)

(2) (Eq. 3) SDF(FUL)= FULgpm

MGgpm

Where: 

ADF(FUL) is the full useful life assigned 

multiplicative deterioration factor (DF). 

FULgpm is the grams per mile of pollutant 

projected at full useful life. 

INITgpm is the grams per mile of pollutant 

measured at the beginning of the vehicle 

or engine’s useful life. 

SDF(FUL) is the scaled full useful life 

multiplicative DF. 

MGgpm is the grams per mile of pollutant at 

the actual mileage of emission data 

vehicle or engine. 

Based on the assumption in equation 

1: 

FULMG MG

INITgpm MGgpm

FULMG INITMG

FULgpm INITgpm

−

− = −−


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2EP26MY10.000</MATH> EP26MY10.001</MATH> EP26MY10.002</MATH> EP26MY10.003</MATH>
29622 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

FULMG is the appropriate full useful life 

mileage. 

MG is the actual mileage of the emission data 

vehicle or engine. 

INITMG is the mileage at the beginning of the 

useful life. Note that this value is zero for 

heavy-duty vehicles, since evaluation is 

done at the zero-hour level. 

From this expression, equations 2 and 

3 can be used to ultimately arrive at: 

SDF(FUL)= FULMG INITMG

FULMG INITMG (FULMG MG) ADF(FUL)

−

− − −− ⎛

⎝

⎜1 1 ⎞

⎠

⎟

(Eq. 4)

This equation shows how the scaled 

full useful life multiplicative DF can be 

calculated using the emissions data 

vehicle or engine mileage and the 

assigned full useful life multiplicative 

DF. 

By carrying out the same processes, 

scaled intermediate useful life of 

deterioration factors, where applicable, 

can be determined by the expression: 

SDF(MID)= MIDMG INITMG

MIDMG INITMG (MIDMG MG) ADF(MID)

−

− − −− ⎛

⎝

⎜1 1 ⎞

⎠

⎟

(Eq. 5)

Where: 

SDF(MID) is the scaled intermediate useful 

life multiplicative DF. 

MIDMG is the intermediate useful life 

mileage. 

ADF(MID) is the intermediate useful life 

assigned multiplicative DF, where 

applicable. 

In the same manner, additive scaled 

deterioration factors could also be 

derived. The resulting equations are: 

ASDF = ODF MG INITMG

FULMMG INITMG

−

−

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ (Eq. 6)

Where: 

ODF is the OEM’s original additive DF and 

ASDF is the additive scaled deterioration 

factor. 

EPA proposes using equations 4, 5 

and 6 to scale deterioration factors of 

vehicles with more than 10,000 miles 

used in the testing of clean alternative 

fuel conversions, for demonstration of 

compliance with exhaust and 

evaporative/refueling emissions 

standards. Only the derivation of the 

full useful life scaled additive 

deterioration factor is presented. 

However, the derivation of the 

intermediate useful life scaled additive 

deterioration factor would follow the 

same process. 

ii. Large Volume Manufacturer 

Durability Procedures 

a. Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Complete 

Vehicles 

Durability testing would be required 

for large volume manufacturers of clean 

alternative fuel conversions of 

intermediate age vehicles. EPA proposes 

that durability groups for intermediate 

age vehicles would be designated using 

the provisions set forth in 40 CFR 

86.1820–01, except the durability 

grouping criteria for intermediate age 

vehicles need not include the precious 

metal composition and catalyst 

grouping statistic criteria, since they are 

not included in the test group criteria 

for clean alternative fuel conversions. 

b. Heavy-Duty Engines 

Durability testing would be required 

for large volume manufacturers of clean 

alternative fuel conversions for 

intermediate age engines. 

d. On-Board Diagnostics 

EPA believes the proper functioning 

of an OBD system is essential to ensure 

continued emission compliance of an 

aging vehicle or engine. However, EPA 

proposes that the demonstration of OBD 

compliance for intermediate age 

vehicles and engines may be 

streamlined relative to the current 

certification requirements. In lieu of the 

OBD demonstration test data 

requirement, EPA proposes to allow 

manufacturers of intermediate age clean 

alternative fuel conversion systems to 

attest that the OBD system on the 

converted vehicle or engine will 

continue to properly detect and identify 

malfunctions in all monitored emissionrelated systems or components 

consistent with 40 CFR part 86 OBD 

requirements, including any new 

monitoring capability to identify 

potential emission problems associated 

with the new fuel. These include but are 

not limited to: Fuel trim lean and rich 

monitors, catalyst deterioration 

monitors, engine misfire monitors, 

oxygen sensor deterioration monitors, 

EGR system monitors, if applicable, and 

vapor leak monitors, if applicable. The 

manufacturer would not be allowed to 

alias, remove, or turn off any applicable 

original OBD system monitor. 

Furthermore the malfunction indicator 

light system would be required to 

continue to function properly and not 

display an illuminated Malfunction 

Indicator Light unless system indicators 

or emission thresholds are truly being 

exceeded. EPA would also require 

readiness flags to be properly set for all 

monitors that identify any malfunction 

for all monitored components. 

Additionally, EPA seeks comment on 

whether a readiness flag demonstration 

is appropriate for intermediate age 

vehicles. Such a demonstration could 

involve the same process proposed as 

‘‘Option 3’’ demonstration for vehicles 

and engines outside of useful life. See 

Section IV.C.3.b for more details. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2EP26MY10.004</MATH> EP26MY10.005</MATH> EP26MY10.006</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29623 

4. Notification Process 

For intermediate age clean alternative 

fuel conversions EPA proposes that 

converters complete and submit 

emission data vehicle information, test 

data, compliance statements and all 

other appropriate information using an 

electronic data submission form and 

process. EPA would provide 

information about the process through 

its Web site and other information 

dissemination mechanisms. 

EPA would require the conversion 

manufacturer to enter information about 

the emission data vehicle or engine, 

emission results from the exhaust and 

evaporative emissions testing, including 

any permissible carry-over data, 

applicable exhaust and evaporative 

emissions standards and deterioration 

factors, and the OEM test groups or 

engine families and evaporative/ 

refueling families for which the 

conversion system is intended. In this 

submission, EPA would allow 

conversion manufacturers to use the 

appropriate exhaust and evaporative 

emissions scaled deterioration factors 

for vehicles and engines with greater 

than 10,000 miles as described in 

Section IV.B.3.c.i to demonstrate that 

the converted vehicle meets the same 

standards to which the OEM vehicle or 

engine was certified. 

The intermediate age program 

notification requirements would also 

include submission of any required 

compliance statements and other 

supporting documents such as an 

example label and packaging 

information, warranty provisions, and 

maintenance requirements. The specific 

set of necessary compliance statements 

will depend on the vehicle or engine 

category, the applicable standards, the 

alternative fuel type, and other factors. 

The intermediate age vehicle and 

engine notification process would 

enable conversion manufacturers to 

submit statements of compliance or 

attestations instead of submitting test 

data for certain system features. Some of 

these compliance statements are found 

in the OEM certification regulations in 

40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S and 

40 CFR part 1065. In addition we are 

proposing attestation statements specific 

to conversion to a clean alternative fuel. 

These would include: 

1. The test group or engine family 

converted to dual-fuel operation retains 

all the OEM fuel system, engine 

calibration, and emission control system 

functionality when operating on the fuel 

with which the vehicle or engine was 

originally certified. 

2. The test group or engine family 

converted to dual-fuel operation retains 

all the functionality of the OEM OBD 

system (if so equipped) when operating 

on the fuel with which the vehicle was 

originally certified. 

3. The test group or engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has fully 

functional OBD systems (if the OEM 

vehicles are OBD equipped) and 

therefore meets the OBD requirements 

in 40 CFR part 86, Subpart S when 

operating on the alternative fuel. 

4. The test group or engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation 

properly purges hydrocarbon vapor 

from the evaporative emission canister 

when the vehicles or engines are 

operating on the alternative fuel. 

5. The test group or engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel use 

fueling systems, evaporative emission 

control systems, and engine powertrain 

components that are compatible with 

the alternative fuel and that are 

designed with the principles of good 

engineering judgment. 

EPA proposes that this information 

would be submitted electronically in a 

format specified by the Administrator. If 

the test results meet both the 

intermediate and full useful life 

standards, after applying the 

deterioration factors (see Section 

IV.3.c.i), all supporting documents are 

included, and all compliance statements 

are attested, then the conversion 

manufacturer may submit the test data 

form to EPA. 

EPA will periodically update its list of 

conversion systems that have satisfied 

EPA demonstration and notification 

requirements. The exemption from the 

tampering prohibition is void ab initio 

if the conversion manufacturer fails to 

meet all of the requirements for the 

program. This is the case even if a 

submission has been made and the 

conversion system has been publicly 

posted. 

a. Previously Certified Clean Alternative 

Fuel Conversion Systems 

EPA proposes to allow manufacturers 

who have previously certified 

conversion systems for either new or 

intermediate age vehicles or engines to 

move those systems into the 

intermediate age program by using the 

intermediate age compliance process 

described above. The manufacturer 

would not need to generate new data 

but rather could re-submit the same data 

previously used for certification. The 

transfer option would apply only to 

vehicles/engines that meet intermediate 

age applicability criteria and that fall 

within the identical test group and 

evaporative family as those covered by 

the conversion certificate. 

Manufacturers who transfer previously 

certified conversion systems to the 

intermediate age compliance program 

would no longer need to renew the 

certificate each year. Once transferred, 

the conversion system would no longer 

be listed as certified but rather would 

appear on EPA’s list of conversion 

systems that are compliant for 

intermediate age vehicles. 

5. In-Use Compliance 

Clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers are subject to in-use 

requirements. Many of these are 

described in Section III above, including 

warranty, defect reporting and recall 

requirements, as well as EPA’s authority 

to perform in-use testing. 

C. Outside Useful Life Program 

As discussed in Section II, vehicle 

and engine emission standards 

established under the CAA apply not 

only at the time of production but also 

until the vehicle or engine reaches an 

age or usage threshold known as ‘‘full 

useful life.’’ EPA regulations defining 

useful life are found in 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart S. Once a vehicle or engine has 

exceeded the useful life threshold there 

is no longer a statutory or regulatory 

obligation to comply with the applicable 

standard. However, the prohibition 

against tampering in section 203(a)(3) 

still applies to vehicles and engines 

outside their useful life. Thus, it is 

important to provide a program that 

enables converters of older vehicles and 

engines to use the clean alternative fuel 

tampering exemption, provided that all 

requirements of the regulations are 

satisfied. We are proposing such a 

program through which manufacturers 

of clean alternative fuel conversion 

systems for outside useful life vehicles 

and engines can qualify for an 

exemption in order to avoid violating 

the tampering prohibition. 

The absence of an applicable section 

202 standard for vehicles and engines 

outside their useful life necessitates a 

different demonstration requirement 

than the demonstration of compliance 

with the applicable section 202 standard 

that we are proposing for conversion of 

vehicles and engines still within their 

useful life. There are several possible 

approaches to a demonstration that 

would help assure that outside useful 

life conversions are consistent with the 

CAA prohibition on tampering and do 

not cause environmental degradation. 

EPA intends to finalize a single 

demonstration requirement for outside 

useful life vehicles and engines but we 

are seeking comment on three options 

described below. EPA requests comment 

on all aspects of the outside useful life 

demonstration options and especially 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29624 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

on the relative advantages and 

disadvantages of each of the options 

with regard to clarity of what would be 

required, ability of conversion 

manufacturers to satisfy the 

demonstration requirement, quality of 

information EPA would receive to 

evaluate emissions performance and 

durability, and enforceability. Please 

note that while the demonstration 

requirement would differ among the 

three options, all other elements of the 

outside useful life program would be the 

same. The notification process would be 

the same under all options, as would the 

public listing of conversion systems 

qualifying for EPA-compliant status, 

much like the list that would be 

maintained for intermediate age vehicle 

and engine conversion systems. Also, 

under all options, the exemption from 

the tampering prohibition is void ab 

initio if the conversion manufacturer 

fails to meet all of the requirements for 

the program. This is the case even if a 

submission has been made and the 

conversion system has been publicly 

posted. 

1. Applicability 

Clean alternative fuel conversion of 

vehicles and engines that have exceeded 

their useful life are eligible for the 

outside useful life program. As vehicle 

and engine technologies have advanced 

and changed, so have the regulatory 

definitions for useful life. Please refer to 

Section II.B for current useful life 

references. 

Manufacturers of conversion systems 

for outside useful life vehicles may also 

qualify for exemption from the 

tampering prohibition through the 

intermediate age vehicle and engine 

compliance program. See Section IV.B. 

EPA requests comment on whether to 

establish a subcategory of outside useful 

life vehicles and engines that reach the 

applicable mileage threshold for outside 

useful life status before they reach the 

applicable age threshold in years (see 

Section II.B for discussion of useful 

life). The reason to consider establishing 

a subcategory of ‘‘younger’’ outside 

useful life vehicles and engines that 

might be subject to a demonstration 

requirement much like the intermediate 

age requirement is that the on-road fleet 

will include both inside- and outsideuseful life vehicles/engines of the same 

model year and test group/engine 

family. This presents a potential 

opportunity for misapplication and 

inappropriate marketing of conversion 

systems developed for outside useful 

life vehicles or engines. These outside 

useful life conversion systems could be 

inappropriately marketed and 

misapplied to vehicles and engines that 

are still within useful life. This type of 

inappropriate marketing and 

misapplication presents practical 

challenges for enforcement. 

a. Outside Useful Life Subcategory 

Option 

The outside useful life subcategory 

option would create two subcategories 

of outside useful life vehicles and 

engines. One subcategory would include 

vehicles and engines that have achieved 

outside useful life status because of 

their age in years. For this subcategory 

of vehicles and engines, EPA is 

soliciting comment on three 

demonstration options described in 

Sections IV.C.3.A, B, and C. A second 

subcategory of outside useful life 

vehicles or engines would include those 

that have achieved outside useful life 

status because of their mileage, but that 

have not yet reached the useful life age 

threshold in years. An example of a 

vehicle in the second subcategory 

would be a light duty vehicle with 

125,000 miles that is five years old. This 

vehicle would have exceeded its useful 

life only because of its mileage. EPA is 

seeking comment on whether, for 

purposes of achieving exemption from 

the tampering prohibition for clean 

alternative fuel conversions, it is 

reasonable to establish a subcategory of 

outside useful life vehicles that have 

exceeded the useful life mileage 

threshold but that are still young in 

years. EPA further requests comment as 

to whether manufacturers of conversion 

systems for this subcategory of vehicles 

and engines should be required to 

satisfy a different demonstration 

requirement than would be required for 

conversion of vehicles/engines in the 

‘‘old by years’’ outside useful life 

subcategory. Specifically, EPA requests 

comment about whether to establish the 

Option 2 demonstration requirement 

described in Section IV.C.3.a., below, 

for this subcategory of vehicles/engines, 

regardless of the demonstration option 

that is applied to the other outside 

useful life vehicles and engines (those 

that have qualified by years alone, or by 

years and mileage). 

