90
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20480
oOo
PUBLIC HEARING
ON
CALIFORNIA WAIVER REQUESTS
Room 13450
Federal Building
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
October 13, 1977
9:06 a. m.
i
Reported by:
JERRY R. SMYTHE, CSR
(CSR No. 2393)
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORThanC REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/481.3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
HEARING PANEL
BENJAMIN R. JACKSON - Presiding Officer
Director, Mobile Source Enforcement
Division
CHARLES GRAY
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control
EPA STAFF
JAMES MC NABB, III, Esquire
At torney-Advisor
Mobile Source Enforcement Division
DANIEL 5TEINTAY, Esquire
Attorney-Advisor
Mobile Source Enforcement Division
MS. JOAN URBINE
oOo
SMYTHE & WILSON
certified SHOPTWANO REPORTERS
(415) 5*3-3194/401-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
INDEX PAGE
Opening Statement of Chairman Jackson 5
California Air Resources Board 12
Kingsley Macornber - General Counsel
Gary Rubenstein - Manager, Special
Projects Section
Suzuk i 5 2
John B. Walsh - Supervisor, Sound Level
Research, Safety and
Legislation Department
Kawas ak i 61
Dennis David - Manager of Legislative
Section
Darrell Johnson
Ford Motor Company 67
Donald A. Jensen - Director, Automotive
Emissions and Fuel
Economy Office
John Eppel, Esquire
Helen Petrauskas, Esquire
Marlin Strovin
Vo 1 ks v/agen 157
Lawrence Nutson - Senior Engineer,
Emissions Certification
General Motors 166
Edwin E. Nelson - Assistant Director of
Automotive Emission
Control, Environmental
Activities Staff
Harold TY. Sch'.vochert - Staff Engineer,
Environment al
Activities Staff
MYTHE & WILSON
CBTFlED SHORTHANO WORT£3S
(415) &43-319U46M096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
INDEX
General Motors (Cont'd)
Richard I. Petersen - Attorney, Legal Staff
PAGE
American Motors
Stuart R. Perkins -
Director, Vehicle
Emissions and Fuel
Economy
204
Chrysler
Robert M. Wagner
Staff Engineer,
Emission Planning
212
Automobile Importers of America
Donald M. Schwentker - Counsel
215
California Air Resources Board
Kingsley Macomber - General Counsel
Gary Rubenstein - Manager, Special
Projects Section
oOo
221
ESTIFI60 SHCRTHANO reporters
543-3*94/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1977 9:06 0'CLOCK A.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning-, this is the i
United States Environmental Protection Agency public |
hearing to reconsider a number of California waiver
requests in light of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
V.'e will also consider California's waiver
request for 1978 and subsequent model year motorcycle
carbon monoxide exhaust emission standards and changes
to the California 1981 and subsequent model year passenger
car, light duty truck and medium duty vehicle exhause
emission standards and test procedures.
I am Ben Jackson, Director of the Mobile
Source Enforcement Division of the Environmental-
Protection Agency. I have been designed as Presiding
Officer for the hearing. My colleagues v.ho ;< j 11 assist
me at various tines in conducting this hearing are ;;r.
Charles Gray and :Tr. Bob 'Jagner of the Office of Mobile
Source Air Pollution Control.
The panel will also be assisted by Mr. Daniel j
i
Steinway and Mr. James McNab III, who are attorney- j
advisors with the i-Iobile Source Enforcement Division, i
i
and Ms. Joan Urbine, who is responsible for nvai ntaining j
i
the record and scheduling witnesses. 1
I
i
The EPA has previously determined that the '
|
1
SMYTHE & WILSON
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
Clean Air Act Amendments of 197 7 apply to all waiver
requests not acted upon by the Administrator prior to
enactment of the amendments. The amended section 209(b)
of the Act now requires a determination by California
that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least
as protective of public health and welfare as applicable
Federal standards, and section 209(b)(1)(A) now prohibits
the Administrator from granting a California waiver
request if he finds that California's determination is
arbitrary and capricious. Ve will review at this hearing
the following pending waiver requests in light of the
amended Act :
(i) Compliance and inspection testing of
1977 and subsequent model year motor vehicles except
1977 and 1978 model year gasoline-powered passenger
cars and light duty trucks under section 2100 et seq.,
Title 13, California Administrative Code,
(ii) Assembly line test procedures for 1978
model year diese1-powered light duty trucks, and medium
duty vehicles,
(iii) Exhaust emission standards and
certification procedures for 197 9 and subsequent model
year passenger cars, light duty trucks and medium duty
vehicles, including requirements covering high altitude
testing, allowable maintenance and idle mixture
hrtified shohthano reporters
HIS) 543-3194/4613C98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
adj ustments,
(iv) Evaporative emission standard and
test procedures (SHED test) for 1980 and subsequent j
model year gasoline-powered motor vehicles except
motorcycles, and
(v) Motorcycle standards and compliance
testing and inspection of 1978 and subsequent model
year motorcycles.
We also will accept further comments from
interested parties pertaining to these waiver requests
on whether California needs such standards to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions or whether
California's standards are consistent with section 202(a)
of the Clean Air Act. However, interested parties
should limit these comments to any information which has
become available to them after the initial public hearings
on these waiver requests.
During the course of this hearing, we also
will consider the following exhaust emission standards
and test procedures adopted by the California Air
Resources Board on September 29 and 30, 1977;
(i) Carbon monoxide standards for 1978
and subsequent model year motorcycles, and
!
(ii) Revised exhaust emission standards i
i
and test procedures for 1981 and subsequent model year |
SMYTHE & WILSON
CEflTIF'EO SHCPTHANO agPORTEflS
943O194>*SM09d
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
passenger cars, light duty trucks and medium duty
vehicles.
For the record, this hearing is convened
in Room 13450 of the Federal Building and U.S. Court
House, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.
To complete the opening of the record and
at the same time to expedite the proceedings, I would
like to insert into the record, as if read, the following
documents:
(1) A mailgram dated October 5, 1977, from
Kingsley Macomber, Chief Counsel, on behalf of the
California Air Resources Board, to Douglas Costle,
Administrator, EPA, notifying the EPA that California
had made the determinations now required by section
209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act for all pending waiver
requests and that California had taken several actions
to revise its motor vehicle emissions control program.
The mailgram requested a waiver of Federal preemption
for the latter actions and asked the EPA to consider
all of these actions at its October 13, 1977, public
hearing, and
(2) The September 13, 1977, Federal Register
notice of this hearing.
In addition, the following will be made
part of the record:
cRTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 943-3194/461.309a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
(i) Sections 2100 et seq., Title 13,
California Administrative Code and "California New
Vehicle Compliance Test Procedures," adopted on June 24,
1976 .
(ii) Sections 1955.1 and 1955.5, Title 13,
California Admi n istrative Code and "California Exhaust
Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1975 Through
1978 Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and
Medium-Duty Vehicles," adopted February 19, 1975, last
amended June 8, 1977,
(iii) Section 1959.5, Title 13, California
Administrative Code, and "California Exhaust Emission
Standards and Test Procedures for 1979 Model Passenger
Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles,"
adopted June 8, 1977,
(iv) Section 1960, Title 13, California
Administrative Code, and "California Exhaust Emission
Standards and Test Procedures for 1978 and Subsequent
Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles," adopted November 23, 1976, last amended
September 29, 1977,
(v) Section 1976(b), Title 13, California
Administrative Code, and "California Evaporative Emission
Standards and Test Procedures for 197 8 and Subs eqxient
Model Gasoline-Powered !!otor Vehicles except Motorcycles,"!
(413) 543-3194/481 -3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
adopted April 16, 1975, last amended June 8, 1977, and
(vii) Section 1958, Title 13, California
Administrative Code, and "California Exhaust Emission
Standards and Test Procedures for 1978 and Subsequent
Production Motorcycles," adopted July 15, 1975, last
amended September 29, 1977.
This hearing is intended to provide an
opportunity for interested persons to state their views
or arguments and present pertinent information relating
to the aforementioned waiver requests. However, the
findings of the Administrator regarding the matters
under consideration are not required to be made solely
on the record of the public hearing.
Since the notice was inserted into the record
and not read, I will now summarize the procedures and
ground rules for the hearing.
The hearing is being held pursuant to
Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act. It will be conducted
in accordance with the rules which have been in effect
at prior hearings on California waiver applications.
Generally, the procedures will be informal.
Formal rules of evidence will not be in effect. The
Presiding Officer is authorized, however, to strike from
the record statements which he deems irrelevant or !
needlessly repetitious, and to impose reasonable limits j
I
I
54a-3m.i46t 30(3a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
on the duration of the statement of any witness. No
cross-examination will be permitted. However, to the
extent that time allows, the Presiding Officer may permit
brief questions of clarification from any participant
to any other participant. Questions of a more exploratory
nature may be submitted in writing to the Presiding
Officer through Ms. Urbine, and such questions at the
discretion of the Presiding Officer may be posed to any
witness by a member of the panel.
A verbatim record of the hearing is being
made and the transcript will constitute the sole official
record of this hearing. A copy of the record will be
on file for public inspection by any interested persons
at the EPA Public Information Reference Unit, Room 2922,
in Washington, D. C., and at the regional office in
San Francisco. Persons desiring copies of the transcript
should make arrangements with the Reporter.
We have an order of appearance for those
who have indicated that they wish to appear. Copies of
the witness list are available from Ms Urbine. There
may have been additions to or deletions from the list
since it was printed. If it appears that the order is
going to cause one or more of you a hardship, please
contact Ms. Urbine, and she will relay this to me. We
will attempt to accommodate any time problems anyone j
(415i 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
has. Vie would also appreciate it if all witnesses
would confirm, their positions on the schedule with Ms.
