Land Mines Lurk as Senate Considers its Version of Self-Drive Act

Aftermarket Business - October 25, 2017 for the original article go HERE.

Though the House passed the Self-Drive Act by a voice vote, reflecting Democratic and Republican unanimity on the importance of autonomous vehicles (AVs), no one should think that autonomous vehicle legislation is a done deal. All sorts of groups indicated they want changes to the House bill, and are hoping for the Senate to do just that. The Senate held a hearing on truck AVs a week after the House passed its bill on September 6.

The statement issued by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) on Sept. 6 illustrates the mixed feelings the nation's auto lobby has about the bill."We are continuing to work to improve this legislative package and are eager to review what the Senate is expected to introduce next week on the heels of tomorrow's updated federal AV guidance," says Daniel Gage, spokesman for the AAM. "Clarity, consistency, and the removal of unnecessary barriers to expanded testing and deployment of these technologies are key."

Any legislation passed by Congress would trump the revised non-binding AV policy guidance Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced on September 12. The new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) guidance doesn't require manufacturers to submit any safety information to the agency, nor did its first iteration published in the fall of 2016.

The Self-Drive Act does require submission of safety assessment letters, and further requires the agency to submit a rulemaking plan to Congress within one year and to issue the first rule, presumably with new, enforceable AV-related standards, within 18 months, with other rules to follow, though the bill conditions all of that on an "as necessary" clause. The first step, however, as soon as the bill passes, would be a requirement to submit safety assessment letters to the NHTSA on level 4 and 5 AVs that a manufacturer or parts supplier wants to test and deploy. Within two years after the bill's passage, the NHTSA would have to publish a rule laying out a "a clear description of the relevant test results, data, and other contents required to be submitted by such entity, in order to demonstrate that such entity’s vehicles are likely to maintain safety, and function as intended and contain fail safe features, to be included in such certifications." NHTSA cannot condition approval of deployment on those submissions, however.

Part of what appears to be the cautionary stance of manufacturers about the House version of the Self-Drive Act has to do with the safety assessment letters, which in the first year would be based on the 12 safety principles in the NHTSA voluntary guidance revised by Chao in September. In May of 2016, in response to a draft of the first iteration of the NHTSA AV guidance, Wayne Bahr, Global Director, Automotive Safety Office, Sustainability, Environment & Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Co., sent a letter to the NHTSA opposing NHTSA review of Ford's self validation of functional safety processes because Ford didn't think that review "would provide the intended confirmation, and is likely to create feasibility concerns." Bahr did not respond to an e-mail asking whether Ford's position has changed.

Consumer groups have been skeptical of some portions of the Self-Drive Act. For example, on the day the House voted, the Consumers Union released a letter which started out by saying: "While several portions of the Self-Drive Act would benefit consumer safety, we are very concerned about other provisions in the bill that would change federal law in ways that would open regulatory gaps and fail to adequately protect consumers from vehicle safety hazards." The CU went on to argue that exemptions from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards should only be granted "if backed by evidence that a new feature maintains and enhances safety."

There is one overlooked provision in the bill that has nothing to do with AVs and could have a big impact on aftermarket shelves. NHTSA would have to research the need for a revised standard "that would improve the performance of headlamps and improve overall safety" and propose a new standard if necessary. This mysterious provision never came up in House hearings, or on the House floor. One wonders on whose behalf it was inserted. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has issued reports in the past year faulting the performance of passenger and SUV headlights.

Author bio: 

Mr. Barlas, a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C., covers topics inside the Beltway.

EPA Opens Door to Consumer Use of New, Eco-friendly Refrigerant

Aftermarket Business World
December 23, 2013

In November, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continued to clear a path for use in the U.S. of the new motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerant HFO-1234yf.

The agency said that states could not consider the refrigerant, which OEMs have started to use, a volatile organic chemical (VOC). That means states cannot limit HFO-1234yf’s use as part of an ozone/smog reduction strategy.

A Honeywell petition submitted to the EPA in 2009 led to the EPA decision. Honeywell and DuPont, the other major marketer of HFO-1234yf, are selling it as a replacement for HFC-134a in motor vehicle air-conditioners (MVAC). HFC–134a has been used in automobile MVAC systems across the industry since 1993. But HFC-134a has a global warming potential (GWP) of 1430, much higher than HFO1234yf's GWP of 4.

Car makers selling into Europe already face a European Union Directive mandating OEMs use AC refrigerants with a GWP below 150 starting last January. Use of HFO1234yf in the U.S. is being spurred by the EPA/DOT car mileage/greenhouse gas (GHG) requirements, which give automakers credits for use of green air conditioning refrigerants.

At about the same time the EPA was excluding HFO1234yf as a VOC, it was publishing final rule making changes in the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for HFO1234yf. These SNURS dictate what hoops manufacturers have to jump through before selling a new chemical. In many instances, distribution is limited. That was the case with the original SNUR for HFO1234yf issued in 2010.