2. Test Groups, Engine Families, and 

Evaporative/Refueling Families 

EPA proposes that the same 

requirements and criteria for test 

groups, engine families, and evaporative 

refueling family designations as are 

proposed for intermediate age vehicles 

and engines would also apply to outside 

useful life vehicles and engines. See 

Section IV.B.2. 

3. Demonstration Requirements 

As stated above, there are several 

possible approaches to a demonstration 

that would satisfy EPA’s interest in 

assuring that conversion of vehicles and 

engines beyond their useful life are for 

the purpose of conversion to a clean 

alternative fuel and do not cause 

environmental degradation. EPA is 

seeking comment on the three options 

below. All three options would require 

a demonstration that the conversion is 

technically viable and will not increase 

emissions; however, the means by 

which the conversion manufacturer 

could make that demonstration differs 

among the three options. EPA intends to 

finalize a single demonstration 

requirement, unless two subcategories 

of outside useful life vehicles are 

established in the final rule, in which 

case, EPA may finalize two 

demonstration requirements, one for 

each subcategory of outside useful life 

vehicles. 

A. Option 1 

Manufacturers of conversion systems 

for outside useful life vehicles and 

engines would satisfy the demonstration 

requirement by submitting to EPA a 

detailed description of the conversion 

system. The submission would need to 

provide a level of technical detail 

sufficient for EPA to confirm the 

conversion system’s ability to sustain 

acceptable emission levels in the 

intended vehicle or engine. Required 

technical information would include 

but not be limited to a complete 

characterization of exhaust and 

evaporative emissions control strategies, 

and specifications related to OBD 

system functionality. EPA would audit 

the submission and could require the 

conversion manufacturer to supply 

additional information, including test 

data, to support the claim that the 

technology involves good engineering 

judgment that is being applied for 

purposes of conversion to a clean 

alternative fuel. 

Examples of the kind of information 

EPA would expect to be included in the 

demonstration could include test data, 

component or part specifications, 

technical descriptions or diagrams, and 

any other information necessary for EPA 

to evaluate the technical viability of the 

conversion system and the use of good 

engineering judgment in its design, such 

as information concerning: 

Exhaust Control System: The original 

engine controller, sensors, actuators, 

catalysts and other emission control 

components would be connected and 

functional, and actively monitored by 

the OBD system. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29625 

76The attestation statements to be reviewed and 

signed for the outside useful life program are 

identical to the attestation statements required for 

the intermediate age vehicle and engine compliance 

program. See Section IV.B.4. 

Evaporative Control System: The 

alternative fuel system would be leak 

free and utilize materials compatible 

with the alternative fuel. Dual-fuel and 

flex-fuel vehicles would retain the 

components and the functionality of the 

OEM evaporative emission control 

system. For dual-fuel and flex-fuel 

systems the evaporative emission 

control system would purge the 

evaporative emission canister in a 

manner identical to the OEM designed 

purge system when the vehicle is 

operating on the alternative fuel. 

Fuel Delivery System: The alternative 

fuel delivery system would employ 

technology that is at least equivalent in 

sophistication to the OEM fuel delivery 

system. For example, conversions of 

engines with multiple port injectors 

would need to employ alternative fuel 

systems with multiple port injectors; 

engines with throttle injection would 

need to use alternative fuel systems 

with throttle injection; OEM carbureted 

engines would be able to use alternative 

fuel systems with central air mixers. 

Conversions of OEM vehicles with 

closed loop feedback fuel control 

systems would be expected to have 

similar closed loop control systems to 

maintain stoichiometric air/fuel control. 

Acceptable fuel control could also be 

achieved by using a secondary 

electronic control unit which adjusts 

fuel injector pulse width based on 

existing sensor inputs and on the 

alternative fuel’s properties. Good 

engineering design would preclude the 

use of driver actuated controls for 

engine starting or fuel adjustment, other 

than for selecting the fuel type for a 

dual-fuel vehicle. 

Durability: A discussion of the 

durability of the alternative fuel system 

would be necessary to support a good 

engineering judgment determination. 

The conversion to a clean alternative 

fuel should not increase the 

deterioration rate of the exhaust or 

evaporative emission system 

components. Fueling system 

components whose material is known to 

prematurely deteriorate due to the 

alternative fuel’s properties would need 

to be upgraded. 

OBD: Good engineering judgment 

dictates that vehicles equipped with 

OBD systems produce no false MILs or 

diagnostic trouble codes during normal 

operation, nor may there be any 

modifications that prevent OBD 

readiness flags from being properly set 

while operating on the alternative fuel. 

The OBD system must properly detect 

and identify malfunctions in all 

monitored emission related powertrain 

systems or components including any 

new monitoring capability necessary to 

identify potential emission problems 

associated with the alternative fuel. 

B. Option 2 

Manufacturers of conversion systems 

for outside useful life vehicles and 

engines would satisfy the demonstration 

requirement by conducting one of the 

following vehicle emissions testing 

protocols and submitting the results to 

EPA: 

1. The manufacturer must submit data 

demonstrating that the vehicle or engine 

meets the exhaust and evaporative 

emissions standards that were 

applicable to the original vehicle within 

its defined useful life. This would be 

accomplished by following the 

demonstration requirements described 

for the intermediate age vehicle program 

(see Section IV.B). 

2. The manufacturer must submit data 

from two sets of all the exhaust and 

evaporative/refueling testing applicable 

to alternative fueled vehicles and 

engines set forth in 40 CFR part 86 and 

part 1065, with the first test conducted 

before conversion and the second test 

after conversion. The data must 

demonstrate that emissions have not 

increased after conversion. The 

emission data vehicle(s) or engine(s) 

would need to be set to the 

manufacturer’s tune up specification 

before the first test, and, apart from 

what is required of the normal 

conversion procedure, no additional 

adjustments to the vehicle would be 

allowed between the first and second set 

of tests. 

The demonstration requirement under 

this option would also include a 

description of the OBD compliance 

strategy and a description of the good 

engineering judgment and technical 

information. 

C. Option 3 

Manufacturers of conversion systems 

for outside useful life vehicles and 

engines that were equipped with OBD 

systems in their OEM configuration 

would satisfy the demonstration 

requirement by submitting all materials 

required for the Option 1 demonstration 

requirement, along with a report 

containing OBD checks following 

conversion to the alternative fuel. This 

report must be based on the OBD 

information from the emission data 

vehicle or engine that is selected to 

represent the outside useful life program 

test group or engine family. Under 

EPA’s proposed rule, conversion 

manufacturers must satisfy the good 

engineering judgment description in 

Section III.B of this proposal. 

The OBD demonstration would 

involve using an OBD scan tool to clear 

all readiness codes (set codes to ‘‘not 

ready’’), driving the vehicle to trigger all 

codes to be set to ready, and then using 

an OBD scan tool to interrogate the OBD 

system. 

Under Option 3, in addition to 

satisfying all requirements for good 

engineering judgment, clean alternative 

fuel converted vehicles and engines 

would be considered compliant if they 

pass the testing prescribed in 40 CFR 

85.2222, except that § 85.2222 (c)(2) 

does not apply, and document this by 

means of a printable report from the 

OBD scan. If necessary, the evaporative 

emission readiness monitor may remain 

unset for conversions in which the 

original evaporative emissions system is 

no longer functionally necessary. 

If not included in the OBD scan tool 

printout, the vehicle information 

number (VIN) would need to be 

provided with the scan tool report. 40 

CFR 85.2222 provides for a test 

procedure which checks the status of 

OBD readiness monitors, checks to 

determine if the OBD MIL is functional 

(bulb check), checks for commanded-on 

MIL illumination, and if the MIL is 

commanded-on, the scan tool records all 

DTCs (diagnostic trouble codes). Any 

scan tool capable of collecting the 

information required by 40 CFR 85.2222 

is considered acceptable under this 

option. 

4. Notification Process 

Manufacturers of outside useful life 

conversion systems would use the same 

notification procedures to submit the 

required information as those proposed 

for the intermediate age vehicle and 

engine compliance program (see Section 

IV.B). The notification submission 

would include documentation of the 

required demonstration as well as 

labeling information and all appropriate 

attestation statements.76

D. Alternate Registration Approach for 

Newer Outside Useful Life Vehicles and 

Engines 

EPA is requesting comment on an 

alternative approach that would be 

applicable to vehicles and engines that 

exceed the useful life threshold in 

mileage before they reach the threshold 

in years. An example of this type of 

vehicle would be a 2005 Dodge Caravan 

with 125,000 miles. Typically, an 

average 2005 model year Dodge Caravan 

would be driven 15,000 miles per year, 

and would have only 75,000 miles on 

the odometer in 2010, which would still 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

be within useful life. These relatively 

new outside useful life (NOUL) vehicles 

and engines are distinguishable from 

those still within useful life only by 

checking the odometer. EPA is 

concerned that conversion system 

manufacturers might choose to forego 

the testing and compliance 

demonstrations required for the new 

and intermediate age vehicles and 

engines, and would instead register a 

conversion system for use on NOUL 

vehicles and engines only. However, 

EPA fears that conversion systems 

registered for NOUL vehicles and 

engines would be marketed to 

consumers of conversion systems for all 

vehicles of the same model year, 

regardless of their mileage. It would be 

difficult for EPA to monitor whether 

these conversion systems were 

ultimately installed only on outside 

useful life vehicles, and also difficult for 

conversion system installers and 

consumers to distinguish between 

conversion systems built for identical 

model year and model vehicles, where 

the only difference is that one 

conversion system is registered for use 

only on vehicles with mileage greater 

than useful life, and the other is 

registered for installation on all vehicles 

of the appropriate model year and 

model. 

EPA is seeking comment on an 

approach under which the requirements 

for registration of conversion systems 

for NOUL vehicles and engines would 

be based on registration of intermediate 

age vehicles and engines of the same 

test group/engine family, or back-toback testing. Under this approach for 

NOUL vehicles and engines, if the first 

option is taken, consumers and 

installers would be able to identify the 

appropriate registered conversion 

system by matching model year and 

model, without regard to the vehicle’s 

mileage. We would expect the vast 

majority of conversion system 

manufacturers would take this option 

because they will wish to sell the same 

conversion system to intermediate age 

vehicle owners, and this one-size-fits all 

approach is cost-effective. We are 

providing the second option for 

conversion system manufacturers who 

may not be able to locate a suitable test 

vehicle that is still subject to the 

standards, or who plans to manufacture 

a conversion system for a targeted high 

mileage population. Under the second 

option, the conversion system supplier 

would need to perform back-to-back 

emission testing to demonstrate that the 

conversion does not degrade the 

performance of the emission control 

system. This approach is designed to be 

efficient for the converter but would 

prevent the type of gaming described 

above, would provide a clearer choice 

for conversion system installers and 

consumers, and would make 

enforcement of these new requirements 

easier, benefitting responsible 

manufacturers and installers. This 

approach would not increase the burden 

on the vast majority of conversion 

system manufacturers because it is 

designed for testing efficiency, and EPA 

anticipates that most conversion system 

manufacturers would choose to find a 

test vehicle that is still within its useful 

life and go ahead with either the 

certification demonstration or the 

intermediate age demonstration option 

in order to maximize market coverage 

for products designed for a given model 

and model year of vehicle and engine. 

1. NOUL Vehicles and Engines 

Subcategory 

a. Applicability 

The NOUL approach would apply to 

vehicles and engines that exceed the 

useful life threshold in mileage before 

they reach the threshold in years. 

b. Demonstration Requirements 

Under the NOUL approach, 

manufacturers of conversion systems 

intended for NOUL vehicles or engines 

would be required to follow the same 

registration requirements and 

procedures that are established for 

intermediate age vehicles and engines in 

order to gain an exemption from the 

prohibitions in CAA section 203(a), or 

conduct back-to-back testing. In brief, 

the conversion system manufacturer 

would have two testing options for 

NOUL vehicles. Under the first option, 

the manufacturer would be required to 

locate a test vehicle that is still within 

useful life, in terms of both miles and 

years. The manufacturer would 

demonstrate that the inside-useful life 

test vehicle complies with applicable 

standards by using the same test 

procedures as those required of 

intermediate age conversion system 

manufacturers. The conversion system 

manufacturer would also perform the 

intermediate age vehicle and engine 

OBD compliance demonstration to 

prove continued compliance with OBD 

requirements and provide an attestation 

that the OBD system remains fully 

functional. All other requirements of the 

intermediate age vehicles and engines 

program would apply to this 

subcategory. Where a conversion system 

manufacturer has already registered a 

conversion system for intermediate age 

vehicles and engines for specific model 

years and models, that registration 

would also apply to NOUL vehicles and 

engines. Under the second option, the 

conversion system manufacturer would 

perform two tests on a representative 

NOUL vehicle or engine using the 

Federal Test Procedure. The first test 

would be with the fuel for which the 

NOUL vehicle or engine was originally 

certified and prior to installation of the 

conversion system. The second test 

would be performed after the 

conversion system is installed and using 

the alternative fuel. The conversion 

system would qualify for the tampering 

exemption provided that the second test 

shows emissions that are equal to or less 

than the emissions from the first test, 

and all other registration requirements 

for the outside useful life program are 

met. 

V. Technical Amendments 

EPA is proposing several technical 

amendments to 40 CFR part 86, subpart 

S which are applicable to the exhaust 

and evaporative emission testing 

requirements for vehicles using gaseous 

alternative fuels. The purpose of these 

amendments is to allow flexibility in 

determining compliance with EPA nonmethane organic material (NMOG) 

standards for vehicles, and also to allow 

statements of compliance in lieu of test 

data for meeting exhaust emission 

standards for formaldehyde (HCHO), 

and evaporative emissions. For 

purposes of this regulation, compressed 

natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural 

gas (LNG), liquefied petroleum gas 

(LPG), or hydrogen fuels are eligible for 

the technical amendments described 

below. 

EPA is seeking comment whether 

there are other test procedures in 40 

CFR part 86 or part 1065 which should 

be updated to address concerns specific 

to certain alternative fuels. 

A. Exhaust Emission Technical 

Amendments 

NMHC Multiplicative Adjustment 

Factor—CFR section 86.1810–01(p) 

allows use of a multiplicative factor to 

convert non-methane hydrocarbon 

(NMHC) exhaust emissions to an 

equivalent NMOG result to demonstrate 

compliance with NMOG standards. 

Under current regulations, use of a 

multiplicative factor, such as the 1.04 

value presented in 86.1810–01(p), is 

only applicable to gasoline fueled 

vehicles. At present, EPA regulations 

require hydrocarbon exhaust emission 

measurements from fuel types other 

than gasoline or diesel to use the 

California Air Resources Board NMOG 

speciation procedures. The speciation 

procedures are more expensive and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29627 

77 40 CFR 86.1838–01. 