Urb ine.
The record will remain open until Monday,
October 31, 1977, for the submission of any further
information by any interested persons.
The first witness of the day will be the
representatives of the California Air Resources Board.
Mr. Macomber?
MR. MACOMBER: Mr. Jackson, members of the
panel: My name is Kings ley Macomber. I am General
Counsel and Chief of the Legal Affairs and Enforcement
Division of the California Air Resources Board. With
me today is Gary Rubenstein, a staff engineer from the
Vehicle Emissions Control Division in El Monte. We
are here to request waivers of federal preemption so
that California may implement standards and test proce-
dures designed to provide the air pollution control
necessary for California.
Since the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments were
signed into law, the issues proper for consideration
at a waiver hearing have changed considerably, and the
Administrator's authority to deny a waiver for California
vehicle pollution control programs has been severely
limited. Congress' intent in passing the amendments was
SMYTHE & WILSON
:ertipieo shorthand reporters
(4151 5430194,1431.309a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
clearly to give greater deference to CARB's discretionary
determinations regarding what degree and type of controls
California requires to achieve the Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
This intent is specifically set forth in
The House Report at Pages 301 to 302. This is Report
No. 95-924, 95th Congress, First Session.
I will not read the quote. It's rather
lengthy, and it's in our prepared statement which has
been supplied for the record and I would ask that it
be entered into the record.
i
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It will be entered. j
"The Committee amendment is intended to
ratify and strengthen the California waiver
provision and to affirm the underlying intent of
that provision, i.e., to afford California the
broadest possible discretion in selecting the best
means to protect the health of its citizens and the |
public welfare. The committee is aware of
California's longstanding belief that stringent
control of oxides of nitrogen emission from motor
vehicles may be more essential to public health
protection than stringent control of carbon
monoxide. This belief arises from the role of
t
oxides of nitrogen in producing photochemical
MYTHE & WILSON
ECTIFI6D SHORTHANO PEPOB'EBS
(¦MSt
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
oxidants, including ozone, as well as in the
formation of NC>2 and its derivatives, nitrates,
nitrous and nitric acid, and nitrosamines.
"Thus, the Committee anticipated the
possibility that California's 1978 and later model
year standards might be more stringent than the
Federal standard for NGx, but less stringent than
the Federal standards for CO. In such a case,
while the entire set of California standards might
be technologically feasible and the entire set of
Federal standards might also be technologically
feasible, the Committee envisioned the theoretical
possibility that the most stringent set of
standards (Federal, CO; California, NOx; etc.)
might not be feasible.
"To deal with such a situation, the Committee
amendment requires the Administrator of EPA to
grant a waiver for the entire set of California
standards, unless he finds that California acted
arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding that its
set of standards are at least as protective of
the public health and welfare as the Federal
standards.
"The Administrator, thus, is not to overturn
California's judgment lightly. Nor is he to
ertifieo shorthand reporters
(413) S43-3194/4*!-1098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
substitute his judgment for that of the State.
There must be clear and compelling evidence that
the State acted unreasonably in evaluating the
relative risks of various pollutants in light of
the air quality, topography, photochemistry, and
climate in that State, before EPA may deny a waiver.
"Moreover, once a waiver is granted to
California, compliance with the State's standards
is deemed to satisfy the Federal requirements in
California." (Also see page 23 of the same report
for a similar statement.)
In Conference, the Senate concurred in the
House amendments, so we take the House Report and the
quotation which is continued in our written statement
as a statement of the whole Congress.
In recognition of these substantial changes
by Congress in the California waiver provision, I will
take a few moments to summarize what we believe these
changes mean to California and to the issues before us
today.
The primary change to Section 209(b) is that
the Administrator must now grant California a waiver if
California determines that its standards will be, "in
the aggregate , at least as protective of public health
and welfare" as applicable Federal standards. This
HE & WILSON
¦0 SHORTHAND fiEPORteRS
(41S> 543-3194/461 -3093
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
determination can be overturned by EPA only if the
Administrator finds that it was arbitrary and capricious.
This waiver requirement replaces language
which required EPA to determine whether California's
standards would be more stringent than applicable
Federal standards.
In addition, new language was added which
states that if each California standard is numerically
at least as stringent as the comparable applicable
Federal standard, such California standards will be deemed
to satisfy the "at least as protective" requirement.
These changes mean that California can now
obtain a waiver to implement and enforce Federal standards
without having to show that California standards are
more stringent or that they will provide some additional
benefit. Furthermore, the "in the aggregate" language
allows California to obrain a waiver even if one or more
of the California standards is less stringent than the
comparable Federal standards, based on an analysis of
the aggregate effect of all standards under consideration
for a particular model year and vehicle category.
This last point is especially important,
since it allows California to implement carbon monoxide
and oxides of nitrogen standards which are more
specifically suited to California's air pollution needs.
<¦* 1 St 543-3194/461-3G9d
-------
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
The new waiver language would allow California to adopt
a NOx standard more stringent than the Federal standard,
and a CO standard less stringent than the Federal
standard, and still obtain a waiver. The House Report
quoted above specifically sets forth Congress' intent
that CARB should retain the right to make this choice,
based on CARB's assessment of California's needs.
Another major amendment to the Clean Air
Act dealing with the California waiver is the addition
of a new section which indicates that once a waiver
has been granted for a particular California standard,
compliance with the California standards must be
treated by EPA as comp.1 iance with applicable Federal
standards for purposes of the Clean Air Act. This
language assures manufacturers who, for example, build
a vehicle to meet a less stringent CO standard, that
they will not be in violation of the more stringent
Federal CO standard in California, and will not be
required to perform duplicate testing.
In summary, the conditions which must now
be satisfied by California to obtain a waiver from EPA
are :
1. There must be compelling and extraordinary
conditions in California which require the
state standards and/or test procedures.
(*15) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. ¦ [
18 s
I
2. California must find that its standards
will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as
applicable Federal standards. Such finding
cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
i
i
3. California's standards and test and
enforcement procedures must be technologically
feasible within the available lead time,
giving consideration to the cost of compliance
As under the previous Clean Air Act language,
the Administrator of EPA has the burden to show that
California does not meet one or more of these conditions
in order to deny a waiver.
We have made all the necessary arguments on
condition (1) at the August 3-4 wiaver hearing, so we
will not burden the record by repeating them here.
As for condition (2), CAF.3 must make findings
that its emission standards and test and enforcement
procedures are, in the aggregate, at least as protective
of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards. EPA must then determine that these findings
are not arbitrary and capricious. To fulfill condition
(2} above, at its September 30, 1977 meeting, CARE made
findings to the effect that the following elements of !
its standards, test procedures, and/or enforcement ;
ceanpieD shorthand aePORress
14.3-3194/461 2C&S
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
procedures (as amended September 30, 1977) are,
individually, and in the aggregate, at least as protective
of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards:
1. Exhaust emission standards and test
procedures for 1978 and subsequent model
year motorcycles, individually for each model
year, as specified in Section 1958, Title 13,
California Administrative Code.
2. Compliance testing and inspection
regulations for 1978 and subsequent model
year motorcycles, as specified in Sections
2100 and 2101, Title 13, California Admini-
strative Code.
3. Exhaust emission standards and test
procedures for 1979 and subsequent model year
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty vehicles, individually for each
vehicle type and model year, as specified
in Sections 1959.5 and 1960, Title 13,
California Administrative Code.
4. The "California Exhaust Emission Standards
and Test Procedures for 1979 Model Passenger
Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles," as last amended June 8, 1977, j
MYTHE & WILSON
ERTIF1E0 shorthano pepcbtebs
(415) S43-3194MS1-M94
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
individually for each vehicle type.
5. The "California Exhaust Emission Standards
and Test Procedures for 1980 and Subsequent
Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks,
and Medium-Duty Vehicles," as last amended
September 29, 1977, individually for each
vehicle type and model year, and specifically
including those sections regarding allowable
maintenance, idle mixture adjustability,
high altitude test requirements, and the
100,000 mile certification option.
6. Compliance testing and inspection
regulations for 1978 and subsequent medium-
duty vehicles and for 1978 and subsequent
Diesel-powered light-duty trucks individually
for each vehicle type, as specified in
Sections 2100 and 2101, Title 13, California
Administrative Code.
7. Inspection regulations applicable to
1978 and subsequent model year heavy-duty
vehicles, as specified in Sections 2100
and 2101, Title 13, California Administrative
Code .
S. The "California Assembly-Line Test
1
Procedures for 1978 .Model-Year Passenger
SPTIFfCD shorthand reporters
(*151 S43 319*^81-1098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles," adopted January 25, 1977,
individually for each vehicle type, and the
associated assembly-line test regulations
in Subchapter 2, Title 13, California
Administrative Code.
9. Evaporative emissions standards for 1980
and subsequent model year gasoline-powered
motor vehicles, except motorcycles, indivi-
dually for each model year and vehicle type,
as specified in Section 1976, Title 13,
California Administrative Code.
10. The "California Evaporative Emission
Standards and Test Procedures for 1978 and
Subsequent Model Gasoline-Powered Motor
Vehicles, Except Motorcycles," as last
amended June 8, 1977, individually for each
vehicle type and for each model year.
Copies of Staff Report 77-20-3, a supplemental
Staff Report, and Resolution 77-48 in which the Board
made these findings have been sent to the Administrator,
and we ask that they be included in this hearing record.
