EPA-AA-SDSB-79-33
Technical Report
Analysis of Technical Issues Relating to:
California's Request for Waiver of Federal Preemption
with Respect to Optional 100,000-Mile Exhaust Emission
Standards and Test Procedures for 1980 and Subsequent Model
Year Light-Duty Vehicles and 1981 and Subsequent Model Year
Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles
by
Richard A. Rykowski
December 5, 1979
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions/ They are intended to present technical analysis of
issues using data which are currently available. The purpose in
the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of
technical information and to inform the public of technical devel-
opme'nts which may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position
or regulatory action.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Introduction
California has asked EPA for a waiver of Federal preemption
concerning a number of changes to emission standards and test
procedures applicable when a vehicle is certified for 100,000
miles. A separate set of emission standards are applicable when a
vehicle is being certified for 50,000 miles, which is the Federal
certification period. These 50,000 mile emission standards have
already been granted a waiver by EPA under the requirements of
Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act and are not being revised.
Thus, it is helpful to note that the changes to the 100,000-mile
emission standards and test procedures constitute changes to an
option and are not required to be met by all manufacturers. The
100,000 mile certification revisions are to take effect beginning
with the 1980 model year for passenger cars and with the 1981 model
year for light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles.
The criteria under which a waiver of Federal preemption can
and must be granted is stated in Section 209 (b) of the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1977:
(b)(l) "The Administrator shall, after notice and oppor-
tunity for public hearing, waive application of this section
to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase
emission standards) for the control of emissions from new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30,
1966, if the State determines that the State standards
will be, in aggregate, at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. No such
waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that-
(A) the determination of. the State is arbitrary and
capricious,
(B) such State does not need such State standards to
meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or
(C) such State standard and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of this
part."
This document shall concern itself with only two of the
criteria mentioned in Section 209(b); 1) that the State was
not arbitrary and capricious in determining that the State stan-
dards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protection of public
health and welfare as applicable Federal standards and 2) that the
State <• standards and accompanying test procedures are consistant
with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. For the purposes of this
document, consistency with Section 202(a) will be interpret ted as
meaning technological feasibility given the available leadtime and
with consideration given to the cost of compliance (see paragraph
202(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act). The fact that compelling and
extraordinary conditions existing in California has been determined
in past waiver decisions and will not be discussed here.
-------
Revisions Proposed by California
California's current emission standards and the maintenance
items allowed for vehicles certified for 100,000 miles are shown in
Table 1. California's proposed revisions are shown in Table 2. In
these revisions, California has 1) numerically raised the hydro-
carbon (HC) and carbon monoxide standards applicable under 100,000-
mile certification (Options 1 and 2), 2) given an HC exhaust
emission allowance for vehicles with very low and durable evap-
orative HC emissions which are certified for 100,000 miles, 3)
allowed the durability vehicles used to determine compliance with
these standards to 'line cross1 as long as these vehicles did not
line cross both applicable California or Federal 50,000-mile
standards, and 4) increased the amount of maintenance allowed under
the 100,000-mile option.
Discussion .
As mentioned earlier, EPA must decide, 1) that all of these
proposed revisions are technologically feasible given available
leadtime and cost and 2) that California was not arbitrary and
capricious in determining that their standards with these revisions
are equally protective of public health and welfare as applicable
Federal standards. The appropriate decision in each of these two
areas will be made below.
It is rather simple to show that these revisions are techno-
logically feasible given the leadtime available and the cost of
compliance. It can be done in two ways. One, each separate change
shown in Table 2 is a relaxation of the requirements listed in
Table 1. If the current 100,000-mile option (Table 1) was deter-
mined to be technologically feasible, etc., then the revised
100,000-mile options must also be technologically feasible, etc.
This assumes that no new information has come to light since the
decision was made on the current 100,000-mile option that would
alter that previous decision, which is the case here.