78For electronic access to the Bureau of Labor 

and Statistics Data, see http://www.bls.gov/oes/ 

2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b11-0000. 

significantly more time consuming than 

a simple measurement of NMHC. 

EPA proposes to amend 86.1810– 

01(p) to allow use of multiplicative 

factors that will permit a compliance 

demonstration with NMOG standards to 

be determined by measuring NMHC 

from vehicles fueled on CNG (or LNG), 

LPG, or hydrogen, and converting those 

measurements to an equivalent NMOG 

result by applying a multiplicative 

adjustment factor. 

The multiplicative adjustment factors 

must be based on data and use of such 

factors must be approved in advance by 

EPA. 

HCHO Compliance Statement—CFR 

section 86.1829–01(b)(1)(iii)(E) allows 

vehicle manufacturers to submit a 

statement of compliance in lieu of 

submitting HCHO test data to 

demonstrate compliance with HCHO 

exhaust standards for vehicles tested 

with gasoline or diesel. EPA proposes 

by technical amendment to allow such 

flexibility for CNG (or LNG), LPG, and 

hydrogen. Similar to what is currently 

required in 86.1829–01, manufacturers 

using CNG (or LNG), LPG, or hydrogen 

fuels may optionally make a statement 

of compliance for meeting HCHO 

standards if they have received approval 

to measure NHMC in lieu of actual 

NMOG. 

B. Evaporative Emission Technical 

Amendments 

1. Evaporative Emissions, Running Loss, 

Refueling Loss Compliance Statement 

EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 

86.1829–01(b)(2)(i) to allow waiver of 

evaporative emission reporting 

requirements, including running loss 

and refueling loss, and allow 

compliance with the requirements in 

86.1811–04(e) for CNG (or LNG), LPG, 

or hydrogen fuels by making a 

compliance statement in the application 

for certification. 86.1829–01(b)(2)(i) 

already provides for allowing a 

compliance statement in lieu of 

submitting data to demonstrate 

compliance with evaporative emission 

standards in 86.1811–04(e). EPA has 

received inquiries about other types of 

gaseous fuels and this amendment 

simply clarifies that manufacturers 

using other hydrogen fuels may qualify 

for an evaporative emission statement of 

compliance. Compliance statements do 

not alleviate the OEM or aftermarket 

fuel converter from complying with 

evaporative emission, running loss and 

refueling standards in 86.1811–04(e). 

Compliance statements are expected to 

be supported by development testing 

data or other engineering data. 

The rationale for allowing compliance 

statements for evaporative emission, 

running loss, or refueling emission 

requirements is based on the fact that 

gaseous fuel systems must be a closed 

fueling system, and therefore the 

expectation is that they have zero 

emissions. Allowing a statement of 

compliance for LPG refueling emissions 

is contingent that the LPG fuel tank has 

no open vent (sometimes referred to as 

an ‘‘outage’’ valve) during the refueling 

operation. 

The flexibilities described above for 

evaporative emissions are consistent 

with EPA regulations published in the 

Federal Register, Volume 59, No. 182, 

September 21, 1994—Standards for 

Emissions From Natural Gas-Fueled and 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas-Fueled Motor 

Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, 

and Certification Procedures for 

Aftermarket Conversions, but not 

explicitly incorporated in 40 CFR part 

86, subpart S. Adding these technical 

amendments to section 86.1829– 

01(b)(2)(iv) will provide clarity to EPA 

regulations for OEM manufacturers and 

aftermarket fuel converters desiring to 

certify vehicles on gaseous fuels. 

VI. Environmental Effects 

As in the original subpart F 

rulemaking, 59 FR 48488 (September 21, 

1994), the primary purpose of this 

proposal is to maintain emissions 

performance and air quality while 

removing a potential barrier to the 

commercial production of clean 

alternative fuel conversion systems. The 

Agency has not attempted to quantify 

the environmental effects of today’s 

proposal because the goal of this 

rulemaking is to preserve environmental 

benefits from existing EPA vehicle and 

engine standards by creating a clear, 

legal pathway for clean alternative fuel 

conversion while maintaining existing 

emissions control levels. Therefore the 

Agency’s best assessment of 

environmental impacts due to this 

rulemaking is that the environmental 

effects are at worst, neutral. 

VII. Associated Costs for Light-Duty 

and Heavy-Duty Complete Vehicles 

The cost associated with achieving a 

regulatory exemption from tampering 

for clean alternative fuel conversion 

under this proposal is expected to be 

less than the current cost of compliance. 

The amount of cost reduction will vary 

based on conversion technology, fuel 

type, vehicle or engine age, 

applicability, conversion manufacturer 

preference, and the manufacturer’s 

annual sales volume. The current 

baseline cost estimates are summarized 

in Section VII.A below. Additionally, 

there are two vehicle-age dependent 

cost estimates summarized in Section 

VII.B and VII.C. for certified conversions 

(VII.B) and intermediate age vehicle 

conversions (VII.C). 

The baseline and projected costs will 

also depend on the original vehicle or 

engine fuel and on the specific clean 

alternative fuel to which the vehicle is 

being converted. This cost analysis is 

intended to apply to conversions to any 

fuel. Some test procedures are not 

required for either dedicated CNG or 

LPG or dual-fuel gasoline/CNG or dualfuel gasoline/LPG. Since more than 98% 

of the alternative fuel conversion 

certificates issued by EPA in 2007 and 

2008 were for these types of 

conversions, EPA conversion 

requirements or testing exemptions 

which are specific to CNG and LPG are 

noted in a separate section. However, 

any description in this section which is 

not specified as applying to CNG or LPG 

specifically should be assumed to apply 

to all conversion fuels. 

The current (baseline) and projected 

costs also depend upon the conversion 

manufacturer’s annual sales volume. 

Every current conversion manufacturer 

has sales volumes low enough to be 

eligible to use Small Volume 

Manufacturer certification procedures. 

EPA has no indication that 

manufacturers in this industry are 

approaching the eligibility limits of 

small volume status; therefore, this cost 

analysis will only describe baseline and 

projected costs for small volume.77 If 

sales volumes were to increase such that 

manufacturer(s) surpassed small volume 

thresholds, EPA expects costs for large 

volume manufacturer fuel conversion 

compliance to remain unchanged or to 

decrease from the current (baseline) 

large volume manufacturer fuel 

conversion compliance costs. 

In addition to testing costs and fees, 

cost estimates will include costs 

associated with creating applications for 

certification and submitting test data to 

EPA. EPA also analyzed the costs 

associated with confirmatory testing 

requirements at EPA. These costs 

include preparing a vehicle to test at the 

EPA, and shipping the vehicle to the 

EPA laboratory for testing. All hourly 

wage data for conversion manufacturer 

labor is based on the Bureau of Labor 

and Statistics.78 All conversion 

manufacturers reported that a senior 

manager is conducting testing oversight 

and application preparation, so the 

labor rate for all conversion 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29628 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

79For electronic access to the Bureau of Labor 

and Statistics Data, see http://www.bls.gov/oes/ 

2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b11-0000. 

manufacturer labor is consistent across 

tasks. Engineering managers are 

reported to earn an average of $57.97 

per hour according to a May 2008 report 

by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.79

EPA has applied a suggested 100% labor 

overhead cost to all conversion 

manufacturer labor costs. In addition, 

EPA typically applies a 6.5% general 

and administrative overhead cost to all 

costs. Technology research and 

development costs were not considered 

in this analysis because these costs are 

not expected to change as a result of this 

rulemaking. 

In general, conversion manufacturers 

try to apply one set of test data to as 

many vehicle makes and models as EPA 

will allow in order to minimize testing 

costs. Because costs can be scaled when 

certifying multiple test groups and/or 

multiple evaporative/refueling families, 

and conversion manufacturers each 

have different testing and compliance 

strategies and different target market 

plans, this analysis will derive the 

current cost of compliance (baseline 

costs) for converting vehicles based on 

the assumption that costs can be scaled 

when certifying multiple test groups 

and/or multiple evaporative/refueling 

families. The scaling factors were 

determined by the following applicable 

ratios: (1) Number of OEM exhaust test 

groups to number of OEM certificates 

and (2) number of OEM evaporative/ 

refueling families to number of OEM 

certificates. This allowed EPA to create 

a scaled unit cost for each certificate 

which adequately represents that 

manufacturers apply test data to 

multiple certificates. To create a realworld example, and allow a clear 

comparison of baseline versus projected 

costs of the proposed programs, this cost 

analysis ultimately compares the cost of 

fuel conversion for four OEM 

certificates after applying all 

appropriately scaled unit costs. This 

same logic was then used to derive the 

approximate cost of compliance for the 

vehicle fuel conversion of four OEM 

certificates under the proposed 

regulations, as described previously in 

this preamble. 

A. Baseline Costs (Cost of Current 

Compliance) 

Baseline costs will be derived by first 

determining the cost of one certificate 

without any scaled costs. These costs 

would be applicable if a conversion 

manufacturer chose to convert vehicles 

represented by only one OEM 

certificate. This is rarely done in 

practice because conversion 

manufacturers choose to take advantage 

of using one set of test data to apply to 

multiple certificates. 

Next the baseline cost of one 

certificate will be calculated assuming 

the conversion manufacturers choose to 

take advantage of the application of data 

to multiple certificates. Average scaled 

costs are calculated on a unit basis of 

one certificate with scaled costs. 

Lastly, EPA calculated the baseline 

cost of converting vehicles represented 

by four OEM certificates. This is done 

to create a real-world example which 

allows a clear comparison for the cost 

reductions created by the changes 

proposed under this NPRM. 

1. Costs of One Certificate Without 

Scaling Costs 

Several aftermarket conversion 

manufacturers as well as an 

independent test lab were contacted to 

estimate the current aftermarket fuel 

conversion certification costs under 40 

CFR, part 85 subpart F. The basic 

certification testing requirements 

included: (a) Demonstration of 

compliance with exhaust emissions on 

a test group basis: One FTP75 test and 

CO, NOX, and NMHC analysis; HCHO 

and NMOG speciation; one HFET NOX

test; (b) Demonstration of compliance 

with evaporative/refueling emissions on 

an evaporative/refueling family basis: 

Hot soak, canister purge and 2 or 3 day 

evaporative emissions tests; and (c) 

Compliance with the Federal OBDII 

demonstration tests which is generally 

done at the Federal level on the same 

basis as the exhaust test group. Lodging, 

labor and general and administrative 

costs are appropriated to each 

requirement category in order to provide 

a clear examination of costs under the 

proposed programs. 

a. Costs Associated With Exhaust 

Emission Testing (Test Group Basis) 

All estimated independent test lab 

costs associated with exhaust emissions 

testing are listed in Table VII.A–1 and 

Table VII.A–2 below. 

TABLE VII.A–1—EXHAUST EMISSIONS TESTING COSTS TYPICALLY INCURRED AT INDEPENDENT TEST LABS

Average costs 

Coast Down Coefficient Determination ........................................................................................................................................... $360.00 

One FTP75 Test and CO, NOX, NMHC Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 1,116.67 

(NMOG Speciation)—Aldehydes and Ketones ............................................................................................................................... 1,500.00 

(NMOG Speciation)—Alcohols ........................................................................................................................................................ 250.00 

One HFET NOX Test ....................................................................................................................................................................... 430.00 

Exhaust Independent Test Lab Billable Labor Costs ...................................................................................................................... 702.50 

Total Exhaust Independent Test Lab Costs ............................................................................................................................. 4,359.17 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29629 

TABLE VII.A–2—TOTAL ESTIMATED EXHAUST EMISSIONS TESTING COSTS FOR FUEL CONVERSION OF ONE OEM 

CERTIFICATE

[No scaling applied] 

Testing costs for 

one aftermarket 

fuel conversion 

certificate 

(no scaling for 

multiple 

certificates 

applied) 

Total exhaust independent test lab costs ........................................................................................................................................ $4,359.17 

Total exhaust Mfr testing oversight labor costs (including 100% labor overhead) ......................................................................... 1236.69 

Lodging ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 280.00 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5875.86 

6.5% G & A ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 381.93 

Total Cost for Exhaust Tests .................................................................................................................................................... 6,257.79 

b. Costs Associated With Evaporative/ 

Refueling Emission Testing 

(Evaporative/Refueling Family Basis) 

TABLE VII.A–3—TOTAL ESTIMATED EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS TESTING COSTS FOR FUEL CONVERSION OF ONE OEM 

CERTIFICATE

[No scaling applied] 

Total evap independent test lab costs ............................................................................................................................................ $5,980.00 

Total evap Mfr testing oversight labor costs (including 100% labor overhead) .............................................................................. ............................

Lodging ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5,980.00 

6.5% G & A ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 388.70 

Total Cost for Evap Tests ........................................................................................................................................................ 6,368.70 

c. Costs Associated With OBDII 

Demonstration Testing (Test Group 

Basis) 

TABLE VII.A–4—TOTAL ESTIMATED OBD DEMONSTRATION TESTING COSTS FOR FUEL CONVERSION OF ONE OEM 

CERTIFICATE

[No scaling applied] 

Total OBD independent test lab costs ............................................................................................................................................ $16,325.00 

Total OBD Mfr testing oversight labor costs (including 100% labor overhead) .............................................................................. 7,265.57 

Lodging ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1,120.00 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 24,710.57 

6.5% G & A ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,606.19 

Total Cost for OBD Demo Tests .............................................................................................................................................. 26,316.76 

d. Other Certification Costs 

TABLE VII.A–5—OTHER CERTIFICATION ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FUEL CONVERSION OF ONE OEM CERTIFICATE

[No scaling applied] 

Travel to oversee testing at independent test lab ........................................................................................................................... $1,000.00 

Shipment of vehicle to independent test lab ................................................................................................................................... 4,000.00 

Prep and shipment of vehicle to EPA for confirmatory tests .......................................................................................................... 6,200.00 

Preparation of Application for certification labor costs (including 100% labor overhead) .............................................................. 4,637.60 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 15,837.60 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29630 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

80For an electronic version of the current fee 

filing form, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/ 

documents/on-hwy2010feeform-01-07-10.pdf. 

81 40 CFR 1027.120. 

TABLE VII.A–5—OTHER CERTIFICATION ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FUEL CONVERSION OF ONE OEM CERTIFICATE— 

Continued 

[No scaling applied] 

6.5% G & A ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,029.44 

Total Costs for Travel, Vehicle Shipments, and Application Preparation ................................................................................ 16,867.04 

e. Certification Fees 

Full certification fees for highway 

vehicles are $34,849 for 2009.80

However, there is a reduced fee program 

which allows most conversion 

manufacturers to pay far less. The 

reduced fee is calculated based on sales 

volume and value added.81 The formula 

can be described as 1% * number of 

units * retail value added. Because most 

conversion manufacturers sell less than 

50 vehicle conversions per test group 

and conversion kits vary greatly in 

price, for purposes of this estimate, EPA 

is using 50 units and a retail value of 

$8,000. Therefore, for this cost estimate 

the baseline certification fees are 

estimated at $4,000. 