Several changes were also made to the
California motorcycle and passenger car standards in j
j
these documents in order to ensure that all of the Board'si
ITHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
standards were, without question, at least as protective
of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards. These changes are discussed in detail below.
We feel that we have made most of the
appropriate arguments at previous EPA waiver hearings,
so all that remains is for CARB to show that our "more
protective" determination on these issues is not arbitrary
and capricious. Only three issues warrant discussion
in any detail:
These are compliance and inspection testing
of 1978 and subsequent model year motorcycles, exhaust
emission standards for 1978 through 1981 model year
motorcycles, and exhaust emission standards and test
procedures for 1979 and subsequent model year passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles,
including the issue of lower NOx standards. CARB's
findings that its high altitude test requirements, idle
mixture adjustability regulations, evaporative emission
standards and test procedures, allowable maintenance
regulations, and assemb1y-1ine test procedures for
1978 model-year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty vehicles are at least as protective of
pub lie health and welfare as comparable federal
regulations and are obviously not arbitrary and
capricious, since no comparable federal regulations exist.;
-------
1
2
O
o
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
Turning now to the motorcycle issue, at its
September 30, 1977 meeting, the Board adopted the
federal motorcycle standards for CO. Therefore, the
Board's motorcycle standards and certification procedures
are now identical to EPA's, and no difficulty exists
with making the "at least as protective of public health
and welfare" finding. Since the standards are identical
through 1981, the Administrator must find that they are
"at least as protective" under Section 209(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act Amendments. For 1982, the Board has a
1.0 gram per kilometer standard for which a waiver has
previously been granted.
Some motorcycle manufacturers may argue
that the Board's position for several years has been
that California does not need additional carbon monoxide
control, and that the Board is not justified in adopting
motorcycle CO standards. However, the staff projects
that the Ambient Air Quality Standard for carbon monoxide,
which has exceeded approximately 125 days during 1975
in the South Coast Air Basin, will not be achieved
until 198 5-1990.
A more accurate assessment of the Board's
position is that carbon monoxide controls which improve
air quality, and therefore move up the date when we can
expect compliance with the ambient CO standard, are not
iters
(415) 343-3194/461 - 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
as cost/effective as other control measures for other
pollutants.
Most importantly, without CO controls at
least as protective of public health and welfare as
federal standards, California might lose its ability
to enforce compliance testing and inspection of motor-
cycles. As explained in the June 30, 1977 staff report,
already entered into the record of this hearing, that
program is expected to assure good quality control of
motorcycle emission control systems, with an associated
air quality benefit. Moreover, it should be emphasized
that there are no additional costs associated with the
proposed carbon monoxide standards, since they are the
same as the Federal standards.
The staff believes that the "at least as
protective" finding need only apply to the actual
standards, and that the Board need not make such a
finding regarding the test or enforcement procedures.
I might point out that the legal memorandum
submitted also as part of our testimony today addresses
this further.
However, discussions with EPA indicate that
it may take the position that CAHB must make a "at least
as protective of public health" finding separately
for all test and enforcement procedures as well as for
(4141 543-319*1*81-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
the standards themselves. Therefore, the Board has made
the "at least as protective" finding for the motorcycle
test and enforcement procedures, individually and in
the aggregate, based on the fact that the CARB
motorcycle test procedures are identical to Federal
test procedures, and hence are at least as stringent
as those procedures, and because the motorcycle
enforcement procedures add a degree of stringency to
the emission standards over the comparable, nonexistent,
applicable Federal regulations.
No argument regarding technological
feasibility within the remaining lead time can be made
since these standards are identical to Federal standards.
If California were denied a waiver, EPA would promulgate
these same standards nationwide. As far as compliance
and inspection testing of motorcycles is concerned,
since most motorcycle manufacturers claim that their
bikes meet the standards in production, no problem
should exist for them. The Administrator therefore
cannot deny California a v/aiver for either the standards
or the compliance and inspection testing.
Turning now to the Exhaust Emission Standards
and Test Procedures for 1979 and Subsequent Model
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty
Vehicles.
& WILSON
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
At its September 30, 1977 meeting, CARB made
several changes to its standards for 1980 and subsequent
model passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
vehicles, as shown in Table I. Table I is set forth
on Page 12 of our written statement. By letter dated
September 30, 1977, we were informed that these changes
would be considered by EPA for the purposes of the
current waiver decisions.
These changes will reduce the manufacturers'
cost of compliance for most 1981 and 1982 model vehicles,
and will also improve driveability and fuel economy
for those years without adversely affecting air quality.
CARB has pointed out at previous waiver
hearings that a 9.0 gram CO standard should be adequate
to achieve compliance with the Ambient Air Quality
Standards for carbon monoxide. More stringent standards
than 9.0 grams would, however, provide more timely
compliance. The revised standards eliminate the need
for vehicle manufacturers to meet a 3.4 gram per mile
CO standard for only one year in California. The
systems used to meet the 1981 Federal standards will
probably include "clean-up" oxidation catalysts in
addition to the basic three-way catalyst systems. These
oxidation catalysts would not be necessary for most
vehicles to meet California's 0.39/7.0/0.4 standards
ITHANO A6POSTERS
i«1S) S43-3l9*/*«1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
in 1982 and later years; "Option B" may eliminate the
need for manufacturers to use oxidation catalysts in
1981 as well. In addition, manufacturers have indicated
that in order to achieve the 3.4 gram per mile CO
standard, they may have to compromise some cold operation
driveability by minimizing the length of time the choke
is used. The staff is concerned about this possibility
because experience has shown that poor driveability
encourages tampering on the part of mechanics and
vehicle owners. Thus, a tightened CO standard could
conceivably result in a net adverse effect on air
quality, if the benefits of lower cold start CO emissions
are offset by increases in HC, CO, and NOx emmissions
under all driving conditions caused by tampering. The
7.0 gram per mile standard proposed by the staff is
considered the best compromise.
CARB's HC standards continue to allow
vehicle manufacturers the option of certifying to
either a non-methane hydrocarbon standard or to a total
hydrocarbon standard. Our major concern in this area
had been that if EPA did not adopt a non-methane
hydrocarbon standard, most manufacturers would continue
to use the methane content correction factor instead
of non-methane analytical systems. This concern was
i
eliminated by requiring manufacturers who choose to j
MYTHE & WILSON
ERTIR60 SHORTHAND ^EPOBTEBS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
certify to the non-methane hydrocarbon standard after
1980 to use non-methane instrumentation, with no
correction factor. This allows manufacturers the
flexibility to make their own cost trade-offs. We do
not consider the marginal increase in hydrocarbon
emission control which may be achieved by requiring
compliance with a total hydrocarbon standard of 0.41
grams per mile to be justified, considering the increased
certification risks and fuel economy penalties which
may be associated with enforcement of such a standard
as early as 1981. CARB's feasibility analysis of the
"current" California standards for 1981 was based on
the industry's capability to meet a 0.39 non-methane
standard, and we are not comfortable with a standard
which may require additional control without a thorough
re-evaluation of the state of the art in emission control
technology.
I will ask Mr. Rubenstein to read the
remainder of our statement. My voice is starting to
give on me.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Regarding the NOx standards,
our revised standards require that manufacturers commit
their entire product lines to either Option A or B for
both 1981 and 1982 models. The 0.7 gram per mile NOx
standard does not present any additional lead time
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND RgPOflTgSS
(415) 543*3194*461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
problems since it is an optional standard. However,
it allows manufacturers who are able to optimize their
1.0 gram per mile NOx systems to the 0.7 gram per mile
level more time to achieve the 0.4 gram per mile
standard, while at the same time providing an air
quality benefit. After one year at a 1.0 gram per mile
standard, some manufacturers, especially those using
three-way catalyst systems should be able to reoptimize
those systems to 0.7 gram per mile with little or no
cost. Granting a one-year delay in compliance with
the 0.4 gram per mile NOx standard required by 1982
allows any recertification costs to be spread over a
two-year period.
CARB believes that our revised set of
standards, including the 1981 and 1982 option, is, in
the aggregate, at least as protective of public health
as applicable Federal standards. For 1981, the revised
standards provide up to 0.3 gram per mile more NOx control
than the Federal standards while retaining hydrocarbon
levels which are nearly identical. While less CO
control is provided with the alternative standards,
it is still adequate to provide for achievement of the
Ambient Air Quality Standards in California. For light-
duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles, no change in
standards is proposed, except for the deletion of the j
iMYTHE & WILSON
EflTIREO SHORThANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
methane content correction factor beginning in 1981.
Thes6 truck standards are obviously much more stringent
than comparable Federal standards. Furthermore, at j
|
the Board's September 30, 1977 meeting when these changes I
were adopted, no vehicle manufacturer expressed serious
problems with these changes, and most manufacturers
expressed the belief that the optional standards would
provide them with additional flexibility which could
improve their ability to meet California's standards
at a minimum cost.
