[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 152 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10566-S10567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STREAMLINE ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE CONVERSIONS ACT

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, last summer in my hometown of Tulsa, OK, 
when gasoline prices were near $4 a gallon, a person driving a 
compressed natural gas-powered car was able to fuel up for just 90 
cents a gallon. This was when gasoline was at $4 a gallon. That was a 
savings of $3 a gallon. Consequently, I was the first in Congress to 
introduce a comprehensive bill to

[[Page S10567]]

promote the use of natural gas as a realistic alternative for the many 
Americans who were looking for price relief, which is about everybody. 
The bill I introduced was called the Drive America on Natural Gas Act.
  A year later, I am encouraged to see that several Members on Capitol 
Hill have introduced similar bills promoting the use of natural gas and 
propane as transportation fuel. Last summer, I joined with Senator 
Pryor to once again introduce a comprehensive bill to promote these 
fuels for America's drivers. Additionally, majority leader Harry Reid 
recently announced his firm support for natural gas vehicles and hopes 
to bring a standalone bill to the floor in the near future. I welcome 
the majority leader's support and encourage him to make this a priority 
for floor consideration.
  One of the major components of my Drive America on Natural Gas Act 
addressed a desperate need to overhaul the EPA emissions certification 
process which effectively prohibits the ability of nearly all car 
owners the option to legally convert cars to bifuel operation. Bifuel 
is a car that can run on natural gas and via the flip of a switch go to 
gasoline. Now, why? With certification and emissions testing expenses 
ranging between $50,000 and $150,000 per conversion system type, the 
costs are prohibitive for the aftermarket conversion system 
manufacturers to produce these systems for more than just a handful of 
different vehicle models each year. These heavy costs are ultimately 
borne by the consumer. Due to the rigidity and the cost constraints of 
these regulations, the EPA has issued less than 300 certificates over 
the past 8 years--that is 300 certificates over the past 8 years.
  This is a solution to the high price and the fluctuating price of 
automobile gas. Now, oftentimes the vehicle models eligible for 
conversion are only sold for a short period of time since the 
certification lasts less than a year before a conversion system 
manufacturer must decide it will rectify that particular system.
  Today, I am pleased to join Senator Wicker, Congressman Dan Boren 
from my State of Oklahoma, and Congressman Heath Shuler to introduce 
bipartisan, bicameral legislation to simplify and streamline the EPA 
emission certification process for aftermarket conversion systems.
  The Streamline Alternative Fuel Vehicle Conversions Act makes 
critical changes in five key ways so that vehicle conversions can 
become a commonplace option for all Americans:
  First, our bill eliminates the need for subsequent yearly 
recertification systems that have already been certified. I might add 
that the EPA is a friend in this effort. They want these changes to 
take place as much as we do, but they are not able to do this right 
now. Under the current law, you have to get recertified, so we 
eliminate that problem.
  Secondly, the legislation directs the EPA to establish criteria that 
would cover several different yet similar makes and models under a 
single certification conformity.
  Here is the problem. We have an organization in Tulsa that has a 
conversion system where they can actually change the fuel and refuel 
and they can change conversions into automobiles. The problem is, the 
way the law is today you have to get paid for this conversion each 
time. It might be the same engine that has already been converted 
before, but if it is in a different model, you have to convert it 
again. This is something we are going to be changing.
  The third thing we change is to instruct the EPA to allow the 
submissions of previously tested data if a vehicle or the conversion 
system has not changed in a way which would affect compliance--very 
similar to the last problem, but nonetheless it is in the current law.
  The fourth thing we would do is direct the EPA to promulgate 
regulations to help conversion system manufacturers comply with 
potentially different onboard diagnostics--which is called OBD--
requirements and compatibility. Since 1996, these onboard diagnostics 
systems have been required in all light-duty cars and trucks to monitor 
engine and emission components.
  Finally, we clarify the treatment of vehicles which are beyond their 
useful life as defined by the EPA. These older vehicles, typically 
those that are at least 10 years old and have at least 125,000 miles, 
are by default regulated under the Clean Air Act's tampering provision, 
causing regulatory uncertainty. Our legislation would allow the 
conversion of these vehicles as long as the conversion system 
manufacturer for the converter is able to demonstrate that the 
emissions would not degrade due to conversion.
  Over the past several months, this legislation has been through 
numerous drafting reiterations with the assistance of the Natural Gas 
Vehicles of America, the National Propane Gas Association, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency. As I said before, they have been very 
helpful to us. I especially thank the EPA for their input and 
assistance in helping us craft a bill which will aid the agency in 
their efforts to streamline their compliance. They actually want to 
streamline. This is not normally the case.

  I am also encouraged by EPA's internal efforts to reform the process, 
and I am pleased that our bill will complement and enhance their 
actions.
  By simplifying this compliance process, the Streamline Alternative 
Fuel Vehicle Conversion Act will not only incentivize conversion system 
manufacturers to offer more systems for additional vehicle makes and 
models but will eventually reduce the cost of these conversion systems 
for interested car owners, perhaps by hundreds or even thousands of 
dollars.
  Ultimately, the legislation will allow Americans to choose whether 
propane- or natural-gas powered vehicles are right for their own 
individual and business needs while simultaneously preserving the 
country's stringent emission standards.
  The promise of natural gas and propane as mainstream transportation 
fuels is achievable today--not 20 years from now or 25 years from now 
but today. It is something no one should be against. Stop and think 
about it. I know the price of gas is down to $3. In my State of 
Oklahoma, it is down to around $2 a gallon. But today's price for 
natural gas, a comparable gallon would be 90 cents, and that is one 
that would be stabilized. When we stop and think about the reserves 
that are out there in natural gas, what we can do and what is available 
for us today, it can only get better.
  Hopefully, this bill will pass. I am very proud of the bipartisan 
support, the bicameral support. I encourage our colleagues to get 
involved in this very logical response to the high price of motor fuel.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, are we now in a period of morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, we are.

                          ____________________