The current base cost of compliance 

for one certificate, including all testing, 

associated labor, overhead, and general 

and administrative costs if costs are not 

scaled due to test group, OBD, or 

evaporative/refueling family 

combinations is about $59,810. 

Certification fees are not included in 

this total because they are variable by 

sales volume for manufacturers that are 

eligible for reduced fees. 

2. Cost of One Certificate When Testing 

Costs Are Scaled for Multiple Certificate 

Groups 

OEM test groups, evaporative/ 

refueling families, and Federal OBD 

approvals are combined to form a 

unique certificate. These same test 

groups and evaporative/refueling 

families, when taken separately, can 

often apply to multiple certificates. 

Here, EPA examined 418 model year 

2007 light-duty certificates to determine 

appropriate scaling factors for exhaust 

Test Groups, Evaporative/Refueling 

Families, and OBD demonstrations tests. 

EPA reviewed model year 2007 data 

because these data were complete, 

readily available, and deemed to be 

representative. Of those 418, there were 

335 unique test groups each with 

exhaust emission data, meaning the 

OEMs used 335 sets of exhaust test data 

to apply for 418 certificates. The ratio 

represented here (335/418 = 0.8) 

provides an approximate scaling factor 

which can be applied to the cost of one 

set of exhaust emissions data to 

determine the average unit cost per 

certificate for exhaust emission testing. 

Of those same 418 certificates there 

were only 189 evaporative/refueling 

families, therefore the average scaling 

factor for evaporative/refueling family 

testing costs (189/418 = 0.45) times the 

cost for one set of evaporative emissions 

testing represents the average unit cost 

per certificate for evaporative/refueling 

emissions testing. For the purposes of 

this cost estimate we assumed that all 

Federal OBD approvals for conversion 

manufacturers were done in parallel 

with exhaust test group testing and 

therefore applied the same scaling factor 

to OBD testing costs as determined for 

exhaust emissions testing. 

TABLE VII.A–6—COST OF ONE CERTIFICATE WHEN TESTING COSTS ARE SCALED FOR MULTIPLE CERTIFICATE GROUPS

Testing costs for 

one aftermarket 

fuel conversion 

certificate 

(no scaling 

for multiple 

certificates applied) 

Scaling factor 

Scaled testing 

costs for 

conversion of one 

OEM certificate 

Total Cost for Exhaust Tests ...................................................................... $6,257.79 0.80 ................................ $5,015.22 

Total Cost for Evap Tests ........................................................................... 6,368.70 0.45 ................................ 2,879.63 

Total Cost for OBD Demo Tests ................................................................ 26,316.76 0.80 ................................ 21,091.18 

Total Costs for Travel, Vehicle Shipments, and Application Preparation .. 16,867.04 Weighted appropriately 

to each task.

11,385.68 

Certification Fees ........................................................................................ 4,000.00 1 ..................................... 4,000.00 

Total Cost for OEM Test Group(s) of Vehicles ................................... 59,810.30 ......................................... 44,371.70 

Thus, the current base cost of 

compliance for one certificate, including 

all testing, associated labor, and 

overhead and general and 

administrative costs if costs are scaled is 

about $44,372. 

3. Baseline Cost Analysis Based on Four 

OEM Certificates 

EPA estimated the current baseline 

cost of conversion of four certificate 

groups of vehicles after applying 

appropriately scaled testing costs, 

including all testing, confirmatory 

testing, associated labor, overhead, and 

general and administrative costs to be 

about $177,487. 

B. Certified Conversion Costs Under the 

Proposed Rule 

Under this proposal the cost for a 

certified conversion will be similar to 

the current fuel conversion certification 

process, with three exceptions: (1) A 

statement of compliance using good 

engineering judgment would be 

accepted in lieu of HCHO testing 

analysis for certain alternative fuels, and 

the use of conversion factors to calculate 

NMOG from NMHC would be accepted 

in lieu of speciation testing for some 

alternative fuels; (2) statements of 

compliance are accepted for sealed 

gaseous fuel systems in lieu of 

evaporative emissions test data and (3) 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29631 

test group combinations would allow 

one set of test data to apply to a broader 

range of vehicles. These changes all 

reduce costs associated with compliance 

testing. 

1. HCHO and NMOG Cost Reductions 

for CNG (or LNG), LPG, and Hydrogen 

In lieu of testing, this proposal would 

accept a statement of compliance for 

formaldehyde emissions for conversions 

to CNG (or LNG), LPG, or hydrogen 

fuels. In addition, conversions to CNG 

(or LNG), LPG, or hydrogen need only 

submit engineering data and analysis 

supportive of the usage of a conversion 

factor from NMHC to NMOG, in lieu of 

speciation testing. Testing for 

formaldehyde is generally done in 

conjunction with NMOG speciation, and 

the average cost for both tests is $1,750 

per test group, which would be scaled 

to an average of $1,400 per certificate. 

Under this proposal, testing cost for 

HCHO and NMOG analysis for 

conversions to CNG (or LNG), LPG, or 

hydrogen would be $0. 

2. Evaporative Emissions Cost 

Reductions for Gaseous Fuels 

The average cost for evaporative 

emissions hot soak, and diurnal SHED 

testing, including labor costs is $6,369. 

After scaling the average is $2,879 per 

certificate. The proposed amendment to 

40 CFR 86.1811–04 would allow a 

manufacturer statement of compliance 

for evaporative testing for gaseous fuels. 

This would eliminate all evaporative 

emissions testing costs for gaseous fuels 

such as to CNG (or LNG), LPG, or 

hydrogen fuels. 

3. Test Group Combination Cost 

Reductions for All Conversions to Clean 

Alternative Fuel 

This proposal defines criteria which 

may allow the combination of several 

OEM test groups into a single 

aftermarket fuel conversion test group. 

This is a significant cost savings, the 

percentage of which is dependent upon 

the exact number of OEM test groups 

combined. For example: If two OEM test 

groups are combined, the testing costs 

for exhaust emission testing are halved; 

if three test groups are combined, these 

testing costs are about 33% the current 

cost. 

The quantity of OEM test groups 

which can be combined into a single 

clean alternative fuel conversion test 

group will vary depending on the 

available OEM vehicle individual 

certification compliance strategies. EPA 

examined the 2007 light-duty OEM test 

group data and has conservatively 

estimated that on average conversion 

manufacturers will be permitted to 

combine about 25% of the OEM exhaust 

test groups. Therefore, the cost 

reduction estimate for our comparative 

grouping, four test groups, would 

conservatively result in a 25% cost 

reduction in exhaust emissions and 

OBD testing which can be applied to the 

scaling factors for comparison 

simplicity. 

4. Total Cost Reductions for 

Certification Under the Proposed Rule 

TABLE VII.B–1—PROPOSAL COST FOR NEW VEHICLE CONVERSION FOR ONE CERTIFICATE WHEN TESTING COSTS ARE

SCALED FOR MULTIPLE CERTIFICATE GROUPS

Testing costs for 

one aftermarket 

fuel conversion 

certificate 

(no scaling 

for 

multiple 

certificates applied) 

Scaling factor 

Scaled testing 

costs for 

conversion of 

one OEM 

certificate 

Scaled testing 

costs for 

conversion of 4 

OEM certificates 

Total Cost for Exhaust Tests ........................................................ $6,257.79 0.60 ...................... $3,761.41 $15,045.65 

Total Cost for Evap Tests ............................................................. 6,368.70 0.45 ...................... 2,879.63 11,518.51 

Total Cost for OBD Demo Tests ................................................... 26,316.76 0.60 ...................... 15,790.06 63,160.23 

Total Costs for Travel, Vehicle Shipments, and Application 

Preparation.

16,867.04 Weighted appropriately to each 

task.

10,313.03 41,252.14 

Certification Fees .......................................................................... 4,000.00 1 ........................... 4,000.00 ............................

Total Cost for OEM Test Groups(s) of Vehicles ................... 59,810.30 .............................. 36,744.13 146,976.52 

The total cost for the certification of 

the conversion of four OEM certificates 

to any clean alternative fuel under the 

proposed rule is $146,977. This 

represents an estimate of a cost 

reduction of over $30,000 in current fuel 

conversion certification testing costs for 

conversion of four OEM certificates. If 

the conversion certification is for 

conversions to CNG (or LNG), LPG, or 

hydrogen fuels, the costs may be further 

reduced due to the technical 

amendments described above. 

C. Intermediate Age Vehicle Compliance 

Costs 

The current fuel conversion process 

requires certification. Therefore the 

baseline costs presented in Section VI.A 

also apply to intermediate age vehicles. 

1. HCHO and NMOG Cost Reductions 

for CNG, LPG, and Hydrogen 

In lieu of testing, this proposal would 

accept a statement of compliance for 

formaldehyde emissions for conversions 

to CNG (or LNG), LPG and hydrogen. In 

addition, conversions to CNG (or LNG), 

LPG, or hydrogen need only submit 

engineering data and analysis 

supportive of the usage of a conversion 

factor from NMHC to NMOG, in lieu of 

speciation testing. Testing for 

formaldehyde is generally done in 

conjunction with NMOG speciation, and 

the average cost for both tests is $1,750 

per test group, which would be scaled 

to an average of $1,400 per certificate. 

Under this proposal, testing cost for 

HCHO and NMOG analysis for 

conversions to CNG (or LNG), and LPG 

would be $0. 

2. Evaporative Emissions Cost 

Reductions for Gaseous Fuels 

The average cost for evaporative 

emissions hot soak, and diurnal SHED 

testing, including labor costs is $6,369. 

After scaling the average is $2,879 per 

certificate. The proposed amendment to 

40 CFR 86.1811–04 would allow a 

manufacturer statement of compliance 

for evaporative testing for gaseous fuels. 

This would eliminate all evaporative 

emissions testing costs for gaseous fuels. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

3. Conversion Test Groups Cost 

Reduction 

Under this proposal, conversion test 

groups are identical to the exhaust test 

groups for new, certified vehicles, 

except the exhaust conversion test 

groups do not require the same OEM 

OBD grouping. This provision is likely 

to result in a further reduction in testing 

costs due to further scaling. However, 

the scaling appropriate due to these 

combinations is variable from year to 

year and from OEM manufacturer to 

OEM manufacturer. Therefore, for the 

purposes of this cost estimate, we will 

assume that the exhaust conversion test 

group costs for intermediate age 

vehicles are the same as the exhaust test 

group costs for certification vehicles 

under this proposal. 

4. OBD Demonstration Testing Cost 

Reduction 

Manufacturers of conversion systems 

for intermediate age vehicles would not 

be required to submit OBD test data as 

part of their demonstration. The 

conversion manufacturer must still 

conduct any development and bear 

associated costs necessary to ensure that 

the post-conversion OBD system 

remains functional OBD and meets the 

EPA standards, but the costs associated 

with conducting tests for data 

submission to EPA would not be 

required. This is a significant cost 

reduction which would result in a cost 

savings of around $26,000 per exhaust 

conversion test group. 

5. Total Cost Reductions for 

Intermediate Age Vehicles Under The 

Proposed Rule 

TABLE VII.C–1—PROPOSAL COST FOR INTERMEDIATE AGE VEHICLE CONVERSION WHEN TESTING COSTS ARE SCALED

FOR MULTIPLE CONVERSION TEST GROUPS

Testing costs for 

one aftermarket 

fuel conversion 

compliance unit 

(no scaling for 

multiple OEM 

certificates 

applied) 

Scaling factor 

Scaled testing 

costs for 

conversion of 

one OEM 

certificate 

Scaled testing 

costs for 

conversion of 4 

OEM certificates 

Total Cost for Exhaust Tests ........................................................ $6,257.79 0.60 ...................... $3,761.41 $15,045.65 

Total Cost for Evap Tests ............................................................. 6,368.70 0.45 ...................... 2,879.63 11,518.51 

Total Cost for OBD Demo Tests ................................................... 0 0.60 ...................... 0 0 

Total Costs for Travel, Vehicle Shipments, and Data Submission 12,915.81 Weighted appropriately to each 

task.

6,361.80 25,447.20 

Total Cost for Conversion of OEM Test Group(s) of Vehicles.25,542.30 .............................. 13,002.84 52,011.35 

The total cost for the intermediate age 

compliance program for the conversion 

of vehicles represented by four OEM 

certificates to any clean alternative fuel 

under the proposed rule is $52,011. This 

represents an estimate of a cost 

reduction of more than $100,000 from 

the current estimated baseline cost of 

compliance for conversion of vehicles 

represented by four OEM certificates. If 

the conversion certification is for 

conversions to CNG, LPG or hydrogen, 

the costs may be further reduced due to 

the NMHC/NMOG technical 

amendment described under Section 

V.1.B. 

D. Outside Useful Life Vehicle 

Compliance Costs 

The testing that conversion 

manufacturers choose to undergo to 

demonstrate compliance for outside 

useful life vehicle applications will 

depend on which option is selected in 

the final rulemaking. 

EPA would expect the maximum 

testing costs for Option #1 to be 

equivalent to those costs incurred for 

intermediate age vehicle compliance, 

since conducting all testing required for 

the intermediate age vehicle program 

would always be an acceptable 

demonstration of good engineering 

judgment. 

Maximum testing costs for Option #2 

would be double that of the 

intermediate age vehicle program, since 

two sets of exhaust test data would be 

required. However, the costs would still 

be less than the baseline costs because 

no OBD demonstration testing would be 

required. 

Maximum testing costs for Option #3 

would be the sum of the cost for Option 

#1 and about $300. An OBD scan tool 

with capabilities for printing via a 

computer and printer can be acquired 

for less than $300. 

VIII. Associated Costs for Heavy-Duty 

Engines 

The costs associated with achieving 

compliance under this proposal are 

expected to be the same or less, on an 

engine family basis, than the current 

cost of compliance for clean alternative 

fuel conversion of heavy-duty engines. 

The amount of cost reduction will vary 

based on conversion technology, fuel 

type, age of engine, conversion 

manufacturer preference, and the 

manufacturer’s annual sales volume. 

EPA has analyzed the cost of 

obtaining a certificate of conformity 

under current regulations and used that 

as a baseline cost. All costs analysis in 

this section are intended to apply to 

conversions to any fuel. 

It is important to note that heavy-duty 

conversions have not received as much 

interest as LD conversions. As a result, 

EPA’s experience with and data 

available on heavy-duty conversions is 

limited. For example, in model year 

(MY) 2008, EPA only received seven 

certification applications from four 

different converters. In 2009, the 

number dropped to three applications 

from three different manufacturers. 

Despite limited historical data on heavyduty conversions, EPA has evaluated 

the cost a converter would incur to fully 

certify a heavy-duty engine that has 

been converted at each of three stages in 

the life of the engine: (1) Beginning of 

useful life, (2) mid-useful life, and (3) 

outside the useful life. These costs are 

then compared to a baseline—the 

current cost of certification. 