As explained in ARB staff reports 7-13-22
and 77-22-2(a), already entered into the record of
this hearing, the Board has concluded that a 0.4 gram
per mile vehicle NOx standard is necessary for attainment
and main ten ance of the Amb ient Air Quality standard
for NO2. Industry analyses, with assumptions which
we believe result in significantly understated estimates
of vehicle NOx control required, indicate that the
average li f et ime in-use performance of the passenger
car fleet must be about 1.0 gram per mile if the Ambient
Air Quality Standard is to be attained. Based on the
current ratio of in-use vehicle performance to certifi-
cation standards for catalyst equipped vehicles, it is
likely that a 0.4 gram per mile standard will be
required if vehicles are to average 1.0 gram per mile j
(*15) 343-3194/4610098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
for their lifetime. Based on projections from EPA's
"Mobile Source Emission Factors - Interim Document,''
dated June, 1977, we would estimate that the average
lifetime NOx emissions for vehicles certified to meet
a 0.4 gram per mile NOx standard would be 0.77 grams per
mile. EPA's own projections, therefore, combined with
the manufacturers' assessments of air quality needs,
would alone lead us to conclude that at least a 0.5
gram per mile NOx standard would be necessary to achieve
the Ambient Air Quality Standard for NO2. It should
be restated at this point, however, that we do not
accept the assumptions used in the auto industry's
analysis of emission standards necessary to achieve the
N02 air quality standard. As discussed in the report
of our January 6-7, 1977 workshop, which has been
incorporated into the record of this hearing, stationary
sources of NOx emissions contribute to violations of
the N02 air quality standard in such a way that in-use
vehicle performance at even the 0.4 gram per mile level
may be inadequate to achieve and maintain the N02 Ambient
Air Quality Standard.
We recognize the fact that in establishing
the need for additional NOx control, ARB has focused
on attainment of the California state standard of 0.25
ppm (hourly average) rather than the less stringent
(41 St 543013
-------
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
Federal standard of 0.05 ppm (annual average). The need
for a short-term standard for NOg was recognized by
Congress in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, and
has been recognized by such eminent health scientists
as Dr. John Goldsmith of the California Department of
Health and Dr. Carl Shy, formerly of EPA. It was,
therefore, clearly appropriate for ARB to concentrate
on the achievement of the state's short-term NO^ standard.
In additiona to the ARB's desire to obtain
further NOx control for compliance with the Ambient
Air Quality Standard for NO2 , further NOx control will
also improve visibility and reduce atmospheric
concentrations of other nitrogenous compounds, such
as nitrates. These conclusions are based, in part,
on testimony which the ARB staff received at the
previously referenced January, 1977 workshop from
researchers in the atmospheric process field. This
information was supplemented by ARB's technical staff
with further analysis of ARB research projects in the
atmospheric chemistry area, and presented to the Board
at its meeting on January 25, 1977. A transcript of
that January 25 hearing is being provided to EPA for
inclusion in this record. It was reasonable and prudent
for the Board to consider visibility and other nitrogenous,
compounds in the establishment of vehicle NOx emission
MYTHE & WILSON
cRTlFlEO SHOATHANO REPORTERS
(4151 543-3194,481 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
standards, even though this consideration was secondary
to the Board's two principle reasons for controlling
NOx: reduced ambient NO2 levels and reduced peak oxidant
concentrations.
The question of how further NOx control
is likely to affect oxidant is covered in detail in
the report of the January workshop. ARB concluded
that the eastern portion of the South Coast Air Basin
would realize additional reductions in oxidant while
the wester position of the basin would realize somewhat
less of a reduction than would be expected from
California's hydrocarbon control program alone. This
was considered a reasonable trade-off in view of the
fact that eastern basin oxidant levels have historically
been the highest in the nation, and are substantially
higher than those in the central Los Angeles area.
The ARB believes that there is clearly a
non-linear relationship between ambient oxidant
concentrations and oxidant's effect on public health.
This position has not been seriously disputed during
ARB's numerous hearings on this matter. Because of this
non-linear relationship, greater reductions in peak
oxidant concentrations in exchange for lesser reductions
in lower oxidant concentrations may result in a net
health benefit, depending on the population distribution
ERTiFIED SHORTHANO flEPOflTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
involved.
At the January workshop, and at Board meetings
during which the 0.4 gram per mile NOx standard was
considered, there was substantial criticism of the staff's
recommendation that the vehicle NOx standard be lowered.
Parties criticizing the staff's recommendation expressed
opinions that any oxidant benefit would occur so far to
the east in the South Coast Air Basin that no significant
fraction of the population would benefit. The ARB
staff has concluded that such opinions are based on
outdated and outmoded smog chamber data that inaccurately
project when NOx reductions will cause oxidant reductions.
In any event, there is clearly a health
benefit associated with reduced exposures to NO2 and
related compounds, and the Board's principle purpose in
reducing the NOx standard to 0.4 gram per mile was to
reduce ambient NO2 levels. The Board is continuing to
develop and implement hydrocarbon control strategies
which will eventually achieve and maintain the Ambient
Air Quality Standard for oxidant. The House Report
referenced above clearly indicated the congressional
intent that California be free to conduct is program
for the achievement and maintenance of all Ambient Air
Quality Standards in the manner it best sees fit. The
Board's action in adopting the 0.4 gram per mile NOx
SHORTHAND seporters
(415) 543-3194/481-3090
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
standard is fully consistent with the approach Congress
intended to allow California to pursue.
The staff of the ARB and ARB's research
contractors conduct what we believe to be the most
sophisticated atmospheric process research program in
existence. The record of ARB's hearings and of this
proceeding clearly indicate that the Board relied on
the recommendation of the staff that conducted and
managed these research programs and, therefore, did not
arbitrarily or capriciously decide that vehicle NOx
standards should be lowered. Unless EPA can demonstrate
that the Board did act arbitrarily, it cannot substitute
the judgment of organizations with vested interests in
opposing stricter NOx control or even the Agency's own
judgment for that of the ARB.
In conclusion, we believe that ARB's exhaust
emission standards and test and enforcement procedures
for passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty
vehicles are at least as protective of public health
and welfare as comparable Federal standards, that this
finding is not arbitrary and capricious, and that these
standards and test procedures are technologically
feasible within the lead time remaining.
MR. MACOMBER: Mr. Jackson, before we turn
ourselves over for questioning, I would like to enter
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
into the record the Air Resources Board's memorandum
of legal points dated October 13, 1977. Copies have
been provided and are available for the audience. I
will not summarize those legal arguments. I think they
are fairly clearly stated in the document.
However, I would like to point out that we
have prepared within the limited time available and
evidentiary guide indicating, at least preliminarily,
the items which we think consist of the record of these
proceedings and on which the ARB relied in making the
determinations and decisions which are the subject of
these proceedings today. If there are additional
items which are identified before the close of the
hearing, we will supplement this evidentiary guide.
I might point out this was also provided
for the benefit of the interested parties and the Agency
so that you can hopefully see what we've done in
connection with each item over what is a fairly long
period of time.
We are available for any questions now.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: V,'e will include in the
record the memorandum of legal points, also the Staff
Report 77-20-3, a Supplemental Staff Report and
Resolution of 77-48, and your statement in its entirety
in which you left out certain parts.
& WILSON
(415) 543-3l94/4«1.3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
MR. RUBENSTEIN: As a point of clarification,
Staff Reports 77-20-2 and -3 referenced are the same
report. The number was changed from the time of
publication to the date of the Board meeting. There
was only one report for the Board's September Board
meeting.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I must assume that all
of these documents which you wished included in the
record are provided to us.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can't hear you.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I must assume that all
of the documents which was indicated will be included
in the record will be provided by the CARB.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: All the documents we have
indicated that we wish specifically be included in the
record, yes, I believe all but the one transcript have
already been provided to EPA.
MR. MACOMBER: Let me indicate that the
evidentiary guide attached to the memorandum of legal
points attempted to indicate the documents which have
already been supplied to EPA in the course of our regular
correspondence. Essentially, that would consist of
all Staff Reports and all regulatory changes made by
the Board to date. EPA may or may not be in possession
j
of certain transcripts related to the Board's proceedings.j
MYTHE & WILSON
ertipied shorthano reporters
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
We will be attempting to provide copies of those for the
EPA ' s review. And any other documents, of course, that
we think are relevant and important in these proceedings
we will also provide.
MR. GRAY: This question relates to the
technological feasibility of the California standards
in relationship to some of the changes in the Clean Air
Act Amendment of 1977 that allow other states to adopt
the California regulations.
In particular, your Staff Report 77-20-3
discussing that provision of the Clean Air Act amendments
says that "This language assures manufacturers who, for
example, build a vehicle to meet a less stringent CO
standard, that they: 1) will not be in violation of
the more stringent Federal CO standard; 2) can lawfully
sell such a vehicle in the other 49 states."
It's Item 2 that I am confused about. In
your testimony this morning, you did not seem to
convey that same message. You seemed to have more of
an implication, I think, that the waiver for these,
let's say, less stringent CO standards for California
would apply only to California vehicles. I would just
like to request that you resolve that issue of perhaps
a discrepancy.
MR. MACOMBER: We have had considerable
ERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(41$) 543 3194,461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
thought about this question since that statement was
written, and I think that statement is certainly valid
for used vehicles, that there would be no question
about that.
As to new vehicles, I think that at least
speaking personally I would perhaps disagree with that
statement as set forth in the staff report of September
12. It's my consideration now that a new vehicle sold
in the other 49 states would have to meet a more stringent
Federal CO standard.
In other words, the lower CO standard for
California would be limited to the sale of vehicles in
California.
MR. GRAY: We seem to have a rather complex
situation with respect to the various changes before
us, with regard to the ARB's changes of September 30.
As I understand those changes, you, for
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty
vehicles, eliminated the non-methane HC standard and
replaced it with a total HC standard; is that correct?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: No.
MR. GRAY: Would you explain what you did
in that regard?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: The changes that were made
i
in the September Board meeting compared to what we last j
(*1S) S43-3134M81-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
discussed at the August waiver hearing were the
following:
First, for 1981 and later model passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles, the
methane content correction factor was deleted as being
a method of demonstrated compliance v/ith the hydrocarbon
standard.