Two, California has shown that at least one vehicle has
certified under the existing 100,000-mile option.^/* Given that
the revised options are less stringent, this same vehicle could
have certified1with the revisions in place. This also demonstrates
that the revisions are technologically feasible, etc. As mentioned
before, the 100,000-mile standards are optional and do not have to
be met by everyone.
* California stated at the Hearing that this vehicle certified
under the revised Option 2 standards. However, an examination of
the data made available shows this vehicle to be meeting the
existing 100,000-mile standards also.
-------
Table 1
Emission Standards and Allowable Maintenance
Under California's Current 100,000-Mile Option
Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide Standards - Same as applicable
50,000-mile standard except must be met for 100,000
miles.
Oxides of Nitrogen Standards - Numerically 15-150 percent higher
than applicable 50,000-mile standard depending on vehicle
class and model year and must be met for 100,000 miles.
Allowable Maintenance (Minimum Interval)
Accessory drive belt adjustment (30,000 miles)
Air filter (30,000 miles)
Fuel filter replacement (30,000 miles)
Idle speed adjustment (30,000 miles)
Valve lash (15,000 miles)
-------
Table 2
Emission Standards and Allowable Maintenance
Under California's Proposed Revised 100,000-Mile Option
Oxides of Nitrogen Standards - Same as under current 100,000-mile
option.
Hydrocarbon and Carbon Monoxide Standards -
Option 1 - Same as applicable 50,000-mile standard and must be
met for only 50,000 miles. Least-squares line used to
determine deterioration factor is fit to data
over full 100,000 miles.*
Option 2 - Numerically 21.7 percent greater than applicable
50,000-mile standards and must be met for 100,000 miles.*
Evaporative Hydrocarbon Allowance (available under both
options) - For vehicles with durable evaporative emis-
sion control systems showing emissions of less than 1.0
gram per test, the applicable hydrocarbon emission
standard shall be modified as follows:
HCex. .75 (.185 - - ) . HC0
Where:
HC - adjusted exhaust hydrocarbon standard
6X
HC = unadjusted exhaust hydrocarbon standard
Di = diurnal evaporative emissions
Hs = hot soak evaporative emissions
Allowable Maintenance (Minimum Intervals)
Accessory Drive Belt Adjustment (30,000 mi)
Valve Lash Adjustment (15,000 mi)
Spark Plug Replacement (30,000 mi)
Air Filter Replacement (30,000 mi)
Exhaust Gas Sensor Replacement** (30,000 mi)
Choke Cleaning or Lubrication** (30,000 mi)
Break-in Maintenance (5,000 mi)
Fuel Filter Replacement (30,000 mi)
'Idle Speed Adjustment (30,000 mi)
Injection Timing Adjustment (30,000 mi)
* Deterioration factors obtained from vehicles of the same
engine family which exceed these standards may be used as long as
these vehicles meet California or Federal standards applicable for
50,000-mile certification.
** Allowed under Option 1 standards only.
-------
A point concerning these options was raised by Chrysler at the
EPA Hearing on the granting of this waiver. It is more legal than
technical and as such will not be resolved is this report. How-
ever, for completeness it deserves mention. The point made was
that regardless of the feasibility of the 100,000-mile options, a
manufacturer like Chrysler did not have the resources to evaluate
all the options and take the most advantageous option. They are
forced to decide early which option they will certify under without
being able to give the other options the same level of considera-'
tion as manufacturers like General Motors and Ford. In essence,
they are saying that the more options made available, the easier
it is for larger manufacturers to certify, but more options
did not always help the smaller manufacturers. The resolution of
this comment will be left to others examining the legal aspects of
granting this waiver and this analysis will move on to the second
criteria, equal protectiveness.
The second decision which needs to be made is whether or not
California was arbitrary and capricious in their decision that
their standards as revised are still equally protective as Federal
standards. To make this decision, it will be helpful to examine
the individual changes between Table 1 and 2 separately. Some of
these modifications can be easily shown to be equally protective,
while others are more complicated.