The costs associated with obtaining 

an exemption from the tampering 

prohibition under this proposal are 

expected to be the same or less, on an 

engine family basis, than the current 

cost of obtaining an exemption from the 

tampering for prohibition for clean 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29633 

alternative fuel conversion of heavyduty engines. The amount of cost 

reduction will vary based on conversion 

technology, fuel type, age of engine, 

conversion manufacturer preference, 

and the manufacturer’s annual sales 

volume. 

EPA has analyzed the cost of 

obtaining a certificate of conformity 

under current regulations and used that 

as a baseline cost. The cost analysis in 

this section is intended to apply to 

conversions to any fuel. 

It is important to note that heavy-duty 

engine conversions have not received as 

much interest as light-duty conversions. 

As a result, EPA has less experience 

with heavy-duty vehicle and engine 

conversions, and the available cost data 

are limited. For example, in model year 

2008, EPA only received seven 

certification applications from four 

different converters. In 2009, the 

number dropped to three applications 

from three different manufacturers. 

Despite limited historical data on heavyduty conversions, EPA has evaluated 

the cost a converter would incur to fully 

certify a heavy-duty engine that has 

been converted at each of three age 

categories: (1) New and nearly new 

engines, (2) intermediate age engines, 

and (3) outside useful life engines. 

These costs are then compared to a 

baseline—the current cost of 

certification. 

A. Baseline Costs (Cost of Current 

Compliance) 

Baseline costs were derived by 

determining the cost of obtaining 

exhaust and evaporative emission 

certificates for a new engine family 

under current regulations and 

procedures. A new engine family is a 

family that has not been certified in 

previous years. After the first 

certification, the manufacturer may in 

some cases use the same test data to 

obtain certificates of conformity in 

subsequent years. Engine families 

certified this way are referred to as 

‘‘carry-overs.’’ The cost of a carry-over 

family is mostly limited to the 

certification fee and minor labor costs. 

Converters who have obtained 

certificates in recent years will notice 

that the baseline used here is higher 

than the costs they may have incurred. 

This is due, in part, to a temporary 

provision which exempts small volume 

manufacturers and vehicles above 

14,000 pounds from submitting actual 

OBD test data to demonstrate 

compliance with OBD requirements. 

This exemption is in place through 

2013. All heavy-duty converters who 

have certified with EPA have been able 

to claim this exemption. To represent 

the true future costs conversion 

manufacturers may incur, EPA has 

included costs for post-2013 OBD 

testing and evaporative emissions 

testing (for conversions to gaseous fuels) 

in the cost basis for heavy-duty 

conversions. 

Estimated labor costs include the time 

engineering, managerial, legal and 

support staff spends performing the 

various activities associated with 

completing an application for 

certification and any necessary updates 

(running changes). These activities 

include data gathering and analysis, 

reviewing regulations, and 

recordkeeping. To estimate labor costs, 

EPA used the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 

(BLS) National Industry-specific 

Occupational Wage Estimates (May 

2008) for the Motor Manufacturing 

Industry under the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

Code 336100. Mean hourly rates were 

used and then increased by a factor of 

2.1 to account for benefits and overhead. 

Table VIII.A–1 summarizes this 

information and presents the Standard 

Occupational Classification (SOC) code 

for each occupation used to estimate 

labor costs. 

VIII.A–1—LABOR CATEGORIES AND COSTS USED TO CALCULATE HEAVY-DUTY COSTS BASIS

Occupation SOC code 

No. 

Mean hourly 

rate 

(BLS) 

110% 

Mechanical Engineers ............................................................................................................................. 17–2141 $37.59 $78.94 

Engineering Managers ............................................................................................................................. 11–9041 54.56 114.58 

Lawyers .................................................................................................................................................... 23–1011 67.14 140.99 

Secretaries, Except Legal, Medical and Executive ................................................................................. 43–6014 19.76 41.50 

Mechanical Engineering Technicians ...................................................................................................... 17–3029 31.53 66.21 

Engine and Other Machine Assemblers .................................................................................................. 51–2031 24.56 51.58 

Truck Drivers, Heavy and Tractor-Trailer ................................................................................................ 53–3032 26.69 56.05 

Manufacturers are also required to 

pay a certification fee under the 

authority of Section 217 of the CAA and 

the Independent Offices Appropriation 

Act (31 U.S.C. 9701). This fee is updated 

every calendar year to reflect changes on 

EPA labor costs and the number of 

certificates issued each year. The costs 

basis analysis includes the appropriate 

2010 fee for exhaust ($35,967) and 

evaporative ($511) certification. 

However, it should be noted that the 

fees rule provides for a reduction in fee 

based on the ‘‘projected aggregate retail 

price of all vehicles or engines covered 

by that certificate’’ (69 FR 26226, 

Section F). Despite the possibility of a 

reduction in fee, EPA has used the full 

fee for the cost basis of heavy-duty 

engines. 

1. Costs of Certification for One HeavyDuty Exhaust New Engine Family Under 

Current Regulations 

Historically, all manufacturers who 

have certified converted heavy-duty 

engines are small manufacturers and 

thus, do not own testing facilities. They 

hire independent laboratories to test 

their engines. EPA does not expect that 

to change in the foreseeable future. EPA 

estimates that the cost of testing a 

heavy-duty engine for exhaust 

emissions in an independent laboratory 

is approximately $30,000. Other 

operation and maintenance costs 

include shipping engines to test sites, 

lodging for manufacturer employees to 

oversee testing, recordkeeping costs, 

and the cost of preparing and submitting 

the application for certification. 

Since EPA does not expect 

manufacturers to build testing 

laboratories or facilities in response to 

the proposed rule, no capital costs have 

been added to the cost basis. 

a. Current Costs Associated With 

Obtaining One Heavy-Duty Exhaust 

Certificate of Conformity 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.A–2—CURRENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH OBTAINING ONE HEAVY-DUTY EXHAUST CERTIFICATE

Item Estimated cost 

Exhaust Testing ............................................................................................................................................................................... $30,000 

Labor ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9,495 

Shipping Engines to Test Sites ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 

Lodging ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 250 

Other Operating and Maintenance Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 15 

Certification Fee for MY 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................... 35,967 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 78,227 

b. Current Costs Associated With 

Obtaining One Heavy-Duty Evaporative 

Certificate of Conformity 

Most heavy-duty conversions certified 

by EPA are conversions to Otto-cycle 

engines. Manufacturers and converters 

of Otto-cycle engines are required to 

demonstrate compliance with 

evaporative emissions requirements and 

obtain certificate of compliance with 

evaporative emissions. This certificate is 

in addition to the certificate of 

compliance with exhaust emission 

requirements. Manufacturers must 

combine engines into groups with 

similar evaporative emission 

characteristics or evaporative engine 

families. Exhaust and evaporative 

families are not necessarily identical. 

Engines grouped into several exhaust 

engine families may belong to only one 

evaporative family, and vice versa. For 

the purpose of establishing a costs 

baseline, EPA has included the cost of 

evaporative certification in its estimates. 

TABLE VIII.A–3—CURRENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH OBTAINING ONE HEAVY-DUTY EVAPORATIVE CERTIFICATE

Item Estimated cost 

Exhaust Testing ............................................................................................................................................................................... $7,030 

Labor ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2,431 

Other Operating and Maintenance Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 524 

Certification Fee for MY 2010 ......................................................................................................................................................... 511 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10,496 

c. Costs Associated With OBDII 

Demonstration Testing (Engine Family 

Basis) 

Currently, alternative fuel converters 

are required to submit test data to 

demonstrate compliance with OBD 

regulations. However, 40 CFR 86.010– 

18(o) provides exemptions for small 

volume and alternative fueled engines 

used in applications over 14,000 lbs. All 

heavy-duty converters who have sought 

EPA certification in recent years have 

been able to claim one of these 

exemptions. 

In an effort to also reduce costs for 

those heavy-duty manufacturers who 

are not able to claim this exemption, 

EPA is accepting through MY 2013 

approval issued by either the California 

Air Resource Board or the EPA lightduty certification team as proof of 

compliance. Manufacturers must 

demonstrate how the OBD system they 

have designed to comply with California 

OBD requirements also complies with 

the intent of Federal requirements. So 

far, heavy-duty manufacturers have 

been able to either claim the exemption 

or submit approval from CARB or 

through the EPA light-duty process. 

Therefore, EPA does not have historical 

data to use as basis for OBD 

demonstrations specifically related to 

heavy-duty conversions. 

In interest of accounting for every 

possible cost a heavy-duty converter 

might incur to get a certificate, EPA 

considers it appropriate to adopt lightduty estimates to represent the heavyduty basis. Light duty estimates are 

summarized in Section VII.A(1)(a)(c), 

Table VII.A–4. EPA estimates the cost of 

OBD compliance at $26,317. 

In summary, the base cost of fully 

certifying a heavy-duty engine family, 

including evaporative certification is 

$115,041, as indicated in Table 

VIII.A–4. 

TABLE VIII.A–4—COST OF FULL CERTIFICATION AT THE BEGINNING OF USEFUL LIFE

Item Estimated cost 

Exhaust Certification ........................................................................................................................................................................ $42,260 

Exhaust Certification Fee ................................................................................................................................................................ 35,967 

Evaporative Certification .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,985 

Evaporative Certification Fee .......................................................................................................................................................... 511 

OBD Compliance Demonstration .................................................................................................................................................... 26,317 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 115,041 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29635 

3. Baseline Cost Analysis Based on Four 

Exhaust Engine Families and Four 

Evaporative Families 

Based on the cost of fully certifying 

one engine family for both exhaust and 

evaporative emissions, EPA has 

estimated the current baseline cost of 

certifying four heavy-duty conversion 

families, including all testing, 

associated labor, overhead, and general 

and administrative costs. For the 

purpose of this estimate, EPA assumed 

that these four exhaust families will 

belong to two evaporative families. This 

assumption reflects the fact that 

manufacturers tend to use the same 

evaporative system for multiple exhaust 

families. The estimated cost of four 

exhaust families and two evaporative 

families would be about $439,170 (Table 

VIII.A–5). Please see the next section for 

an explanation of why EPA has chosen 

to estimate the cost on four families. 

TABLE VIII.A–5—COST OF CERTIFYING FOUR EXHAUST ENGINE FAMILIES AND TWO EVAPORATIVE FAMILIES UNDER

CURRENT REGULATIONS

Item Estimated cost Number of 

engine families Total cost 

Exhaust Certification .................................................................................................................... $42,260 4 $169,042 

Exhaust Certification Fee ............................................................................................................ 35,967 4 143,868 

Evaporative Certification .............................................................................................................. 9,985 2 19,971 

Evaporative Certification Fee ...................................................................................................... 511 2 1,022 

OBD Compliance Demonstration ................................................................................................ 26,317 4 105,268 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 111,424 4 439,170 

B. Certified Conversion Costs Under the 

Proposed Rule 

As mentioned above, interest in 

heavy-duty conversions has been low in 

the past. In model year 2008, EPA 

received only seven applications for 

certification from a total of four 

converters. In 2009, only three of those 

converters submitted one application 

each. EPA understands that this is in 

part due to converters not submitting an 

application until they find a market for 

the engines. Light-duty vehicles are 

typically sold in higher volumes than 

heavy duty engines. Since the cost of 

certification is spread over a smaller 

pool of engines, it is typically more 

expensive to certify a heavy-duty family 

on a per engine basis. 

After reviewing available information, 

EPA determined that the current data 

are not sufficient to develop a scaling 

factor that could be applied in order to 

calculate an estimated cost of 

certification under the proposed rule. 

Instead, EPA believes it is more 

appropriate to illustrate how the 

proposed regulations would affect a 

converter seeking certification. This 

hypothetical scenario is partly based on 

the actual case of a converter who 

certified four families in 2008. The 

scenario is also used for mid-useful-life 

and end-of-useful-life estimates. 

1. Base Scenario 

In MY 2008, Converter X obtained 

certificates of conformity with heavyduty exhaust emission regulations for 

four engine families. Converter X used 

current regulations found at 40 CFR 

86.000–24 to determine how many 

exhaust engine families, and therefore, 

how many certificates it needed. For the 

purpose of this demonstration, EPA will 

assume that Converter X submitted one 

test data set and paid one full fee for 

each exhaust certificate. If Converter X 

also pursues evaporative certification 

for two families separately, it would 

have to pay for two evaporative tests 

and two evaporative fees. In addition 

OBD approval was obtained. As shown 

in Table VIII.A–5 in the previous 

section, the cost for this scenario is 

$439,170. 

2. Scenario Under Proposed Regulations 

After reviewing the characteristics of 

each engine family as reported in the 

applications for certification, EPA 

applied the criteria for combining 

multiple engine families contained in 

the proposed rule. For a list of this 

criteria, see Section IV.B. Had the 

proposed regulations been available to 

Converter X, Converter X would have 

been able to combine two of its engine 

families into engine family A, and the 

remaining two engine families into 

engine family B. Figure VIII.B–1 

illustrates this combination. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29636 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

By submitting only two exhaust 

certificate applications, Converter X 

would only need to perform two tests 

and pay two fees instead of four tests 

and fees, thus cutting the cost of 

certifying its exhaust engine families in 

half. (Table VIII.B–1). 

TABLE VIII.B–1—COST OF CERTIFYING TWO EXHAUST ENGINE FAMILIES AND TWO EVAPORATIVE FAMILIES UNDER

PROPOSED RULE

Item Estimated cost Number of 

engine families Total cost 

Exhaust Certification .................................................................................................................... $42,260 2 $ 84,521 

Exhaust Certification Fee ............................................................................................................ 35,967 2 71,934 

Evaporative Certification .............................................................................................................. 9,985 2 19,971 

Evaporative Certification Fee ...................................................................................................... 511 2 1,022 

OBD Compliance Demonstration ................................................................................................ 26,317 2 52,634 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 111,424 2 230,082 

The total cost of certifying the same 

engines under the proposed rule is 

$230,082, representing 48% savings for 

Converter X over the base costs under 

the current regulations. The cost of 

certification is spread over a larger pool 

of engines, lowering the cost per unit, as 

Figure VIII.B–1 shows. The new engine 

family combination criteria may create 

this type of cost-cutting scenario. 

C. Intermediate Age Engine Compliance 

Costs 

The current fuel conversion process 

requires certification regardless of the 

age of the engine being converted. 

Therefore the baseline costs presented 

in Section VIII.A also apply to 

intermediate age heavy-duty engines. 

Under the proposed rule, converters of 

intermediate age engines will be 

required to gather and submit all 

required data, including test data. 

Engine families will be grouped in 

larger families as described in Section 

VIII.B. However, the proposed rule does 

not require EPA to issue a certificate of 

conformity for intermediate age engines. 

Instead, manufacturers will be required 

to submit data to show that converted 

engines meet applicable standards. In 

addition, OBD testing will not be 

required for intermediate conversions. 