However, for those years, with an exception
I'll get to in a minute, manufacturers retain the
optional demonstrated compliance with either a non-methane
or total hydrocarbon standard -- The only thing deleted
was the correction factors and option -- We now require,
starting in 1981 if a manufacturer wants to get credit
for methane factor in their exhaust, they must use
non-methane sensitive instrumentation in order to
demonstrate compliance.
The second change that was made by the Board
was the 1981 passenger car standards, which were
originally wither .39 or .41 grams per mile hydrocarbons,
depending on whether it was non-methane or total, 9.0
CO and 1.0 NOx was changed to a pair of optional
standards.
The first option, or Option A, as we have
been referring to it, is identical to the 1981 Federal
standards, 4.1 total hydrocarbon standard, 3.4 CO
ERTIFIE0 SHORTHAND *EPORTEfiS
(415) 543-3194/
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
standard, 1.0 NOx.
The second standard, or Option B, is either
.39 or .41 for hydrocarbons, 7.0 for CO, and 0.7 for
NOx .
For 1982, the change that was made is that
the original 1982 standards that EPA considered previously
were made part of Option A, which is a two-year option
now, and a second set of standards, or Option B, was
adopted for 1982, which were identical to the Option
B standards for 1981.
This option business is adopted by the Board
as a two-year package. That is, if a manufacturer
chooses to certify production in 1981 according to
Option A for passenger cars, he must also certify to
Option A in 1982. And this decision must be made for
a manufacturer's entire product line for the entire
two-year period.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: The third change, and the
final change that was made -- Sorry, I caught another
one -- was that the carbon monoxide standard for 1983
and later model passenger cars was dropped from 9.0
to 7.0.
And that's it.
i
I
MR. GRAY: If I can understand the events, J
E^TIFIEO SHORTHANO REPOR'EBS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
/
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
while the staff recommended adoption for 1981 of only
total hydrocarbon standards in the Staff Report 77-20-3,
that was not accepted by the Board. They retained the
current California standards, as referenced in Table I
of that Staff Report, with an option of a total hydro-
carbon standard for all categories of vehicles.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: It wasn't that the Board
rejected the staff's proposal. The staff issued a
supplemental Staff Report the week before the hearing,
which we have already submitted to EPA. It was in that
supplemental staff report that the ARB staff revised
its proposal to the Board to retain non-methane,
provided instrumentation was used. And there is a
revised Table II in that staff report, Supplemental
Staff Report, which is more accurate and reflects what
the Board did, rather than the table that's in the
original Staff Report.
MR. GRAY: Are you aware of any of these
changes that might increase the stringency as related
to the older California standards that are referenced
in Table I of that staff report as finally adopted
September 30 by the Board?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: In a strictly literal sense,
I would say that the increases in stringency may or may
not exist in 1981, depending on a manufacturer's
ERTIFI60 SHORTMANO REPORTERS
(4151 543-3194/46I3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4 3
particular position. I would say it's probably
debateable whether the Board's original 1981 standard,
which was .39 non-methane, 9.0 CO, and 1.0 NOx, is
more or less stringent than the pair of options that
the staff now has in 1981.
For 1982, certainly, the standards are not --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me. Could
you all speak up? Pull the mike closer to you, or
something. We can't hear.
MR. F.UBENSTE IN: For 1982, I think fairly
clearly the standards that the Board adopted are not
more stringent than those that were previously considered
by EPA.
For 1983 -- I'm sorry. In 1982 and 1983,
they are certainly more stringent because of the change
in the carbon monoxide standard from 9.0 to 7.0. But
that, again, is in a numerical sense, and testimony
received at the Board's hearing in September indicated
that manufacturers did not find any additional degree
of stringency or lead time problems associated with
that change in the CO standard.
MR. GRAY: It is correct to say, then, the
only change in the September 30th Board actions was to
go from a 9.0 CO standard in 1983 for light-duty
vehicles to a 7 grams per mile standard?
(413) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
.MR. RUBENSTEIN: The only change, you mean?
MR. GRAY: The only change that would relate
to increasing the stringency that might relate to
technological feasibility.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I believe that's true.
MR. GRAY: We are trying to sort out whether
or not we have today an issue of increased stringency
due to the Board's actions of September the 30th, and
to do that, we must first understand the changes.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Right. The change in CO
from 9.0 to 7.0 affects 1982 and later models, not 1983
and later.
As I mentioned, from a numerical sense,
obviously 7.0 is lower than 9.0 and, therefore, it's
more stringent. But as I also mentioned, vehicle manu-
facturers have testified before the Board --
MR. WAGNER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
request that the sound system volume be increased. T,Ve
cannot hear back here, particularly when you fellows
are talking to each other.
MR. SCHWENTKER: You are six feet from the
mike. Sit up to the table, Chuck, and we can hear you.
MR. GRAY: To share our understanding with
the audience, it is our understanding that the changes
made by the Board of September the 30th that might
(*15) 543-3194/461-3090
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
relate to increased technological difficulty of achieving
the current ARB standards as they exist now would relate
only to the passenger car CO standard change of 9.0
grams per mile to 7.0 grams per mile.
MR. MACOMBER: We'd like to emphasize the
word "might," because the testimony that I think we
received was the same technology will be used, that
further oxidation catalysts will not be necessary and,
therefore, that there should in fact be no additional
technological burden or cost.
MR. GRAY: Fair enough. But the point being
made here is that there are others that disagree with
that point, and they can certainly comment upon it
today.
What basis do you have -- Maybe I should
back up and ask this: In your maze of changes from year
to year and your options -- Maybe we should wait until
later and call you again if we need to clarify points
related to increased stringency. I'm sure the manufac-
turers will offer comments if there is a problem here.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I am not sure your brief
summary of what I said still holds true. It is
complicated. Maybe we should wait for the manufacturers
to make their points, and we can rebut them at that
time.
MYTHE & WILSON
EBTIFIED SHOflTPANO REPOPTERs
(41!) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
46
MR. GRAY: I think that might be easier for
us, too.
A more specific question relates to your
statements regarding marginal increase in hydrocarbon
emission control which may be achieved by requiring
compliance with a total hydrocarbon standard. 'Vhat do
you mean by "marginal increase"?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: The increase in hydrocarbon
control associated with the .41 total hydrocarbon
standard as contrasted with the .39 non-methane standard
is very substantially a function of the kind of technology
that's used. The kind of three-way catalyst technology
that was used by Volvo would find those two standards
to be of equivalent stringency. The kind of technology
used by Ford in 1978 consisting of a three-way catalyst
plus a back-up oxidation catalyst would find the .39
non-methane standard being effectively less stringent
in the sense that the total hydrocarbons associated
with that standard might be as high as .5, or even
larger. It becomes a very hypothetical question,
however, because depending on which standard is adopted
by which agency, will dictate which technology is used.
So, it would be very hard to presume that simply
because technology exists that makes the .39 non-methane
standard less stringent in terms of total hydrocarbon
(4151 543-3194/4J1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
than the .41 that will be the case, because if the .41
total hydrocarbon standard is used that kind of technology
-- meaning technology that generates methane fractions
as high as 30 or 40 per cent -- won't necessarily be
used. There would be no incentive for it.
That's what I mean by "marginal." It's an
iffy kind of thing, depending on the time frame, depending
on the technology that's used.
MR. GRAY: Stated a different way, if the
California Air Resources Board had a standard of .41
total hydrocarbons, what level of non-methane hydrocarbons
do you think that vehicles that could comply with that
standard would achieve?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: If it was a three-way
catalyst system, the type that Volvo used, and there
were no changes, probably about .39 or .38 grams per
mile non-methane hydrocarbons.
MR. GRAY: Do you expect that system to be
used on all vehicles?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I would expect that if the
Board adopted a .41 total hydrocarbon standard with no
methane allowance or credit; the manufacturers would not
have any incentive to go to a system that generates
substantial amounts of methane.
i
I
i
MR. GRAY: I don't believe you really mean
(41S) 343-3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
"generates." I guess you really would mean "allows to
remain," or something of that sort.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Right.
MR. GRAY: What about the Ford system that
you mentioned; what level of non-methane hydrocarbon
control would it achieve if it could achieve the .41
total hydrocarbon level?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: You might be better off
asking Ford that. I can from memory cite some certifi-
cation data from 1978, but my memory might be faulty.
I believe that their system had non-methane
hydrocarbon numbers in the range of .25 to .3, but that
was based on a methane content correction factor,
rather than direct instrumentation.
They might be able to give you a better
answer than I could.
MR. GRAY: Okay. One last question.
What is the current adjustment that is
provided the various manufacturers, based upon actually
measuring methane and subtracting that? What per cent
of the total hydrocarbon is methane as being approved
now by the ARB?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Are you referring to the
methane correction factor?
MR. GRAY: No. I am referring to, as I
(415) 543-3194/461-3G98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4 9
understand it, the procedure that is in existence now
which would allow a manufacturer to measure methane and
to actually use the measured non-methane hydrocarbon
value. And what per cent of the total hydrocarbon is
the methane or the non-methane fraction of the total
hydrocarbon exhaust.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: That depends on the kind
of system. I am not quite sure I am following your
ques t ion.
MR. GRAY: I guess what's troubling me is
I am concerned about the treating of this question from
a marginal standpoint, potentially contending that
there is no real difference in non-methane hydrocarbon
levels associated with the .39 non-methane standard
and the .41 total hydrocarbon standard, and I am just
trying to probe to get a better resolution of the
information or the basis upon which you made the
statement that there is only a marginal difference.