The modifications for which it is a rather simple task to show
them to be equally protective as Federal standards are the two
test procedure areas, allowable maintenance and line crossing, and
the Option 1 HC and CO standards. As can be seen, the allowable
maintenance shown in Table 2 is increased from that of Table 1.
However, if the allowable maintenance shown in Table 2 is compared
to that allowed under Federal regulations, 2f one finds that all
except one item of the Table 2 maintenance is allowed under Federal
regulations at least as often. The exception is maintenance of
the exhaust gas sensor every 30,000 miles under Option 1. Main-
tenance of the exhaust gas sensor is not specifically addressed in
the Federal provisions. However, the Administrator has been allow-
ing maintenance of these sensors every 15,000 miles under the
provisions contained in 40 CFR 86.079-25(a)(5), which govern the
allowance of -maintenance in addition to that actually specified.^/
Thus, in this area of maintenance as well as the others, the
Calfornia revision is still more stringent than applicable Federal
regulations and should not cause California standards to be less
stringent than Federal standards.
The other modification to the test procedures is the allowance
of line crossing with durability data vehicles used when certify-
ing for 100,000-miles. These vehicles are still required to meet
either the California or Federal standards applicable at 50,000
miles at every test point. Also, the least-squares line fitted to
this data must fall below the applicable 50,000-mile California or
-------
Federal standards. In essence, the 100,000-mile durability ve-
hicles must meet the same line-crossing requirements that 50,000-
mile durability vehicles must meet, but no more. California's
reasoning is that this allows Federal and California 50,000-mile
durability data to be extended for use in 100,000-mile certifi-
cation and saves manufacturers the cost of a second durability
vehicle. This is similar to California's allowance of the use of
Federal 50,000-mile durability data for California 50,000-mile
certification even if the applicable Federal standards are well
above the California standards.
In this case, it is simplest to demonstrate that the revision
is equally protective by comparing it to other California actions
which have already been declared equally protective by EPA. EPA
has already granted California essentially the same waiver for its
50,000-mile standards in that California's 50,000-mile durability
vehicles do not have to meet (i.e., can line-cross) California's
50,000-mile standards if they meet (and do not line-cross) Federal
50,000-mile standards. The revision to the line-crossing provision
for the 100,000-mile standards is simply an extension of the
previously-waived philosophy one more step. California's 100,000-
mile durability vehicles do not have to meet (i.e., can line-cross)
the 100,000-mile standard as long as they meet (and do not line-
cross) either California or Federal 50,000-mile standards. The
extention by California of this allowance to 100,000-mile dura-
bility vehicles should be no different than the first extention to
50,000-mile durability vehicles and should be treated no dif-
ferently. Thus, the revision of the 100,000-mile line-crossing
provision, like the allowable maintenance revision, will not cause
California standards to be less stringent than Federal standards
and, for its part, is then judged to be equally protective of
public health and welfare.
The determination that the last changes, the evaporative
HC emission allowance,the Option 1 standards and the Option 2
standards, are equally protective as Federal standards are more
difficult in that one can contrive circumstances where these
revisisions cause California standards to be less stringent than
Federal standards and other circumstances where the opposite is
true. In the case of these revisions more so than the previous
two, it will 'be important to remember that EPA can only determine
whether or not California was arbitrary and capricious in their
determination that their revised standards are equally protective
of public health and welfare. The granting of the waiver of
Fede'ral preemption does not and cannot depend on EPA's judgement of
whether or not the revised California standards are equally protec-
tive. If EPA can show conslusively that the revised California
standards are less stringent, then of course California's deter-
mination must be erroneous or arbitrary. If the revisions have
conflicting effects, however, increasing stringency here and
reducing it there, then it is possible for EPA and California to
-------
differ on the relative importance of the two effects and a waiver
still be granted. California must simply have good reason why they
take their particular stance.