If the engine families Converter X 

certified in our previous scenario were 

intermediate age engines, Converter X 

would have savings due to both (1) 

engine family groupings, and (2) the 

lack of a certification fee. As shown in 

Table VIII.B–2, the cost to Converter X 

would be about $97,259. This represents 

savings of about $341,912 or 78% when 

compared to the baseline. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2EP26MY10.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29637 

TABLE VIII.B–2—COST OF INTERMEDIATE AGE CONVERSIONS CERTIFICATION UNDER PROPOSED RULE

Item 

Baseline cost for 

four exhaust and 

two evap families 

(current 

regulations) 

Cost for two 

exhaust and two 

evap families (new 

and nearly new 

enignes— 

proposed rule) 

Cost for two 

exhaust and two 

evap families 

(intermediate 

age—proposed 

rule) 

Exhaust Certification .................................................................................................. $169,042 $84,521 $84,521 

Exhaust Certification Fee .......................................................................................... 143,868 71,934 ..............................

Evaporative Certification ............................................................................................ 19,971 19,971 12,738 

Evaporative Certification Fee .................................................................................... 1,022 1,022 ..............................

OBD Compliance Demonstration .............................................................................. 105,268 52,634 ..............................

Total .................................................................................................................... 439,170 230,082 97,259 

D. Outside Useful Life Engine 

Compliance Costs 

The demonstration and associated 

compliance costs required of outside 

useful life conversion manufacturers 

will depend on which option is selected 

in the final rulemaking. 

EPA would expect the maximum 

testing costs for Option #1 to be 

equivalent to those costs incurred for 

intermediate age engine compliance, 

since conducting all testing required for 

the intermediate age engine program 

would always be an acceptable 

demonstration of good engineering 

judgment. 

Maximum testing costs for Option #2 

would be double that of the 

intermediate age engine program, since 

two sets of emissions test data would be 

required. However, the costs would still 

be less than the baseline costs because 

no OBD demonstration testing would be 

required. 

Maximum testing costs for Option #3 

would be sum of the cost for Option #1 

and about $300. An OBD scan tool with 

capabilities for printing via a computer 

and printer can be acquired for less than 

$300. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

OMB confirmed this proposal was nonsignificant on October 9, 2009 and 

waived review. 

EPA prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this action. Cost analyses are 

summarized in Sections VII and VIII of 

this preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

documents prepared by EPA have been 

assigned EPA ICR numbers 0783.55 and 

1684.15. 

The Agency proposes to collect 

information to ensure compliance with 

the provisions in this rule. This 

includes a variety of requirements for 

alternative fuel vehicle converters. 

Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) EPA is required to 

establish motor vehicle emission 

standards that apply throughout useful 

life, and to verify through issuance of a 

certificate of conformity that any vehicle 

or engine entered into commerce 

complies with the established emission 

standards. Under Section 203 of the Air 

Act, once certified, the vehicle or engine 

generally may not be altered from its 

certified configuration. EPA has 

established policies through which 

conversion manufacturers can 

demonstrate that the conversion does 

not compromise emissions compliance. 

The current regulations are located in 40 

CFR part 85, subpart F and the proposal 

would amend these regulations. Section 

208(a) of the Act requires that vehicle 

manufacturers and others subject to the 

Act provide information the 

Administrator may reasonably require to 

determine compliance with the 

regulations; submission of the 

information is therefore mandatory for 

securing the regulatory exemption from 

the tampering prohibition set forth in 40 

CFR part 85, subpart F. We will 

consider confidential all information 

meeting the requirements of section 

208(c) of the Clean Air Act. 

As described in Sections VII and VIII 

of this preamble, compliance costs per 

test group or engine family are expected 

to decrease overall. 

As shown in Table IX–1, the total 

annual industry burden associated with 

this proposal is about 7,247 hours and 

$1,186,726 in annual capital and 

operations and maintenance costs based 

on a projection of 13 respondents. The 

estimated burden for converters is a 

total estimate for both new and existing 

reporting requirements. This represents 

an estimated reduction in burden from 

previous requirements of 7,361 hours 

and $132,981 in non-labor costs for 

light-duty converters. The total heavyduty conversion industry is expected to 

grow as a result of this rule, therefore 

increasing industry-wide costs. 

However, costs per respondent are 

likely to decrease, by as much as 48 

percent. Burden means the total time, 

effort, or financial resources expended 

by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 

or disclose or provide information to or 

for a Federal agency. This includes the 

time needed to review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

technology and systems for the purposes 

of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IX–1—ESTIMATED BURDEN FOR REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

Industry sector Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

burden 

(hours) 

Estimated 

annual 

capital and 

O&M costs 

Estimated 

annual 

labor cost 

Estimated 

total costs 

Light Duty Vehicles (IRC 0783.55) ...................................... 5 6,068 $103,160 $352,495 $455,655 

Heavy Duty Vehicles (ICR 1684.15) .................................... 8 1,179 1,083,566 182,876 1,266,442 

Total .............................................................................. 13 7,247 1,186,726 535,371 1,722,097 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes these ICRs, under Docket ID 

number [EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0299]. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after May 26, 2010, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by June 25, 2010. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposal on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) Small 

businesses that are primarily engaged in 

engine and motor vehicle parts 

manufacturing, specifically aftermarket 

fuel conversion systems for vehicles and 

engines as included in the definitions 

by NAICS, codes 336312 and 336399 

with fewer than 750 employees (based 

on Small Business Administration size 

standards at 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

To qualify for an exemption from the 

prohibition on tampering, existing 

alternative fuel conversion regulations 

require converters to complete vehicle 

and engine certification testing, data 

submittal and compliance procedures 

much like OEM new vehicle 

certification procedures. The current 

certification process for conversion of 

vehicles and engines that are two years 

old or newer largely will be retained, 

with a few amendments which may 

reduce the testing burden. The 

amendments include provisions such as 

(1) a statement of compliance using 

good engineering judgment in lieu of 

HCHO testing analysis for certain 

alternative fuels, (2) the use of 

conversion factors to calculate NMOG 

from NMHC in lieu of speciation testing 

for some alternative fuels, and (3) 

allowing the combination of OEM test 

groups into larger testing combinations 

for aftermarket fuel conversion. 

In addition, this proposed rule creates 

an intermediate age and outside useful 

life compliance program as an 

alternative to vehicle and engine 

certification of fuel conversion of older 

vehicles and engines. The notification 

program will allow conversion 

manufacturers to conduct fewer tests 

and will provide a streamlined datasubmittal process. The notification 

program may also allow for one set of 

test data to apply to a broader set of 

OEM vehicles. 

We have therefore concluded that 

today’s proposed rule will generally 

relieve or not increase regulatory burden 

for each affected small entity. The 

number of potentially affected small 

entities subject to this rule is projected 

to be less than 15 per year. The degree 

of cost reduction for each entity will 

vary based on conversion technology, 

fuel type, vehicle or engine age, 

applicability, conversion manufacturer 

preference, and the manufacturer’s 

annual sales volume. See Sections VII 

and VIII of this preamble for further 

details. We continue to be interested in 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposal contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local, or tribal governments. The 

rule imposes no enforceable duty on any 

state, local or tribal governments. EPA 

has determined that this proposal does 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for the private sector in any one 

year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. EPA has determined that this 

rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29639 

82See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V). 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. EPA and the 

States will maintain the current 

distribution of power and responsibility. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this action. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed action from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The proposed rule 

changes some required procedures but 

does not relax the control measures on 

sources regulated by the rule and 

therefore will not cause emissions 

increases from these sources. 

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal 

Authority 

Statutory authority for the regulation 

of clean alternative fuel conversion can 

be found in 42 U.S.C. 7401–7617q. The 

Administrator has determined that this 

action is subject to the provisions of 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d).82

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 85 and 

86 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Alternative fuel conversion, 

Confidential business information, 

Incorporation by reference, Motor 

vehicle pollution, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 5, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble title 40, Chapter 1 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 85—CONTROL OF AIR 

POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES 

1. The authority citation for part 85 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

2. Subpart F of part 85 is revised to 

read as follows: 

Subpart F—Exemption of Clean Alternative 

Fuel Conversions From Tampering 

Prohibition 

Sec. 

85.501 General applicability. 

85.502 Definitions. 

85.505 Overview. 

85.510 Exemption provisions for new and 

relatively new vehicles/engines. 

85.515 Exemption provisions for 

intermediate age vehicles/engines. 

85.520 Exemption provisions for outside 

useful life vehicles/engines. 

85.525 Applicable standards. 

85.530 Vehicle and commercial packaging 

labeling. 

85.535 Liability, recordkeeping and end of 

year reporting. 

Subpart F—Exemption of Clean 

Alternative Fuel Conversions From 

Tampering Prohibition 

§ 85.501 General applicability. 

(a) This subpart describes the 

provisions related to an exemption from 

the tampering prohibition in Clean Air 

Act section 203(a) (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)) 

for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

heavy-duty vehicles, and heavy-duty 

engines. This subpart F does not apply 

for highway motorcycles or for nonroad 

or stationary engines or equipment. 

(b) For purposes of this subpart, the 

term ‘‘you’’ generally means a clean 

alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturer, which may also be called 

‘‘conversion manufacturer’’ or 

‘‘converter’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29640 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 85.502 Definitions. 

The definitions in this section apply 

to this subpart. All terms that are not 

defined in this subpart have the 

meaning given in 40 CFR part 86. All 

terms that are not defined in this 

subpart or in 40 CFR part 86 have the 

meaning given in the Clean Air Act. The 

definitions follow: 

Clean alternative fuel conversion (or 

‘‘fuel conversion’’ or ‘‘conversion 

system’’) means any alteration of a motor 

vehicle or engine, its fueling system, or 

the integration of these systems, that 

allows the vehicle or engine to operate 

on a fuel or power source different from 

the fuel or power source for which the 

vehicle or engine was originally 

certified; and that is designed, 

constructed, and applied consistent 

with good engineering judgment and in 

accordance with all applicable 

regulations. A clean alternative fuel 

conversion also means the components, 

design and instructions to perform this 

alteration. 

Clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturer (or ‘‘conversion 

manufacturer’’ or ‘‘converter’’) means 

any person that manufactures, 

assembles, sells, imports, or installs a 

motor vehicle or engine fuel conversion 

for the purpose of use of a clean 

alternative fuel. 

Conversion model year means the 

clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturer’s annual production 

period which includes January 1 of such 

calendar year. A specific model year 

may not include January 1 from the 

previous year or the following year. The 

term conversion model year means the 

calendar year if the converter has no 

different annual production period. 

Date of conversion means the date on 

which the clean alternative fuel 

conversion system is fully installed and 

operable. 

Dedicated vehicle/engine means any 

vehicle/engine engineered and designed 

to be operated using a single fuel. 

Dual-fuel vehicle/engine means any 

vehicle/engine engineered and designed 

to be operated on two different fuels, 

but not on a mixture of the fuels. 

Flex-fuel vehicle/engine means any 

vehicle/engine engineered and designed 

to be operated on a mixture of two fuels. 

Heavy-duty engines describes all 

engines covered under the applicability 

of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A and part 

1065. 

Light-duty and heavy-duty complete 

vehicles describes all vehicles covered 

under the applicability of 40 CFR part 

86, subpart S. 

Original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM) means the original manufacturer 

of the new vehicle/engine or relating to 

the vehicle/engine in its original 

certified configuration. 

Original model year means the model 

year in which a vehicle/engine was 

originally certified by the original 

equipment manufacturer, as noted on 

the emission control information label. 

We (us, our) means the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency 

or any authorized representative. 

§ 85.505 Overview. 

(a) You are exempted from the 

tampering prohibition in Clean Air Act 

section 203(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 7522)(a)(3) 

(‘‘tampering’’) if you satisfy all the 

provisions of this subpart. 

(b) The tampering exemption 

provisions described in this subpart are 

differentiated based on the age of the 

vehicle/engine at the point of 

conversion as follows: 

(1) ‘‘New and relatively new’’ refers to 

a vehicle/engine where the date of 

conversion is in a calendar year that is 

not more than one year after the original 

model year. See § 85.510 for provisions 

that apply specifically to new and 

relatively new vehicles and engines. 

(2) ‘‘Intermediate age’’ refers to a 

vehicle/engine that has not exceeded 

the useful life (in years, miles, or hours 

of operation) applicable to the vehicle or 

engine as originally certified, excluding 

new and relatively new vehicles/ 

engines. See § 85.515 for provisions that 

apply specifically to intermediate-age 

vehicles and engines. 

(3) ‘‘Outside useful life’’ refers to any 

vehicle/engine that has exceeded the 

useful life (in years, miles, or hours of 

operation) applicable to the vehicle/ 

engine as originally certified. See 

§ 85.520 for provisions that apply 

specifically to outside useful life 

vehicles/engines. 

(c) If the converted vehicle/engine is 

a dual-fuel vehicle/engine, you must 

submit test data using each type of fuel, 

except that you may omit testing for the 

fuel originally used to certify the 

vehicle/engine if you comply with 

§ 85.510(b)(7)(ii), (iii), and (v), 

§ 85.515(b)(9)(iii)(B), (C), and (E), or 

§ 85.520(b)(4)(ii), (iii) and (v) as 

applicable. 

(d) This subpart specifies certain 

reporting requirements. We may ask you 

to give us more information than we 

specify in this subpart to determine 

whether your vehicles/engines conform 

with the requirements of this subpart. 

We may ask you to give us less 

information or do less testing than we 

specify in this subpart. 

§ 85.510 Exemption provisions for new 

and relatively new vehicles/engines. 

(a) You are exempted from the 

tampering prohibition with respect to 

new and relatively new vehicles/ 

engines if you certify the conversion 

systems to the emission standards 

specified in § 85.525 as described in this 

section; you meet the labeling and 

packaging requirements in § 85.530 

before you sell, import or otherwise 

facilitate the use of a clean alternative 

fuel conversion system; and you meet 

the liability, recordkeeping, and end of 

year reporting requirements in § 85.535. 

(b) Certification under this section 

must be based on the certification 

procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart A or S or 40 CFR part 1065, as 

applicable, subject to the following 

exceptions and special provisions: 

(1) Test groups, engine families and 

evaporative/refueling families for lightduty and heavy-duty complete vehicles. 

(i) Small volume manufacturers and 

small volume test groups. 

(A) If criteria for small volume 

manufacturer or small volume test 

groups are met as defined in 40 CFR 

86.1838–01, you may combine lightduty vehicles or heavy-duty vehicles 

which can be chassis certified under 40 

CFR part 86, subpart S using good 

engineering judgment into conversion 

test groups if the following criteria are 

satisfied instead of those specified in 40 

CFR 86.1827–01. 

(1) Same OEM and OEM model year. 

(2) Same OBD group. 

(3) Same vehicle classification (e.g. 

light-duty vehicle, heavy-duty vehicle). 