Is marginal really the difference between .38 and .39,
as compared to .41, or could it very well be the
difference between .2 and .41? What are you trying to
say here?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I think what we are trying
to say is that if we adopted a .41 total hydrocarbon
standard, we don't believe that, for hydrocarbon reasons
ertified shorthand reporters
<*15t 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
at any rate, a company such as Ford would have an
incentive to continue using the kind of system that
has a methane fraction as high as 30 per cent if there
is a less expensive system that was available. And
that, consequently, if you compare the relative
stringency of the hydrocarbon standards, and for our
purposes we are talking about relative stringency in
terms of non-methane hydrocarbons, which is what we
are concerned about, we believe that the difference
when you take into account the incentives built in for
the manufacturer between .39 non-methane standard and
.41 total hydrocarbon standard are marginal.
MR. GRAY: Well, I guess the bottom line
word is "marginal" again.
I think the Volvo system is based upon fuel
injection. If three-way systems that use more conven-
tional carburetion systems are introduced to meet the
California standards, are you contending that it's
reasonable to expect that the methane per cent would
remain at around 5 per cent of the total HC when those
systems would probably be operating around stoichiometry?
MR. RUBENSTEINSTEIN: You could probably
direct that queston to General Motors, since they are
only company that has a three-way catalyst without
oxidation catalyst system, combined with a carburetor j
!
iMYTHE & WILSON
eRTIFIED SHOHTHANO REPORTERS
(*15) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
in production right now. I believe that factor is
somewhere between 5 and 10 per cent. Again, I'm not
sure. You better ask them.
MR. GRAY: So, it's really a function of
your technical judgment that you base the statement on,
rather than any specific data that you can offer to the
record of these hearings?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: As to whether it's marginal
or not ?
MR. GRAY: As to what marginal means.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Yes, it's based on our
technical judgment, but it's also based on data that's
equally available to EPA as well as us. In terms of
certification data, technology assessment reports and
such, the data is the same. Yfe are both looking at the
same sets of data. The conclusion that it's marginal
is our judgment, yes.
MR. GRAY: Vve may want to come back to this
issue again after the manufacturers comment.
You also made a statement in your testimony
this morning that the ARB staff has concluded that
such opinions are based upon outmoded smog chamber
data that inaccurately project when NOx reductions will
cause oxidant reductions, referring to challenges made
by the manufacturers, relative to the CARB judgment in
MYTHE 4 WILSON
eaTiFiEo shorthand repcrteps
(41S) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 2
the area of the wisdom of additional NOx control.
Is there additional documentation of the
basis for this staff judgment?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: That would be contained in
the transcript, I believe, of the January 25th ARB
hearing, as well as in the report that the staff prepared,
based on its earlier workshop.
MR. GRAY: So, this is not referring to a
new judgment based upon additional information?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: No. We stated those
opinions at that hearing.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much,
gentlemen.
MR. WALSH: Thank you. Good morning. My
name is John Walsh, and I am Senior Staff Engineer in
the Safety and Legislation Department of U.S. Suzuki
Motor Corporation. I am here today representing Suzuki
Motor Company.
Suzuki Motor Company appreciates this
opportunity to comment on the California waiver decisions
currently pending before the Administrator. It is
Suzuki's opinion that the following are among the items
subject to discussion today with regard to pending
motorcycle waiver decisions:
1. The California hydrocarbon standards and
(«1S1 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
test procedures adopted 15 July 1975 (test
procedures amended 20 February 1976);
2. The California hydrocarbon standards and
test procedures adopted 24 March 1977;
3. The California carbon monoxide standards and
test procedures adopted 30 September 1977;
4. The combination of items 2 and 3;
5. The California compliance testing and inspec-
tion procedures adopted 30 June 1977; and
6. The combination of items 4 and 5.
Although there are more combinations of items
which could be discussed, we will limit our comments to
the items above. Some of these items can be dealt with
quickly.
Regarding items 1, 2 and 3, the State of
California has not made the necessary determination of
public health and welfare benefit for these items. EPA,
therefore, must revoke the 1 October 1976 waiver currently
in effect for item 1, and EPA cannot waive Federal
preemption of California's item 2 or 3 standards and
test procedures.
Turning to item 4, the State of California,
through the California Air Resources Board, has
determined that the California hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide standards and test procedures are, in the
CERTIFIED SHOflTHANO RgPCflTSRS
(415) 543-3194;46i-3O90
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
aggregate, at least as protective of the public health
and welfare as applicable federal standards (which are
identical through the 1981 model year).
We turn, then, to the questions of the need
for these standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions, and the consistency of the standards and
test procedures with Section 202(a) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended.
First, California does not need the standards
to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions. The
standrads and test procedures are identifical to
applicable federal standards and test procedures, so
no additional control of emissions is gained by the
California standards. The standards are not needed,
since they are merely duplicative.
Additionally, ARB Staff Report 77-20-3, a
copy of which I have submitted to Ms. Urbine, shows
that California does not need a CO standard for motor-
cycles. Proof of this is ARB's amendment of their CO
standards for 1982 model year passenger cars which is
less stringent than the 1981 model year CO standard.
California does not have compelling and
extraordinary CO conditions, as shown by this recent
action, does not need any CO standard for motorcycles,
and certainly does not need a merely duplicative standard.!
ERTIFIED SHORTHANO HEPOPTEBS
(41S) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
ARB's reason for adopting its motorcycle
CO standard was not to reduce CO emissions, or to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions, but from fear
that "(i)f the proposed CO standards are not adopted,
however, California may lose its ability to enforce
compliance testing and inspection of motorcycles," from
Staff Report 77-20-2. California does not need its
motorcycle standards and test procedures to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions.
Second, as we testified in May, the 1 gram
per kilometer hydrocarbon standard for 1982 and subsequent
model year motorcycles is inconsistent with Section 202(a)
of the Act. This is still true, and the consistency
problem may be aggravated by the adoption of a 12 gram
per kilometer carbon monoxide standard for these
motorcycles.
Regarding item 5, California's compliance
testing and inspection procedures for new motorcycles,
California has determined that their program is at
least as protective as the applicable Federal program.
Based on testimony we submitted to EPA in August, which
showed an increase in hydrocarbon emissions in the South
Coast Air Basin as a result of ARB's compliance testing
program, we submit that ARB's determination that their
j
program is at least as protective of the public health j
IYTHE 4 WILSON
ITIF1EO SHORTHAND SSPORTERS
543-3194'461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
and welfare as the Federal program is arbitrary and
capricious. ABB did not amend its compliance test
procedures to provide for compliance testing of CO
emissions from motorcycles. No CO control will result,
further showing that the ARB program is less protective
of the public health and welfare than EPA's program,
and that ARB's determination of public health and
welfare protection was arbitrary and capricious.
Because an increase in hydrocarbon emissions
would result, it is clear that California does not need
this program to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions since those conditions would be aggravated
by the compliance testing program. Further, consistency
with Section 202(a) of the Act would require that EPA
give Suzuki three years of lead time, as we testified
in August.
Finally, regarding item 6, it is Suzuki's
opinion that compliance testing cannot be considered as
part of the ARB program in the determining the public
health and welfare benefit. The determination is
limited to standards and test procedures and pre-sale,
mandatory enforcement procedures. Post-sale, discre- i
tionary programs cannot be considered to affect the
determination because the programs are only discretionary.
This has been EPA's position in previous waiver decisions.
<4151 543.3194US1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
Even if we do consider the programs
together, for purposes of discussion, we see that the
ARB determination must be arbitrary and capricious,
that the programs are not needed to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions, and that the programs are
not consistent with Section 202(a) of the Act, for the
reasons outlined above and in our previous testimony.
In conclusion, Suzuki believes that the
existing waiver of Federal preemption of California's
emissions standards and test procedures for 1978 and
subsequent production year motorcycles must be withdrawn,
and that Federal preemption of all or any part of
California's emissions program cannot be waived for
a multitude of reasons, until at least the 1983 model
year .
Thank you, and I'd be happy to try and
answer any questions.
MR. GRAY: I am referring to Page 3 of your
statement, the end of the middle paragraph on that page
where you say, "No CO control will result," referring
to the ARB compliance test procedures, "further showing
that the ARB program is less protective of the public
health and welfare than EPA's program, and that ARB's
determination of public health and welfare protection
was arbitrary and capricious."
(41S> 543-31»4M8|.3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
How can it be less protective of the public
health and welfare program if they did nothing more than
insure that the EPA standards are met? What's your I
rationale there?
MR. WALSH: The ARB compliance testing
program does not involve any criteria for enforcement
of the CO standards. The ARB compliance testing program
is limited to hydrocarbon standards enforcement.
MR. GRAY: Wouldn't it probably be a little
more appropriate to say that it is not more protective
with respect to CO control? It certainly couldn't be
less protective simply because they do not enforce the
CO standards; could it?
In other words, the absence of CARB's specific
action with their compliance test program shouldn't
result in CO emissions going up, at least as I can tell,
or is that what you are claiming?
MR. WALSH: No.
MR. GRAY: So, perhaps it is more appropri-
ately the point that their program will not achieve
any additional control of CO simply because they do not
plan to enforce that provision of their compliance
test procedures?
MR. "WALSH: That's correct.
MR. GRAY: Do you see any possibility that ,
(415) 543-3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
the EPA might, based upon the ARB data, be concerned
about noncompliance with respect to CO standards?
MR. WALSH: That's certainly a possibility
if there are motorcycles which are found in noncompliance
of the CO standards.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's an absolute
certainty.
MR. GRAY: So, this is a technicality, in
effect, that is not a major point in your testimony?