The Option 1 standards will be examined first. Here, Cali-
fornia will be shown not to be arbitrary and capricious by com-
paring these standards to the existing California 50,000-mile
standards which have already been waived by EPA. The differences
between the Option 1 standards and the California 50,000-mile
standards are as follows. First, both sets of HC and CO standards
are numerically the same and determined at 50,000 miles. However,
the deterioration factor under Option 1 is taken from a least-
squares line fit to 100,000 miles of emission data as opposed to
50,000 miles for the 50,000-mile standards. Under Option 1, the
vehicle is also warranted to meet these standards for 100,000 miles
as opposed to 50,000 miles'. Both of these differences cause the
Option 1 HC and CO standards to be more stringent than California's
existing 50,000-mile standards. An exception to this could occur
if the deterioration in emissions was lower after 50,000 miles than
before, causing the 50,000-mile deterioration factor to be less
under Option 1 than under the existing 50,000-mile standards. This
situation is not likely to occur, however, and few manufacturers
would argue that it was easier to meet the Option 1 HC and CO
standards than to meet California's 50,000-mile HC and CO stan-
dards. Thus, with respect to emissions of these two pollutants,
the Option 1 standards are more stringent than the existing Cali-
fornia 50,000-mile standards. • •
The situation with respect to NOx emissions is not as clear
cut. Option 1 extends compliance with the NOx standard to 100,000
miles, but also numerically increases the NOx standard by substan-
tial amounts. The first difference increases the stringency of the
NOx standard. However, the effect of the second difference is
unclear. A vehicle with a very high deterioration of NOx emissions
after 50,000 miles may find it more difficult to meet the Option 1
standard. A vehicle with more typical NOx emission deterioration
after 50,000 miles (like that of the first 50,000 miles) would find
it much easier to meet the Option 1 NOx standard. Thus, while the
Option 1 HC ajad CO standards are clearly more stringent than the
California 50,000-mile standards, the Option 1 NOx standard is both
more and less stringent than the 50,000-mile NOx standard.
fin their supporting analyses,47 California recognizes the
above tradeoff. Indeed, tradeoffs such as these have been made by
California before and waived by EPA. For example, California's
50,000-mile CO standard for 1980 model year passenger cars is less
stringent than the Federal standard, but California's 50,000-mile
NOx standard is more stringent. A tradeoff was made between CO and
NOx control. Here, California is accepting a possible increase in
NOx emissions (due to the numerically higher standard) for better
HC and CO control (100,000-mile durability) and possible reductions
-------
in NOx emissions (100,000-mile durability), especially from three-
way catalyst-equipped vehicles. As there are factors both increas-
ing and decreasing the stringency of the Option 1 standard over the
50,000-mile standards, no conclusive determination can be made one
way or the other. Without a conclusive determination that Option 1
is less stringent than California's 50,000-mile standards (and
Federal standards), it is not possible to demonstrate that Cali-
fornia is being arbitrary and capricious in this case. Thus,
California's arguments must be accepted and a waiver granted, with
respect to technical grounds.
The Option 2 HC and CO standards also involve some judgment
because they are based on the Option 1 standards extrapolated out
to 100,000 miles using typical deterioration rates. The NOx
standard under Option 2 is the same as under Option 1. If a given
vehicle exhibits more than typical deterioration, the 100,000-mile
standard will be more stringent then the 50,000-mile standards. If
a vehicle exhibits less than typical deterioration, the 100,000-
mile standards could be less stringent in that a vehicle could
exceed the 50,000-mile standards at 50,000 miles and still meet the
100,000-mile standards at 100,000 miles. All this assumes that
vehicles certified over 50,000 miles exhibit similar emissions
deterioration over the next 50,000 miles. Indeed, this is not the
case with many in-use vehicles and much of California's position
rests on the difference between certification and in-use emissions.