(4) Engine displacement is within 

15% of largest displacement or 50 CID, 

whichever is larger. 

(5) Same number of cylinders or 

combustion chambers. 

(6) Same arrangement of cylinders or 

combustion chambers (e.g. in-line, vshaped). 

(7) Same combustion cycle (e.g., two 

stroke, four stroke, Otto-cycle, dieselcycle). 

(8) Same engine type (e.g. piston, 

rotary, turbine, air cooled vs. water 

cooled). 

(9) Same OEM fuel type (except 

otherwise similar gasoline and E85 flexfuel vehicles may be combined into 

dedicated alternative fuel vehicles). 

(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g. 

throttle body injection vs. port 

injection). 

(11) Same catalyst construction (e.g. 

metal vs. ceramic substrate). 

(12) All converted vehicles are subject 

to the most stringent emission standards 

used in certifying the OEM test groups 

within the conversion test group. 

(B) EPA-established scaled assigned 

deterioration factors for both exhaust 

and evaporative emissions may be used 

for vehicles with over 10,000 miles if 

the criteria for small volume 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29641 

manufacturer or small volume test 

groups are met as defined in 40 CFR 

86.1838–01. This deterioration factor 

will be adjusted according to vehicle or 

engine miles of operation. The 

deterioration factor is intended to 

predict the vehicle’s emission levels at 

the end of the useful life. EPA may 

adjust these scaled assigned 

deterioration factors if we find the rate 

of deterioration non-constant or the rate 

differs by fuel type, if necessary. 

(ii) Conversion evaporative/refueling 

families are identical to the OEM 

evaporative/refueling families unless 

the OEM evaporative emission system is 

no longer functionally necessary. You 

must create any new evaporative 

families according to 40 CFR 86.18321– 

01. 

(2) Engine families and evaporative/ 

refueling families for heavy-duty 

engines. 

(i) Small volume heavy-duty engine 

families. 

(A) If criteria for small volume is met 

as defined in 40 CFR 86.098–14 you 

may combine heavy-duty engines using 

good engineering judgment into 

conversion engine families if the 

following criteria are satisfied instead of 

those specified in 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart A. 

(1) Same OEM. 

(2) Same OBD group after MY 2013. 

(3) Same service class (e.g. light 

heavy-duty diesel engines, medium 

heavy-duty diesel engines, heavy heavyduty diesel engines). 

(4) Engine displacement is within 

15% of largest displacement or 50 CID, 

whichever is larger. 

(5) Same number of cylinders. 

(6) Same arrangement of cylinders. 

(7) Same combustion cycle. 

(8) Same method of air aspiration. 

(9) Same fuel type (e.g. diesel/ 

gasoline). 

(10) Same fuel metering system (e.g. 

mechanical direct or electronic direct 

injection). 

(11) Same catalyst/filter construction 

(e.g. metal vs. ceramic substrate). 

(12) All converted vehicles are subject 

to the most stringent emission 

standards. For example, 2005 and 2007 

heavy-duty diesel engines may be in the 

same family if they meet the most 

stringent (2007) standards. 

(13) Same emission control 

technology (e.g., internal or external 

EGR). 

(B) EPA-established scaled assigned 

deterioration factors for both exhaust 

and evaporative emissions may be used 

for engines with over 10,000 miles if the 

criteria for small volume manufacturer 

are met as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838– 

01 and 40 CFR 86.098–14. This 

deterioration factor will be adjusted 

according to vehicle or engine miles of 

operation. The deterioration factor is 

intended to predict the engine’s 

emission levels at the end of the useful 

life. EPA may adjust these scaled 

assigned deterioration factors if we find 

the rate of deterioration non-constant or 

the rate differs by fuel type, if necessary. 

(ii) Conversion evaporative/refueling 

families are identical to the OEM 

evaporative/refueling families unless 

the OEM evaporative emission system is 

no longer functionally necessary. You 

must create any new evaporative 

families according to 40 CFR 86.096– 

24(a). 

(3) Conversion test groups/engine 

families may include vehicles/engines 

that are subject to different OEM 

emission standards; however, all the 

vehicles/engines certified under this 

subpart in a single conversion test 

group/engine family are subject to the 

most stringent standards that apply for 

vehicles or engines included in the 

conversion test group or engine family. 

For example, if OEM vehicle test groups 

originally certified to Tier 2, Bin 4 and 

Bin 5 standards are in the same 

conversion test group for purposes of 

fuel conversion, all the vehicles 

certified in the conversion test group 

under this subpart are subject to the Tier 

2, Bin 4 standards. 

(4) Conversion test groups/engine 

families for conversions to dual fueled 

vehicles/engines cannot include 

vehicles subject to different emission 

standards; however the data generated 

from exhaust emission testing on the 

new fuel for dual fueled test vehicles/ 

engines may be carried over to vehicles/ 

engines which otherwise meet the test 

group or engine family criteria and for 

which the test vehicle/engine data 

demonstrate compliance with the 

application vehicle or engine standard. 

Clean alternative fuel conversion 

evaporative families for dual fueled 

vehicles may not include vehicles/ 

engines which were originally certified 

to different evaporative emissions 

standards. 

(5) The vehicle/engine selected for 

testing must qualify as a worst-case 

vehicle/engine under 40 CFR 86.1828– 

01 or 40 CFR 86.096–24(b)(3), as 

applicable. 

(6) A certificate issued under this 

section is valid starting with the 

indicated effective date but it is not 

valid for any clean alternative fuel 

conversion systems you manufacture 

after December 31 of the conversion 

model year for which it is issued. You 

may apply for a certificate of conformity 

for the next conversion model year 

using the applicable provisions for 

carryover certification. 

(7) In lieu of specific certification test 

data, you may be eligible to submit the 

following attestations for the 

appropriate statements of compliance. 

(i) The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has 

properly exercised the optional and 

applicable statements of compliance or 

waivers in the certification regulations 

in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A, B, and 

S and 40 CFR part 1065. 

(ii) The test group/engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation retains 

all the OEM fuel system, engine 

calibration, and emission control system 

functionality when operating on the fuel 

with which the vehicle/engine was 

originally certified. 

(iii) The test group/engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation retains 

all the functionality of the OEM OBD 

system (if so equipped) when operating 

on the fuel with which the vehicle/ 

engine was originally certified. 

(iv) The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has fully 

functional OBD systems (if the OEM 

vehicles are OBD equipped) and 

therefore meets the OBD requirements 

in 40 CFR 86, subparts A and S when 

operating on the alternative fuel. 

(v) The test group/engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation 

properly purges hydrocarbon vapor 

from the evaporative emission canister 

when the vehicles/engines are operating 

on the alternative fuel. 

(8) Certification fees apply per 40 CFR 

1027.101. 

(9) Conversion systems must be 

properly installed and adjusted such 

that the vehicle/engine operates 

consistent with the principles of good 

engineering judgment and in accordance 

with all applicable regulations. 

§ 85.515 Exemption provisions for 

intermediate age vehicles/engines. 

(a) You are exempted from the 

tampering prohibition with respect to 

intermediate age vehicles/engines if you 

properly test, document and notify EPA 

that the conversion system complies 

with the emission standards specified in 

§ 85.525 as described in paragraph (b) of 

this section; you meet the labeling 

requirements in § 85.530 before you sell, 

import or otherwise facilitate the use of 

a clean alternative fuel conversion 

system; and you meet the liability, 

recordkeeping, and end of year 

reporting requirements in § 85.535. You 

may also meet the requirements under 

this section by complying with the 

requirements in § 85.510. 

(b) Documenting and notifying EPA 

under this section includes following all 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29642 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the provisions described in § 85.510 for 

new and relatively new vehicles/ 

engines with the following exceptions 

and special provisions: 

(1) You may notify us as described in 

this section instead of certifying the 

aftermarket conversion system. 

(2) Conversion test groups for lightduty and heavy-duty complete vehicles 

may be grouped together into an exhaust 

conversion test group using the criteria 

described in § 85.510(b)(1)(i)(A), except 

that the same OBD group is not a 

criterion. 

(3) Conversion engine families for 

heavy-duty engines may be grouped 

together into an exhaust conversion 

engine family using the criteria 

described in § 85.510(b)(2)(i)(A), except 

that the same OBD group is not a 

criterion. 

(4) EPA-established scaled assigned 

deterioration factors for both exhaust 

and evaporative emissions may be used 

for vehicles/engines with over 10,000 

miles if the criteria for small volume 

manufacturer or small volume test 

groups are met as defined in 40 CFR 

86.1838–01 or 40 CFR 86.096–14, as 

appropriate. This deterioration factor 

will be adjusted according to vehicle/ 

engine miles or hours of operation. The 

deterioration factor is intended to 

predict the vehicle/engine’s emission 

level at the end of the useful life. EPA 

may adjust these scaled assigned 

deterioration factors if we find the rate 

of deterioration non-constant or the rate 

differs by fuel type, if necessary. 

(5) Conduct all exhaust and all 

evaporative and refueling emissions 

testing with a worst-case vehicle/engine 

to show that the conversion test group/ 

engine family complies with exhaust 

and evaporative/refueling emission 

standards, as specified in 40 CFR part 

86, subparts A, B, and S and 40 CFR 

part 1065. 

(6) The OBD system must properly 

detect and identify malfunctions in all 

monitored emission-related powertrain 

systems or components including any 

new monitoring capability necessary to 

identify potential emission problems 

associated with the new fuel. These 

include but are not limited to: Fuel trim 

lean and rich monitors, catalyst 

deterioration monitors, engine misfire 

monitors, oxygen sensor deterioration 

monitors, EGR system monitors, if 

applicable, and vapor leak monitors, if 

applicable. No original OBD system 

monitor which is still applicable to the 

vehicle/engine may be aliased, removed, 

bypassed, or turned-off. No MILs shall 

be illuminated after the conversion. 

Readiness flags must be properly set for 

all monitors that identify any 

malfunction for all monitored 

components. 

(7) Conversion test groups and 

conversion engine families for 

conversions to dual fueled vehicles/ 

engines may not include vehicles/ 

engines subject to different emissions 

standards. However the data generated 

from testing on the new fuel for dual 

fueled test vehicles/engines may be 

carried over to vehicles/engines which 

otherwise meet the conversion test 

group/engine family criteria and for 

which the test vehicle/engine data 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable vehicle/engine standard. 

Clean alternative fuel conversion 

evaporative families for dual fueled 

vehicles/engines cannot include 

vehicles/engines which were originally 

certified to different evaporative 

emissions standards. 

(8) Durability procedures for large 

volume manufacturers of intermediate 

age light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks 

and heavy-duty complete vehicles that 

follow provisions in 40 CFR 86.1820–01 

may eliminate precious metal 

composition and catalyst grouping 

statistic when creating clean alternative 

fuel durability groupings. 

(9) Notify us by electronic submission 

in a format specified by the 

Administrator with all required 

documentation. The following must be 

submitted: 

(i) Describe how your conversion 

system qualifies as a clean alternative 

fuel conversion. You must include 

emission test results from the required 

exhaust and evaporative emissions 

testing, applicable exhaust and 

evaporative emissions standards and 

deterioration factors. You must also 

include a description of how the test 

vehicle/engine selected qualifies as a 

worst-case vehicle/engine under 40 CFR 

86.1828–01 or 40 CFR 86.096–24(b)(3) 

as applicable. 

(ii) Describe the group of vehicles/ 

engines (conversion test group/ 

conversion engine family) that are 

covered by your notification based on 

the criteria specified in paragraph (b)(2) 

or (b)(3) of this section. 

(iii) In lieu of specific test data, the 

clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturer may be eligible to submit 

attestations for the appropriate 

statements of compliance. 

(A) The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has 

properly exercised the optional and 

applicable statements of compliance or 

waivers in the certification regulations 

in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S and 

40 CFR part 1065. 

(B) The test group/engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation retains 

all the OEM fuel system, engine 

calibration, and emission control system 

functionality when operating on the fuel 

with which the vehicle was originally 

certified. 

(C) The test group/engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation retains 

all the functionality of the OEM OBD 

system (if the OEM vehicles/engines are 

OBD equipped) when operating on the 

fuel with which the vehicle was 

originally certified. 

(D) The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has fully 

functional OBD systems (if the OEM 

vehicles/engines are OBD equipped) 

and therefore meets the OBD 

requirements in 40 CFR 86 subparts A 

and S when operating on the alternative 

fuel. 

(E) The test group/engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation 

properly purges hydrocarbon vapor 

from the evaporative emission canister 

when the vehicles/engines are operating 

on the alternative fuel. 

(F) The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel use 

fueling systems, evaporative emission 

control systems, and engine powertrain 

components which are compatible with 

the alternative fuel and designed with 

the principles of good engineering 

judgment. 

(iv) Include any other information as 

the Administrator may deem 

appropriate to establish the conversion 

system is for the purpose of conversion 

to a clean alternative fuel. 

(10) Conversion systems must be 

properly installed and adjusted such 

that the vehicle/engine operates 

consistent with the principles of good 

engineering judgment and in accordance 

with all applicable regulations. 

(c) Documentation under this section 

may use the same test data used to 

certify conversion systems under 

§ 85.510, subject to the applicable 

provisions for differentiating test 

groups/engine families. 

§ 85.520 Exemption provisions for outside 

useful life vehicles/engines. 

(a) You are exempted from the 

tampering prohibition with respect to 

outside useful life vehicles/engines if 

you properly document and notify EPA 

that the conversion system satisfies all 

the provisions in this section; you meet 

the labeling requirements in § 85.530 

before you sell, import or otherwise 

facilitate the use of a clean alternative 

fuel conversion system; and you meet 

the applicable requirements in § 85.535. 

You may also meet the requirements 

under this section by complying with 

the provisions in § 85.515. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29643 

(b) Documenting and notifying EPA 

under this section includes the 

following provisions: 

(1) You may notify us as described in 

this section instead of certifying the 

conversion system. 

(2) Conversion test groups, 

evaporative/refueling families, and 

conversion engine families may be the 

same as those allowed for the 

intermediate age vehicle and engine 

program in § 85.515(b)(2) and (3), and 

the new and relatively new vehicle and 

engine program in § 85.510(b)(1)(ii) and 

§ 85.510(b)(2)(ii), as applicable. 

(3) Use good engineering judgment to 

specify, use, and assemble fuel-system 

components and other hardware and 

software that are properly designed and 

matched for the vehicles or engines in 

which they will be installed. You must 

submit a detailed description of the 

conversion system. The submission 

must provide a level of technical detail 

sufficient for EPA to confirm the 

conversion system’s ability to sustain 

acceptable emission levels in a worst 

case vehicle/engine. Required technical 

information must include a complete 

characterization of exhaust and 

evaporative emissions control strategies, 

the fuel delivery system, durability, and 

specifications related to OBD system 

functionality. Good engineering 

judgment also dictates that any testing 

or data used to satisfy demonstration 

requirements be generated at a quality 

laboratory that is capable of performing 

official EPA emission tests and follows 

good laboratory practices. 