The main point is that you seem to agree upon is that
the ARB program will at least directly result in some
additional attention and reduction in HC and through
EPA action, may as well result in the additional reduction
of CO, over what would have been achieved had there not
been such a program? Or, are you claiming that that's
not the case?
MR. WALSH: Could you repeat that for me?
MR. GRAY: I guess what I am getting at
here is: Are you making a point that the California
compliance program will not result in reductions of HC
and CO emissions?
MR. WALSH: Not together as a direct result
of ARB enforcement action only. It would take EPA
enforcement action on the CO emissions to result in
further reductions in CO.
ERTIF'EO SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3038
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
MR. GRAY: But indirectly, because that
information is available, you are not claiming that
there would not be a reduction; is that true?
MR. WALSH: That's true, although it may
be somewhat inappropriate to give California benefit
for making that information available to EPA.
MR. GRAY: I believe in your statement at
one point you mention that the amendments to Section
202(a) that EPA give three years lead time for a change
in the motorcycle standards. Perhaps I didn't understand
that part of your testimony. Could you elaborate a bit?
MR. WALSH: Okay. As we provided in
supplemental comments to the August hearing, Suzuki
has certain lead time problems associated with
California's hydrocarbon compliance testing program,
and those lead time requirements would prevent waiver
preemption for three years.
MR. GRAY: So, consistency meaning that
Suzuki needs three years for adequate lead time to
develop the technology as it relates to the criteria
of Section 202?
MR. WALSH: Yes.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you, sir.
MR. WALSH: Thank you.
(415) 543-3194/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
MR. DAVID: Good morning. My name is Dennis
David. I am the Manager, Legislative Section of Kawasaki
Motors Corporation, • U.S.A. With me today is Mr. Darrell
Johnson, our counsel.
Kawasaki opposed the granting of a waiver
to California to enforce motorcycle emission regulations
because the California regulatory plan does not meet
the statutory requirements for the granting of a waiver
of Federal preemption.
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977,
the USEPA must deny a state's request for waiver if
any of these three conditions are present:
1. The state's determination that their
standards will be, in the aggregate, at least
as protective of public health and welfare
as applicable Federal standards is arbitrary
and capricious.
2. The state does not need the standards to
meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
3. The state's standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent
with Section 202a of the Act.
Applying these standards to California's
regulatory plan leads to the undeniable conclusion that
granting a waiver would violate the second of the three
CERTIFIED shorthano reporters
U15> 543-3194/461 -3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
conditions, which requires a need to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions with independent state
standards. Also, the intent of Congress in amending
the waiver provisions of the Act was not to permit
California to adopt and enforce the Federal standards.
California is seeking a waiver for motorcycle
emission regulations which are identical to those
already promulgated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency for the years 1978-1981. While the
legislative history of the 1977 Amendment of Section
209 of the Clean Air Act indicates an intent to grant
California . . the broadest possible discretion in
selecting the best means to protect the health of its
citizens and the public welfare," this discretion is
wisely and intentionally limited by the simple and
obvious requirement that a need for independent state
regulation exists. This requirement serves the intended
purpose of allowing California to take additional steps
to protect its citizens while insuring that unnecessary
and burdensome state regulation is preempted by Federal
authority.
California, by its deference to Federal
standards, has admitted that there is no need for
independent standards and that the health and welfare
of its citizens are adequately safeguarded by Federal
& WILSON
(415) 543-3104/461-3090
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
regulation. Without this need, the statutory prerequisite
for waiver of Federal preemption is not satisfied.
Further, it was not the intent of Congress
to permit California to adopt and enforce a control
program identical to that of the Federal government,
but rather it was Congress' intent to give latitude to
California in designing a control program that best
served the needs of the State while at the same time
avoiding technological feasibility conflicts with the
Federal program. More specifically, Congress anticipated
that in view of California's belief that stringent
control of NOx emissions may be more essential to
public health portection in California than stringent
control of CO, the possibility existed that California's
1978 and subsequent standards might be more stringent
than the Federal NOx standard, but less stringent than
the Federal CO standard. To deal with the situation
where the entire set of California standards might be
technologically feasible and the entire set of Federal
standards might also be technologically feasible, but
the most stringent set of standards (Federal CO;
California, NOx, etc.) might not be feasible, Congress
amended the waiver provisions of the Act so that EPA
could grant a waiver based on the "in the aggregate" i
j
test rather than requiring that each individual Californial
(415) S43-3194M61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
standard be more stringent than the comparable Federal
standard. Nothing in the legislative history of the
1977 amendments indicates Congress' intent to permit
California to obtain a waiver to enforce a Federal
control program.
Regarding California's statement that its
motorcycle enforcement procedures . . . "add a degree
of stringency to the emission standards over the
comparable, nonexistent, applicable Federal regulations,"
we strenuously disagree. As we have mentioned at
previous waiver hearings, EPA does have the authority
in Section 86.415-78 of its motorcycle regulations to
test production motorcycles. California's enforcement
program, therefore, does not provide any further
regulation of motorcycle emissions than would be true
under the Federal program. Moreover, California's
attempt to institute separate enforcement procedures is
neither foreseen nor permitted under the Clean Air Act.
To allow this duplication of regulatory enforcement
unsupported by a showing of need for a separate California
control program is not only contrary to the literal
language of the Act but subverts the essential purpose
behind Section 209's preemption and waiver provisions -
the barring of multiple and duplicative regulation in
the absence of compelling and extraordinary conditions
SfiTIFlEO SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
justifying state regulation of motor vehicle emissions.
The plaint language of Section 209a recognizes the
distinction between adoption of a standard, inspection
and enforcement. That Section states:
"No State or any political subdivision thereof
shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard
relating to the control of emissions from new
motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject
to this part. No State shall require certification,
inspection , or any other approval relating to the
control of emissions from any new motor vehicle
or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent
to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or
registration or such motor vehicle, motor vehicle
engine, or equipment."
It is therefore incongruous to maintain that
inspection and enforcement may be separately conducted
i
when the preemptive provisions of Section 209a specifi-
cally prohibit such state actions.
It is clear that only the waiver for which
California might qualify under the Act's new waiver
provisions is for its 1982 1 gram per kilometer hydro-
carbon standard which does not have a Federal counterpart.
i
We have previously testified that this standard is not
consistent with Section 202a of the Act. We have no
SHORTHAND reporters
(415) 343-3194/441.3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
new information that would change our conclusion
regarding this matter. We respectfully urge EPA to
study this matter carefully, including a review of EPA 1 s
ongoing research as to technologically feasible motor-
cycle emissions reductions. It was and is premature
for EPA to conclude that California's 1 gram per kilometer
standard is consistent with Section 202a of the Act when
its own technological investigation is incomplete.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any
questions or clarify any points.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You recognize, of course,
that EPA has granted a waiver for the one-gram standard?
MR. DAVID: Yes, we recognize that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You are just continuing
to make the points that you made during that waiver
proceeding, that it's not technologically feasible
within the lead time; is that correct?
MR. DAVID: Yes. We think it was premature
for EPA to grant the waiver at that time/
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: In making your points
about the California program up until '82, because it's
identical to the Federal program they have no business
being in the field; but after '82, because they do have
a more stringent standard, they do have a prerogative
inthefield? i
ERTIFIEO SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
MR. DAVID: They have adopted a more stringent
standard for that time period, and they do have a
waiver, and we considered at that time that the waiver
was premature. It's not consistent.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm trying to separate
your arguments here. One is a petition for reconsidera-
tion on the latter point, and the former is an argument
about the way the amendments apply to the attempts by
California to run its program between now and '82.
MR. DAVID: That's true.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I guess, one, I think I
would request a more formal approach to a petition to
review the previous waiver decision. I don't consider
this an appropriate petition.
MR. DAVID: We don't consider this a petition
to review that waiver decision, either.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: As far as your other
argument is concerned, we will weigh the merits of that
in our deliberations on the waivers before us.
Thank you, sir.
MR. DAVID: All right. Thanks.
MR. JENSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am D. A. Jensen,
Director, Automotive Emissions and Fuel Economy Office,
Ford Motor Company.
Today my testimony on behalf of Ford Motor ,
ERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543*3194/461*3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
Company will relate primarily to California's exhaust
emission standards for 1981 and subsequent model years.
With me, however, are John Eppel and Helen Petrauskas,
who as attorneys will be prepared to discuss legal
issues; and Marlin Stroven, who is Executive Engineer
of our Advanced Product Engineering group, who can
answer questions or offer testimony on technical points.
1981-1982 Passenger Car Standards.
On September 29, 1977 California adopted
two sets of passenger car standards which, at the
manufacturer's option, must be complied with during
1981 and 1982. As we understand it, a manufacturer may
choose to certify to either .41 total hydrocarbon
standard, 3.4 CO and 1.0 NOx in 1981 and .39 non-methane
hydrocarbon standard, 7.0 CO and .4 NOx in 1982. That
would be Option A. Option B, which was referred to
earlier, would be .39 non-methane hydrocarbon, 7.0 CO
and .7 NOx in both 1981 and 1982. CARB's attempt to
introduce some flexibility in the certification process
as represented by these options is commendable. Even
more commendable, however, is CARB's effort to retain
its exceedingly appropriate non-methane hydrocarbon
standard. We must vigorously oppose the first of the
options, however, which is no more than an exact
duplication of EPA's anticipated action for the 1981
EPTIFlgD SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
mode 1 year.
The 1981 .41 total hydrocarbon standard,
as compared to California's previously adopted standards |
of .39 non-methane hydrocarbons, is particularly
obj ect ionable.