In their study of this area,4/ California makes it very
clear why they believe the Option 2 standards to be more stringent
than their own 50,000-mile standards and thus, more stringent then
Federal standards. The primary reason is that extending certifica-
tion and the emissions warranty to 100,000 miles will have a
significant effect on reducing the difference between certification
and in-use emissions. It is a very simple task to show that
gasoline-fueled vehicles do not meet emission standards in-use and
it is reasonable to expect 100,000-mile certification to improve
this situation. Indeed, the increased level of allowed emissions
is not unreasonable for gasoline-fueled vehicles. It would be
difficult to argue that the 100,000-mile standards were less
stringent than the 50,000-mile standards for these vehicles. Even
if a vehicle- exhibited low deterioration over 50,000 miles, the
extension of testing to 100,000 miles is a significant step,
particularly when coupled with the reduced maintenance allowed
under Option 2.
r
The only real difficulty arises with the use of diesels.
These vehicles exhibit very low emissions deterioration and the
lack of external emission control makes them strong candidates for
successfully certifying to 100,000 miles. California acknowledges
that these vehicles may be allowed to emit more pollutants under
the Option 2 standards than under California's 50,000-mile stan-
dards. However, they also point out that in-use emissions from
-------
diesels are much nearer the standards than those from gasoline-
fueled vehicles. Thus, even if diesels are allowed to emit slight-
ly more during certification, they will emit far less in-use than
the gasoline-fueled vehicles they replace. EPA cannot show this
reasoning to be wrong. Thus, California's arguments that the
Option 2 standards provide more protection of public health and
welfare than their 50,000-mile standards and thus, Federal stan-
dards, is reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious.
The argument for the evaporative HC emission allowance is very
similar. California is recognizing the connection between exhaust
and evaporative HC emissions and allowing some tradeoff between the
two. At the same time they avoided a "defacto" relaxation of the
two HC standards which would have occurred by directly coupling the
two standards.4/ Four restrictions were placed on the allowance.
One, the evaporative emission control system had to be especially
effective, below 1.0 gram per test, before the allowance became
available. Two, the evaporative emission control system must be
effective at the above level for at least 50,000 miles. Three,
only 75% of the difference between the evaporative emission level
and the evaporative HC standard (2.0 grams per test) on a gram per
mile basis is given as an exhaust HC emission allowance. Four, the
allowance is only available with 100,000-mile certification, which
carries with it the.100,000-mile emission warranty, reduced main-
tenance, etc.
While this allowance is obviously intended to aid diesels,
much like the Option 2 standards, it is difficult to discern if it
is also realistically intended for gasoline-fueled vehicles. As
was the case with the Option 2 standards, a diesel certifying with
the allowance could emit more exhaust HC emissions than allowed
under Federal standards. The evaporative emissions would be the
same in each case, even though the Federal evaporative HC standards
would have been allowed more. However, it is quite possible and
even likely that these diesels will still emit less HC emissions
over their lifetimes than gasoline-fueled vehicles certified to
California or Federal 50,000-mile standards, even with the evap-
orative HC allowance. This is the reasoning that California uses
to conclude that the Option 2 standards with the allowance are, in
the aggregate, equally protective of public health and welfare as
Federal standards. California's position, given the. facts, is
reasonable and therefore, not arbitrary and capricious.
Conclusions and Recommendations
All technical aspects of California's proposed revisions to
their regulations have been examined. The revisions were found to
be consistent with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act in that
they are technologically feasible given available leadtime and
cost. California's determination that their standards with these
revisions were still at least as protective of public health as
-------
Federal Standards was also found to be reasonable and not arbitrary
and capricious. Thus, there appears to be no technical grounds on
which EPA should deny a waiver of Federal preemption.
-------
References
I/ Transcript from Public Hearing on California State Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Standards, U.S. EPA, San Francisco,
CA., October 24, 1979.
2j 40 CFR 86.079-25 (a)(l)(i).
3/ 1979 Owner's Manuals of General Motors' vehicles utilizing-
closed-loop carburetion control.
4/ "Public Hearing to Consider Changes to the Air Resources
Board's Standards and Test Procedures for 1980 and Subsequent
Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles," Staff Report, California Air Resources Board, March
6, 1979.
------- |