Comment Log Display

The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) is pleased to
provide comments relative to a newly amended proposal to evaluate
and certify new engine packages intended for use in specially
constructed vehicles (SCV).   It is important for the California
Air Resources Board (ARB) to understand SEMA’s role in this issue
for the past four-plus years.  To that end, this document provides
a brief history of our involvement, along with information dealing
with the registration of current and future-built specially
constructed vehicles in California, particularly as it concerns
emissions-related requirements for these vehicles and the
certification of new engine packages for use in SCVs.
 
As you are aware, SEMA is a trade association headquartered in
Diamond Bar, California and made up of more than 6,500 mostly small
businesses in California and around the country that manufacture,
rebuild, distribute and retail parts and accessories for motor
vehicles.  The products manufactured by our member companies
include functional, restoration, performance and styling
enhancement products for use on passenger cars, trucks and special
interest vehicles of the type that would be affected by any
regulation governing the certification of new engine packages. 
 
Background
 
“Specially Constructed Vehicle” (SCV) is the Department of Motor
Vehicles’ term for what car enthusiasts know to be street rods, hot
rods, muscle cars and all varieties of hobbyist vehicles, including
replicas and kits.  These are vehicles constructed by individuals,
not vehicle manufacturers, for personal use and not for resale. 
These vehicles epitomize American’s passion for automobiles.
 
The California Attorney General’s office estimated that there are
approximately 70,000 improperly titled vehicles of this type in the
state.  To correct their titles, avoid prosecution and dramatically
reduce emissions, legislation was enacted to implement an amnesty
program which encouraged specially constructed vehicle owners to
re-register their vehicles and pay the appropriate fees.  In many
instances, existing vehicles were constructed to resemble vehicles
built before emissions control devices were required.  The
legislation contemplated that alternative and reasonably achievable
emissions requirements were necessary for this class of vehicles,
if an amnesty program was to succeed. 
 
Inasmuch as these vehicles are rarely driven, only for short
distances, for hobby-related purposes and not typically for general
transportation, their actual impact on air quality is negligible,
especially with the installation of more advanced emissions
controls.  Through its Green Rod project, which was designed
specifically to create reasonable emissions requirements for
amnesty vehicles, SEMA developed an aftermarket retrofit kit
capable of bringing even 1960-era vehicles up to 2003 Federal
emissions standards (with the exception of  missing HC levels by a
slight margin).  More importantly, the kit also enabled the Green
Rod to meet 2010 California I&M (smog-check) standards.  As a
result, retrofitting these vehicles reduces emissions by an average
of 95% for the measured pollutants. 
 
 Issues Facing Specially Constructed Vehicle Owners in California
 
The growth of the automotive hobby has also fueled a market for all
levels of restoration components, from aftermarket body, frame and
drivetrain replacements to complete vintage reproductions, usually
known as “kit cars.”  There has been continued uncertainty with
respect to how these cars should be titled and registered.  This
trend has led to a number of these vehicles being improperly titled
and registered.
 
One major reason owners of these vehicles may have been reluctant
to declare the true value of their cars and pay the taxes due under
an amnesty program is that the vehicles would then, under
California Motor Vehicle Code 4750.1(a), need to meet the emissions
requirements for initial registration of the vehicle.
 
These classic cars were originally designed to meet emissions of a
much earlier era (if at all) and cannot reach the standards as
currently defined.  The same problem applies to vehicles
constructed more recently to replicate these classic cars.  For
example, recently-constructed vintage reproductions are typically
built to the specification of the original vehicles for the purpose
of originality and emissions testing.  Consequently, though all of
the vehicle owners are able to correct their titles, they would
forfeit the use of the vehicles because of an inability to meet the
stringent current year emissions requirements in order to be
registered.
 
SEMA, as representative of the automotive specialty aftermarket and
various hobbyist groups and individual car enthusiasts through its
SEMA Action Network, recognized the need for a solution and worked
with the Attorney General’s office as well as the Air Resources
Board (ARB), Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), California Highway
Patrol (CHP) and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).  As previously
constructed, it is clear these vehicles cannot meet current model
year smog check emissions requirements.  However, by using
emissions-reduction technologies and parts designed and
manufactured in the specialty parts industry, a solution was
developed.  Through the “GreenRod” project, a kit of retrofit parts
was functionally selected that enabled these vehicles to meet 2003
Tier 1 Federal standards and current year I/M standards. 
Duplicates of the Green Rod kit, modified forms of otherwise
unregulated SCV engines, can be configured in a variety of engine
brands and displacements.  This approach is only intended for
voluntary use by vehicle owners seeking amnesty from prosecution to
meet smog check emissions standards during the registration
process.  SEMA provided a measure of technical support to SCV
owners who chose to take the Green Rod kit approach.
 