According to Michael Conlon, the outside counsel for the Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute (ARPI), that 2010 SNUR effectively banned sales of HRO1234yf in the aftermarket. The new SNUR the EPA issued on November 1, 2013 took an important first step toward reversing that decision. "It was important to get this new SNUR because we could not have gone for a new SNAP rule without it," he explains.

SNAP stands for the EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. It tells users of new refrigerants exactly how they can be used. In the case of the SNAP for HFO1234yf issued in March 2011, the EPA restricted its use to OEMs and service stations that comply with certain conditions, such as using containers that are over 20 pounds and have fittings that comply with SAE standards. The updated SNUR now gives the aftermarket retail market standing to expand that March 2011 SNAP to consumer use of HFO1234yf. The EPA is waiting for DuPont and Honeywell to come up with the proper fittings for containers below 20 pounds before approving consumer uses.
 
It is true that aftermarket sales of HFO1234yf, after an expanded SNAP approval is secured, will ramp up slowly. That said, General Motors is already using the refrigerant in the Cadillac XTS and in the European version of the Chevrolet Malibu. Over the next five years or so, GM will convert most of its models sold in North America to the new refrigerant, Curt Vincent, GM’s engineering manager for new refrigerants, has said.

Service stations are already set to perform aftermarket refilling. "There are at least 1,200 service centers in the U.S. that are currently equipped to service vehicles that have 1234yf, and we expect that to double over the next year as additional automakers, such as Chrysler, adopt the product," says DuPont spokeswoman Janet Smith. She adds the Obama administration is also considering the possible future delisting of 134a from the SNAP list as an option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan.

But the biggest stimulus in the U.S. for use of HFO1234yf by OEMs is the EPA/DOT car mileage standard for model year 2017-2025 light duty vehicles, which gives automakers "credits" against CO2 tailpipe emissions when they use green AC refrigerants.

EPA Balks at Updating Aftermarket Catalytic Converter Standard

Aftermarket Business World
Thursday, August 22, 2013 - for the online version go HERE.

The decision of a House Appropriations Subcommittee in late July to prevent the EPA from moving forward with its Tier III tailpipe emission standards moves the agency's proposed rule on that subject to the Capital's front burner.

In one sense, whether the proposal becomes final is a non-issue for the aftermarket since its sulfur-in-gasoline limit will not affect sales of aftermarket gasoline additives, at least as the proposal is currently written. When used at the maximum recommended treatment rate, aftermarket gasoline additives contribute less than the proposed limit of 3 parts per million sulfur to the finished gasoline.

But the proposal does raise some other aftermarket concerns. It does not modernize the EPA's dusty aftermarket catalytic converter standard, which differs from California's.

The whole point of the Tier III proposal is to bring EPA standards for reducing carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon air pollution across the country to levels promoted by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) LEV III program, which goes into effect in 2015.

However, the Tier III proposal omits any mention of the EPA's aftermarket catalytic converter policy. It was adopted in 1986, and has never been altered. It is inferior to the requirements adopted by CARB in 2009 which requires catalytic converters to meet a 50,000 mile/5 year warranty and relies on a mass based standard (i.e. grams of pollution/mile). The EPA requirement is 25,000 miles/ 5 years. Instead of a "mass-based" standard, the EPA uses a 70 percent hydrocarbon, 70 percent carbon monoxide, and 30 percent NOx emission reduction-based standard.

What this means, if the House subcommittee cancellation of Tier III does not stand, is that there will not be one, aligned federal aftermarket catalytic converter policy. California and states that follow the CARB standard will have a stricter standard than the states that adhere to the EPA standard.

This doesn't sit well with some major national clean air organizations. One of the major proponents of an updated aftermarket catalytic converter policy is the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), a group of Eastern states with among the biggest air pollution problems. In comments to the EPA, the OTC said, "Without updating its policy, EPA would be allowing use of replacement converters that will not guarantee emission reductions as long as the original converters. To ensure emission reductions occur when catalysts fall outside of the warranty period, the final Tier 3 regulation should include a more stringent aftermarket catalytic converter policy as recommended previously by OTC."

The OTC has adopted numerous resolutions over the past few years pleading with the EPA to bring its aftermarket catalytic converter policy into line with California's. It did so again at its 2013 annual meeting. However, the OTC recommendation differs in one aspect from CARB's: CARB would not allow used original engine manufacturer (OEM) converters to be certified and sold. The reuse of reconditioned converters is OK by the OTC.

Mary Nichols, the chairman of the CARB, calls the EPA Tier III proposal a "noteworthy strengthening" of Tier II standards. However, California did not ask the EPA to update its 1986 aftermarket catalytic converter policy when it submitted comments on the Tier III proposal. John Swanton, a CARB spokesman, says that was because "we limited our remarks to the specific issues included in the EPA proposal."

Asked about the omission, an EPA spokeswoman says, "EPA is aware of Ozone Transport Commission’s interest in an aftermarket catalytic converter regulation and OTC’s concerns regarding the proposed Tier 3 rule.  Currently, EPA is in the process of reviewing stakeholder comments received during the comment period, which was extended to July 1, 2013. EPA will take all comments received under consideration as we work to complete the final rule."

---