(4) Notify us by electronic submission 

in a format specified by the 

Administrator with all required 

documentation. The following must be 

submitted, where applicable: 

(i) The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has 

properly exercised the optional and 

applicable statements of compliance or 

waivers in the certification regulations 

in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S and 

40 CFR part 1065. 

(ii) The test group/engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation retains 

all the OEM fuel system, engine 

calibration, and emission control system 

functionality when operating on the fuel 

with which the vehicle was originally 

certified. 

(iii) The test group/engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation retains 

all the functionality of the OEM OBD 

system (if the OEM vehicles/engines are 

OBD equipped) when operating on the 

fuel with which the vehicle was 

originally certified. 

(iv) The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has fully 

functional OBD systems (if the OEM 

vehicles/engines are OBD equipped) 

and therefore meets the OBD 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 86, subpart 

S when operating on the alternative 

fuel. 

(v) The test group/engine family 

converted to dual fuel operation 

properly purges hydrocarbon vapor 

from the evaporative emission canister 

when the vehicle is operating on the 

alternative fuel. 

(vi) The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel use 

fueling systems, evaporative emission 

control systems, and engine powertrain 

components which are compatible with 

the alternative fuel and designed with 

the principles of good engineering 

judgment. 

(vii) Include any other information as 

the Administrator may deem 

appropriate to establish that the 

conversion system is for the purpose of 

conversion to a clean alternative fuel. 

Option 1 for paragraph (b)(5): 

(5) Notify us by electronic submission 

in a format specified by the 

Administrator with all required 

documentation. The following must be 

submitted, where applicable: 

(i) Describe how your conversion 

system complies with the good 

engineering judgment criteria in 

§ 85.520(b)(3) and/or other requirements 

under this subpart or other applicable 

subparts such that the conversion 

system qualifies as a clean alternative 

fuel conversion. The submission must 

provide a level of technical detail 

sufficient for EPA to confirm the 

conversion system’s ability to sustain 

acceptable emission levels in a worst 

case vehicle/engine. Required technical 

information must include a complete 

characterization of exhaust and 

evaporative emissions control strategies, 

the fuel delivery system, durability, and 

specifications related to OBD system 

functionality. EPA may ask you to 

supply additional information, 

including test data, to support the claim 

that the conversion system does not 

increase emissions and involves good 

engineering judgment that is being 

applied for purposes of conversion to a 

clean alternative fuel. 

(ii) Describe the group of vehicles or 

engines that are covered by your 

notification based on the criteria 

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(iii) Include any other information as 

the Administrator may deem 

appropriate to establish the conversion 

system is for the purpose of conversion 

to a clean alternative fuel. 

Option 2 for paragraph (b)(5): 

(5) Notify us by electronic submission 

in a format specified by the 

Administrator with all required 

documentation. The following must be 

submitted, where applicable: 

(i) Describe how your conversion 

system complies with the good 

engineering judgment criteria in 

§ 85.520(b)(3) and/or other requirements 

under this subpart or other applicable 

subparts such that the conversion 

system qualifies as a clean alternative 

fuel conversion. 

(ii) Additionally, a clean alternative 

fuel conversion manufacturer must 

either 

(A) Submit data demonstrating that 

the vehicle or engine would meet the 

applicable exhaust and evaporative 

emissions standards as if it were within 

its defined useful life, or 

(B) Submit comparative emission test 

data to verify that emissions do not 

increase as a result of the fuel 

conversion. Submit data from two sets 

of the applicable exhaust and 

evaporative/refueling testing described 

in 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065, with 

the first test conducted before 

conversion and the second test after 

conversion. The data must demonstrate 

that emissions do not increase after 

conversion. The test vehicle(s)/engine(s) 

must be set to the manufacturer’s tune 

up specification before the first test, 

and, apart from what is required of the 

normal conversion procedure, no 

additional adjustments to the vehicle/ 

engine may occur between the first and 

second tests. 

(iii) Describe the group of vehicles or 

engines that are covered by your 

notification based on the criteria 

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(iv) Include any other information as 

the Administrator may deem 

appropriate to establish the conversion 

system is for the purpose of conversion 

to a clean alternative fuel. 

Option 3 for paragraph (b)(5): 

(5) Notify us by electronic submission 

in a format specified by the 

Administrator with all required 

documentation. The following must be 

submitted, where applicable: 

(i) Describe how your conversion 

system complies with the good 

engineering judgment criteria in 

§ 85.520(b)(3) and/or other requirements 

under this subpart or other applicable 

subparts such that the conversion 

system qualifies as a clean alternative 

fuel conversion. The submission must 

provide a level of technical detail 

sufficient for EPA to confirm the 

conversion system’s ability to sustain 

acceptable emission levels in a worst 

case vehicle/engine. Required technical 

information must include a complete 

characterization of exhaust and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
29644 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

evaporative emissions control strategies, 

the fuel delivery system, durability, and 

specifications related to OBD system 

functionality. EPA may ask you to 

supply additional information, 

including test data, to support the claim 

that the conversion system does not 

increase emissions and involves good 

engineering judgment that is being 

applied for purposes of conversion to a 

clean alternative fuel. 

(ii) Submit a printed version of results 

from an OBD scan tool following test 

procedures in 40 CFR 85.2222, with the 

exception that paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section does not apply. If necessary, the 

evaporative emission readiness monitor 

may remain unset for conversions to 

dedicated alternative gaseous fuels. The 

results may not demonstrate a failed 

test. 

(iii) Describe the group of vehicles/ 

engines that are covered by your 

notification based on the criteria 

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(iv) Include any other information as 

the Administrator may deem 

appropriate, which may include test 

data, to establish the conversion system 

is for the purpose of conversion to a 

clean alternative fuel. 

(6) Conversion systems must be 

properly installed and adjusted such 

that the vehicle or engine operates 

consistent with the principles of good 

engineering judgment and in accordance 

with all applicable regulations. 

(c) You must keep records as 

described in § 85.535(e). EPA may ask 

for any documentation and/or conduct 

emission testing to demonstrate the 

conversion is for the purpose of a clean 

alternative fuel. 

§ 85.525 Applicable standards. 

Vehicles and engines that have been 

converted to operate on a different fuel 

must meet emission standards and 

related requirements as follows: 

(a) The following emission standards 

and related requirements apply for 

conversions of vehicles and engines 

with an original model year of 1992 or 

earlier: 

(1) Exhaust hydrocarbons. Light-duty 

vehicles must meet the Tier 0 

hydrocarbon standard specified in 40 

CFR 86.094–8. Light-duty trucks must 

meet the Tier 0 hydrocarbon standard 

specified in 40 CFR 86.094–9. Ottocycle heavy-duty engines must meet the 

hydrocarbon standard specified in 40 

CFR 86.096–10. Diesel heavy-duty 

engines must meet the hydrocarbon 

standard in 40 CFR 86.096–11. 

(2) CO, NOX and particulate matter. 

Vehicles and engines must meet the CO, 

NOX, and particulate matter emission 

standards that applied for the vehicle or 

engine’s original model year. If the 

engine was certified with a Family 

Emission Limit, as noted on the 

emission control information label, the 

modified engine may not exceed this 

Family Emission Limit. 

(3) Evaporative hydrocarbons. 

Vehicles and engines must meet the 

evaporative hydrocarbon emission 

standards that applied for the vehicle or 

engine’s original model year. 

(b) For vehicles/engines with an 

original model year of 1993 or later, the 

modified vehicle or engine must meet 

the requirements that applied for the 

OEM vehicle/engine, or the most 

stringent OEM vehicle/engine standards 

in any allowable grouping. If the engine 

was certified with a Family Emission 

Limit for NOX, NOX+HC, or particulate 

matter, as noted on the vehicle emission 

control information label, the modified 

vehicle/engine may not exceed this 

Family Emission Limit. 

§ 85.530 Vehicle and commercial 

packaging labeling. 

(a) The following labeling 

requirements apply for clean alternative 

fuel conversion manufacturers: 

(1) You must make a supplemental 

emission control information label for 

each clean alternative fuel conversion 

system. 

(2) On the supplemental label identify 

the OEM vehicles/engines for which 

you authorize the use of your clean 

alternative fuel conversion system, 

consistent with the requirements of this 

subpart. You may do this by identifying 

the OEM vehicle test group/engine 

family names and OEM model year as 

described in § 85.510(c) or § 85.515(c) to 

which your conversion is applicable. 

Your commercial packaging materials 

must also clearly describe this 

information. 

(3) Include the following on the 

supplemental label: 

(i) State that the vehicle/engine has 

been equipped with a clean alternative 

fuel conversion system designed to 

allow it to operate on a fuel other than 

the fuel it was originally manufactured 

to operate on. Identify the fuel or fuels 

the vehicle/engine is designed to use 

and provide a unique conversion test 

group/conversion engine family name 

and conversion evaporative/refueling 

emissions family name. 

(ii) Identify your corporate name, 

address, and telephone number. 

(iii) Include one of the following 

statements that describes how you 

comply under this subpart and any 

applicable mileage or age restrictions 

due to compliance demonstration 

pathway: 

(A) ‘‘This clean alternative fuel 

conversion system has been certified to 

meet EPA emission standards.’’ 

(B) ‘‘Testing has shown that this clean 

alternative fuel conversion system meets 

EPA emission standards under the 

intermediate age vehicle program.’’ 

(C) ‘‘This conversion system is for the 

purpose of use of a clean alternative fuel 

in accordance with EPA regulations and 

is applicable only to vehicles and 

engines that are older than 11 years or 

120,000 miles.’’ (Values must be 

adjusted to reflect OEM useful life and 

useful life in hours should be added, if 

appropriate.) 

(iv) State the following: ‘‘This 

conversion was manufactured and 

installed consistent with the principles 

of good engineering judgment and all 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

regulations.’’ 

(4) On the supplemental label, 

identify any original parts that will be 

removed for the conversion and any 

associated changes in maintenance 

specifications. 

(5) On the supplemental label, 

include the date of conversion and the 

mileage of the vehicle or engine (or 

hours of operation for the engine) at the 

time of conversion. 

(b) The supplemental emission 

control information label shall be placed 

in a permanent manner adjacent to the 

vehicle or engine’s original emission 

control information label if possible. If 

it is impractical to place the 

supplemental label adjacent to the 

original label, it must be placed where 

it will be seen by a person viewing the 

original label on a part that is needed for 

normal operation and does not normally 

need replacement. 

(c) All information provided on clean 

alternative fuel conversion system 

packaging must be consistent with the 

required vehicle labeling information. 

§ 85.535 Liability, recordkeeping, and end 

of year reporting. 

(a) Clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers are liable for in-use 

performance of their conversion systems 

as outlined in this part. 

(b) We may conduct or require testing 

on any vehicles or engines as allowed 

under the Clean Air Act. This may 

involve confirmatory testing or selective 

enforcement audits for clean alternative 

fuel conversion systems. Dual-fuel 

vehicles/engines may be tested when 

operating on either fuel type. 

(c) Except for an application for 

certification, your actions to document 

compliance and notify us under this 

subpart are not a request for our 

approval. We generally do not give any 

formal approval short of issuing a 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29645 

certificate of conformity. However, if we 

learn that your actions fall short of full 

compliance with applicable 

requirements we may notify you that 

you have not met applicable 

requirements or that we need more 

information to make that determination. 

The exemption from the tampering 

prohibition is void ab initio if the 

conversion manufacturer has not 

satisfied all of the applicable provisions 

of this subpart even if a submission to 

EPA has been made and the conversion 

system appears on EPA’s publicly 

available list of compliant systems. 

(d) Clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers must accept in-use 

liability for warranty and recall for any 

parts or systems for which the failure 

can be traced to the conversion, 

regardless of whether application was 

proper or improper. The original 

equipment manufacturer shall remain 

liable for the performance of any parts 

or systems which retain their original 

function following conversion and are 

unaffected by the conversion. The 

applicable useful life of a clean 

alternative fuel converted vehicle/ 

engine shall end at the same time of the 

useful life of the original vehicle. 

(e) Clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers must keep sufficient 

records for five years to show that they 

meet applicable requirements. 

(f) Clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers must submit an end of 

the year sales report to EPA describing 

the number of conversions. The number 

of conversions is the sum of the 

calendar year intermediate age and 

outside useful life conversions and the 

same model year certified clean 

alternative fuel conversions. The 

number of conversions will be added to 

any other vehicle and engine sales 

accounted for using 40 CFR 86.1838–01 

or 40 CFR 86.096–14 as appropriate to 

determine small volume manufacturer 

status. 

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY 

VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

3. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 86 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart S—[Amended] 

4. Section 86.1810–01 is amended by 

revising paragraph (p) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1810–01 General standards; increase 

in emissions; unsafe conditions; waivers. 

* * * * * 

(p) For Tier 2 and interim non-Tier 2 

vehicles fueled by gasoline, diesel, 

natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or 

hydrogen manufacturers may measure 

non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) in 

lieu of NMOG. Manufacturers must 

multiply NMHC measurements from 

gasoline vehicles by an adjustment 

factor of 1.04 before comparing with the 

NMOG standard to determine 

compliance with that standard. 

Manufacturers may use other factors to 

adjust NMHC results to more properly 

represent NMOG results. Such factors 

must be based upon comparative testing 

of NMOG and NMHC emissions and be 

approved in advance by the 

Administrator. 

5. Section 86.1829–01 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(E) and (F), 

and by revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1829–01 Durability and emission 

testing requirements; waivers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(E) In lieu of testing a gasoline or 

diesel fueled, natural gas, liquefied 

petroleum gas, or hydrogen fueled Tier 

2 or interim non-Tier 2 vehicle for 

formaldehyde emissions when such 

vehicles are certified based upon NMHC 

emissions, a manufacturer may provide 

a statement in its application for 

certification that such vehicles comply 

with the applicable standards. Such a 

statement must be based on previous 

emission tests, development tests, or 

other appropriate information. 

(F) In lieu of testing a petroleumfueled, natural gas, liquefied petroleum 

gas, or hydrogen fueled heavy-duty 

vehicle for formaldehyde emissions for 

certification, a manufacturer may 

provide a statement in its application 

for certification that such vehicles 

comply with the applicable standards. 

Such a statement must be based on 

previous emission tests, development 

tests, or other appropriate information. 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * In lieu of testing natural gas, 

liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen 

fueled vehicles to demonstrate 

compliance with the evaporative 

emission standards specified in 

§ 86.1811–04(e), a manufacturer may 

provide a statement in its application 

for certification that, based on the 

manufacturer’s engineering evaluation 

of appropriate testing and/or design 

parameters, all light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and complete heavy-duty 

vehicles comply with applicable 

emission standards. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–11149 Filed 5–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS-PART 2