Steps Taken Toward Establishing an Amnesty Program
 
SEMA spearheaded the creation and passage of the California
legislation that established a one-year amnesty program for
currently existing specially constructed vehicles.  It was the
intent of this legislation to provide the following:
 
•	A way for current SCV owners to obtain valid title and
registration and to allow re-registration to carry no risk of
prosecution,
•	Emissions standards  for these vehicles that are reasonable and
attainable,  and
•	A method by which existing SCVs can achieve the reasonable and
attainable emissions standards adopted by the CARB (via the
retrofit kit program).
Assembly Bill 2461 (2010) and Assembly Bill 619 (2008) provided the
necessary provisions in law to create the amnesty program, which
began on July 1, 2011 and ended on June 30, 2012.   
 
Registering Current and Future Specially Constructed Vehicles
 
While the retrofit kit project was directed to previously-built
SCVs, there was concern about meeting emissions requirements for
future-built vehicles.  SEMA reached out to the Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) for a solution.  Initially, General Motors
(GM) entered the program by offering an LS-based engine package
from an already certified vehicle, the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro.  This
package includes not only the engine but all related emissions
controls, including OEM electronic control unit (ECU), catalytic
converters and electronic harness.  Evaporative emission control
consists of a vacuum port that allows the identification of a
“sealed” fuel system.  This engine package currently carries an ARB
Executive Order (E.O.) and represents an example of an
emissions-controlled engine from a previously certified vehicle.

An Option to Emissions Testing Specially Constructed Vehicles
 
California Senate Bill 100 (2001) allows for the first 500
specially constructed vehicles for which registration is sought
(each year), to be inspected for the purposes of determining the
engine model-year used in the vehicle or the vehicle model-year,
and the emission control system application.  Under the law, the
owner has the option to choose whether the inspection is based on
the engine model-year used in the vehicle or the vehicle
model-year, and the emission control system application.  In
determining the vehicle model-year, the referee compares the
vehicle to vehicles of the era that the vehicle most closely
resembles.  The referee then only requires those emission control
systems that are applicable to the established model-year and that
the vehicle reasonably accommodates in its present form.  These
special exemptions can be obtained at any California DMV.   
 
As an alternative, although still being considered and concluded by
ARB staff, it will be possible to use an OEM engine as an emissions
certified engine not from a certified vehicle.  This approach
includes stand-alone (crate) engines, complete with all required
emissions equipment, certified in a vehicle representative of the
specially-constructed vehicle category in which it will be
installed and used.  SEMA suggests that these engines be required
to meet California’s new vehicle emission standards, using the
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for the model year in which the SCV is
registered.
 
Previously, two representative SCVs equipped with an engine from a
certified vehicle easily met current smog test standards, as
measured in a BAR referee station.  Given these results,
future-built SCVs will have the ability to meet BAR smog check
emissions standards, even though those standards may periodically
be revised downward, as is current practice.
 
For smog check purposes, the standards to which future-built SCVs
are tested will be those for the model year (calendar year) at the
time of vehicle registration and testing.  These standards would
not be applicable to vehicles to which a Certificate of Sequence
number has been issued, as provided for in S.B. 100 (2001).
 
Engine Certification for Specially Constructed Vehicles
 
SEMA has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of the
provisions provided for in S.B. 100.  SEMA also understands the
necessity for having acceptable alternatives in place that enable
future additional SCV registrations in California.  Given the fact
future BAR smog test emissions levels might not be attainable with
the previously-discussed retrofit kit, SEMA believes OEM engines
from otherwise certified vehicles would be a viable option.  It
appears this approach is acceptable to ARB, based on the E.O. it
issued for the GM LS engine from a production 2010 Chevrolet
Camaro.
 
Our understanding is that GM also wants to provide engines for SCVs
not taken from a certified vehicle configuration.  This appears to
include engines presently populating their line of “crate” engines,
not otherwise emissions certified.  While this would expand GM’s
offerings for SCVs beyond the 2010 Camaro engine, it will require
potentially a separate emissions certification program. 
 
In comparing the emissions performance of engines from a certified
vehicle with engines not from a certified vehicle, SEMA believes
the latter will involve a much more complex and costly
certification process.  CARB is currently concluding a process by
which stand-alone engines may be certified that is more difficult
and costly than approving engines from certified vehicles, largely
because of potential problems matching a range of SCVs to
comparable OEM vehicles. Enabling use of an engine from a any
previously certified vehicle bypasses this problem.  While SEMA
does not oppose the possibility of certifying engines for purposes
of the SCV program, we believe that the most expedient way to move
this program forward would be to first allow engines from certified
vehicles. Based on CARB’s currently-proposed method of engine
certification, allowing engines from certified vehicles is clearly
a more cost-effective approach that still addresses the issue of
reduced emissions from SCV packages.
 
SEMA believes that using engines from any certified current model
year vehicle would provide options to the builders/owners of SCVs
that offer the potential for meeting emissions requirements on a
more affordable and effective basis.  In addition, it would also
allow for a wider variety of engine brands, something that the
current engine approval process excludes. 
 
SEMA has encouraged other OEMs to participate in this program,
hoping to make other brands of engines available to owners of
future-built SCVs.  These invitations have been extended so that
future SVC owners will have a choice of engine brands that can
enable matching engine brands with SCV brands; e.g., a Ford engine
in a Ford branded vehicle, a Chevrolet engine in a Chevrolet
branded vehicle, etc.  Even though some SCV owners will not have a
preference, we're confident that most will. 

Under the recently proposed amendments to this program, CARB has
elected to create an engine certification program aligned more with
how the OEM certifies engines rather than what is economically
feasible for small company engine builders.  Specifically, such
requirements as mandating emissions levels not to exceed LEVII and
LEVIII for SCVs built both now and in the future [Attachment 2,
15-Day Modifications, Section 2212(c)(1)(A)] will prevent existing
engine builders from providing powertrain packages that do not
include OEM components and systems geared to meeting these
standards.  That fact alone suggests the benefit of using
previously certified OEM engines in future SCVs, not just certified
crate engines of the type for which GM has recently obtained CARB
compliance.

It must also be emphasized, as SEMA believes and has pointed out on
numerous occasions, SCVs are driven minimally when compared daily
drivers, often less than 1000 miles/year.  Their contribution to
the emissions inventory is negligible at best.  A requirement for
near-term SCV builds (2012 – 2014) to meet LEVII emissions levels
seems unnecessarily strict for vehicles that are operated so
infrequently.  

Further, SEMA believes that the imposition on future-built SCVs of
evaporative emissions standards applicable to certified engines
will require OBD systems and related components neither practical
or (in some cases) possible with these vehicles.  This problem has
already arisen with current SCV evaporative control systems, as
pointed out during completion of the amnesty retrofit kit program. 
Since GM refused to include specifically-sized fuel tanks in their
E-rod package, evaporative control systems were reduced to meeting
OBDI requirements, the limit for these type vehicles.  SEMA
recommends that a sealed fuel system (OBDI) be acceptable for
future-built SCVs, as was previously approved by CARB in the
aforementioned amnesty program (GreenRod project).

SEMA also believes that CARB’s decision to include durability
testing for worst case SCVs strengthens SEMA’s argument that this
unnecessary burden should not apply to limited-use vehicles and
provides yet another financial burden on small company engine
builders.  In fact, while it may not be in the spirit of the
current engine certification language, the net effect of this
overall certification process will likely prevent many of these
businesses from participating in the program at all, thus enabling
the OEM to enjoy a monopoly in providing approved SCV engines and
raising costs to the vehicle owner.

Requirements for OBD measurement of air-fuel imbalance, enabling
cold-start emissions reductions, and providing comprehensive
component monitoring (Section 2212(5) (g) (5, 6, &7) is further
evidence the new certification requirements are geared to OEM
practice and technologies.  It appears likely that the amended
regulations run parallel with new OEM engine and vehicle
certifications and appear more aggressive in areas that include
engines and engine component warranties, warranty periods, owner
responsibilities and how future SCVs will be evaluated in the
California smog-check program.

As pointed out earlier in these comments, two SCVs were fitted with
what became CARB E.O. compliant engines from the GM E-rod line. 
Both vehicles passed their respective smog-check tests at BAR
referee stations and were witnessed by numerous BAR referees.  The
measured emissions were sufficiently low to suggest these SCVs
would have passed not only current smog-check requirements but
could be projected to do so for years to come.  Again, these
engines were certified in an OEM vehicle and represent the category
that SEMA has suggested should be permitted for use in current and
future SCVs.
 
Again, SEMA believes that what CARB is currently proposing, because
it is a distinct departure from their “Initial Statement of
Reasons” document released October 4, 2011, closely parallels the
requirements set forth for OEM engine certification.  Without a
doubt, these requirements are economically prohibitive for SCV
engine builders of the type represented by SEMA.  As amended by
CARB staff and currently formatted (Amendment 2, 15-Day
Modifications), the certification procedure essentially forecloses
an opportunity for these small businesses to provide certified SCV
engines.  

SEMA suggests that one alternative to building complete,
emissions-compliant engines would be to allow the current CARB E.O.
program to apply to the installation of emissions-certified parts
on certified OEM engines.  SEMA believes there is nothing in the
current regulations that would prevent products carrying a CARB
E.O. from being used on these engines.  These types of parts, when
E.O. certified on an engine in a vehicle already CARB-certified by
the OEM, should be acceptable for use on the same certified engine
for use in SCVs.  This is the current E.O. process by which
performance parts are certified for use in late-model vehicles.  At
worst, this would at least allow small business engine builders
some level of participation in the SCV engine market, short of
providing certified engines on their own.

In conclusion, SEMA believes that the program now proposed by CARB
(Amendment 2, 15-Day Modifications) is a clear departure from what
was proposed by CARB staff in October 2011(CARB Staff Report:
Initial Statement of Reasons) and promoted through several
workshops.  We believe that this program would be best served by
returning to the provisions provided for in the October 2011
document.  To that end, we stand ready to assist CARB staff in any
way that benefits the goals of all parties involved.
 
Thank you for your consideration.  Please feel free to contact me
at 901/377-1210 or by e-mail at jmcfar1@aol.com if I can be of
additional assistance.
 
Sincerely,
 
Jim McFarland
SEMA Technical Consultant