We are extremely concerned that EPA
apparently is now proposing to establish a total hydro-
carbon standard of .41 grams per mile. In document
after document, submitted by EPA to various congressional
committees, including the progress report which EPA is
required to prepare by statute and submit to the
Congress, EPA assumed that the statutory hydrocarbon
standard would be a non-methane standard. Indeed, there
can be no dispute -- methane is not reactive and does
not adversely affect the public health. It is a non-
pollutant. EPA1s own air quality standard is, of course,
in terms of non-methane hydrocarbons. As EPA is well
aware, all of Ford's development programs, both for
California and 49 states, have been targeted at a non-
methane hydrocarbon standard. Moreover, these programs
have also had as an equally important objective the
elimination of any substantial fuel economy penalty as
a result of efforts to meet standards of .41 HC/3.4 CO
and 1.0 NOx.
i
I
It was on this basis that we testified before
SRTlRED SMOHTHANO RE»ORTERS
<415) S43-3l94M6t-3Q98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
Congress that, given time, standards of .41 non-methane
HC, 3.4 CO, and 1.0 NOx were feasible and could be met
with little penalty in fuel economy. Our testimony
incidentally, was cited by EPA in connection with the
recent congressional deliberations on the Clean Air Act.
We are convinced that Congress heard and
believed EPA's testimony and it heard and believed
CARB's testimony, which was, of course, based on
California's experience v/ith a non-methane hydrocarbon
standard, and therefore Congress assumed and intended
that when the statutory hydrocarbon standard became
effective it would be a non-methane standard. Details
of our analysis of the Clean Air Amendments of 1977
with respect to this issue will be presented by Mr.
Eppel following my testimony.
At this point, every bit of data we have on
advanced control systems indicates that Ford cannot meet,
across our product line, a total hydrocarbon standard
of .41 grams per mile for 50,000 miles in the 1981 model
year. That standard when coupled v/ith 3.4 grams per
mile CO and 1 gram per mile NOx is not feasible for
Ford in 1981. Mr. Stroven has with him a summary of our
test data, as well as details on the advanced development
cars we have been running, and we can discuss and answer
any questions you may have in this regard.
ERTIFIED SHORTWANO REPORTHPS
(4151 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
We are not claiming that there is no
technology that could conceivably allow us to achieve
these standards. What we are saying is that we have
worked to a non-methane standard and sufficient lead
time does not exist to allow us to turn around at this
dat e.
We also oppose the 3.4 grams per mile CO
standard for California on the grounds that the records
of CARB hearings and EPA waiver hearings demonstrate
that a 3.4 grams per mile standard is not necessary to
meet compelling and extraordinary air quality problems
in California. The fact that a 3.4 grams per mile
standard, compared to California's previous 9 grams per
mile standard, can be projected to achieve the desired
air quality a few months earlier does not qualify as
extraordinary or compelling and most certainly is not
worth the added expense to the consumer nor the trade-
offs in depreciated control of oxides of nitrogen.
Moreover, even when viewed by itself, EPA
cannot find that a 1981 California 7.0 grams per mile
CO standard is less protective of public health than
the corresponding Federal standard. The 1981 Federal
standard may also be 7.0 grams per mile, and EPA cannot
prejudge and prejudice the case of future waiver
applicants by concluding at this time that the Federal
MYTHE & WILSON
EHTIREO shorthand aepcbtess
(4151 543-3194/401-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
standard will in any case be 3.4 grams per mile.
With regard to California's proposed
alternate option of .39 NMHC?7?.7, we are in a dilemma.
As we said at the outset, we endorse the flexibility
permitted in this option. It is certainly in the right
direction, because it recognizes the principle of a
non-methane hydrocarbon standard and the higher CO level.
We do not question that it is equal to or more protective
of public health. Our problem is actually a lack of
test data at the .7 NOx level. Certainly that option
would be improved if, due to the differences in various
engines that are inherent in the manufacture of a
total spectrum of products, the option could be made
available by engine family. This would enable an auto-
driveability, and control system cost based on the
characteristics of a particular engine. Our basic
position, however, is that these are new standards to
us; we cannot yet indicate whether they are feasible,
we can only take a "save" on technical feasibility.
By the same token, we do not believe that anyone else,
CARB or EPA included, has any basis on which to make a
valid finding as tolead time or technological feasibility.
Further, with respect to 1982, we have
consistently opposed a 0.4 grams per mile NOx standard
I
because of legitimate and unaswered questions about its I
EPT1FIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
desirability as we 11 as the lack of demonstrated
technological feasibility. T,'fe ask that our testimony
before the EPA waiver hearing of August 4, 1977 in this
respect be incorporated as part of the record of this
hearing.
As to California's second option for 1982,
and in particular the .7 NOx standard, our position is
the same as expressed for 1981. We agree directionally
with its intent, and support the flexibility -- with the
request that the option be available by engine family
to provide further flexibility. Certainly, given the
added time to work on the problem, .7 NOx may be more
feasible for 1982 than 1981.
In summary then, Ford believes that EPA
must examine each of the standards adopted by California
and that under new Section 209(b), a waiver can and
should be granted for only the following standards:
1981 1982
HC CO NOx HC CO NOx
.39 7.0 1.0 .39 7.0 1.0
The hydrocarbon standard must be non-methane, the CO
standard is more than adequate and cannot be found to
be less protective and the NOx standard is the only
one the record will support.
On 1980-1982 Light Duty Truck/Jledium Duty
ITHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543*3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
Vehicle Standards, we are concerned that California's
standards for these vehicles, in particular the standards
applicable to vehicles of 6,000 pounds inertia weight
and below present, in some cases, a high risk of certifi-
cation failure even with the best control systems we
have available. To some degree, this is due to the
fact that, as we have testified before, the truck
standards are actually more stringent than those
applicable to passenger cars because of increased
dnyamometer loading during the CVS test. More important,
however, is the fact that tighter standards are inappro-
priately applied to vehicles between 3,000 pounds inertia
weight and 4,000 pounds inertia weight. As we testified
in August and before the CARB in September, this is
first of all an unwise policy because it discourages
manufacturers from downsizing utility or recreational
type vehicles into that inertia weight range, because
the standards are tighter. Second, since our August
testimony, DOT has established fuel economy standards
for light trucks and Ford has begun to investigate our
ability to meet the CARB standards on truck type
vehicles in that range. Our concern in this regard has
been confirmed.
Although included in our testimony, these
issues were not inquired into by CARB at its September
EPTIFIED shorthand REPORTERS
(4151 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
75
hearing, and we are concerned at the lack of either
testimony or an appropriate finding as to feasibility.
Attachment A is the material we presented to CAR33 at
their earlier hearing on this subject on November 23,
1976. Similarly, there was no public discussion by the
Board of our submission at that time.
As Mr. Stroven can explain, our best systems
give us little confidence that we could successfully
certify a manual transmission vehicle of this size for
the California market, and we have data set forth in
Attachment B to this effect. Y/e can also discuss the
market for fuel-efficient vehicles and manual transmission
vehicles in the higher weight classes that would go
unserved as a result of these standards. Ford believes
that the low confidence of certification with our best
technology and the real need of California for manual
transmission truck type vehicles requires that EPA
condition any grant of a waiver upon a modification
of thecertification break points from 4,000 pounds
inertia weight down to a 3,000 pounc inertia weight.
In addition to the standards, there are
other issues which are not new at an EPA waiver hearing.
We would like to submit for the record our comments
previously provided on August 4, 1977 in respect to:
1. 1980 Light Duty Vehicle, Light Duty Truck,
(419) 343-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
and Medium Duty Truck 2 gram SHED EVAP
standard;
2. Restrictions on Maintenance; and
3. Tamper Resistant Regulations.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 do
require additional considerations to be made by EPA in
conjunction with this waiver hearing.
Later on, I'll Ms. Petrauskas to discuss
that particular point. At this point, Mr. Chairman,
with your permission, I'd like to have Mr. Eppel discuss
the first point I made back on -- I think it was Page 2
or 3, about the non-methane standard.
At the top of Page 3, I said, "Details of
our analysis of the Clean Air Amendments of 1977 with
respect to this issue will be presented by Mr. Eppel. . .
In order to segregate that particular issue
from the other issues, I'd like to ask Mr. Eppel to
proceed at this time.
MR. EPPEL: Mr. Jackson, we have provided
to the members of the panel and also to the Reporter a
full copy of a statement that we have prepared discussing
the role of methane in the Federal statutory standard.
It's relevant, of course, only because California in
an effort apparently to preserve their waiver, saw fit
to adopt as one of its options a .41 total hydrocarbon
ESTlFIED SHOATHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
77
standard. I would like, however, to summarize that
statement as follows:
A review of the legislative history of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 indicates that Congress
relied almost exclusively on experience with California's
non-methane hydrocarbon standard to evaluate the
feasibility, fuel economy, cost and model availability
implications of the Federal statutory hydrocarbon
standard. Congress relied upon the proposition that
the Federal statutory hydrocarbon standard would in
every way be equivalent to the 1977 California standard.
Neither can EPA walk away from the fact that Congress
expressly relied upon a technology assessment report
published by the Environmental Protection Agency in
1977, which analyzed feasibility only in terms of a
non-methane hydrocarbon standard.
In summary, in establishing the statutory
hydrocarbon standard for 19S0 and subsequent model year
vehicles, Congress assumed that EPA would promulgate
a non-methane hydrocarbon standard, which represented
a 90 per cent reduction from non-methane hydrocarbon
emissions allowable from 1970 model year vehicles.
I go on to discuss it a bit, and I will
summarize where I can.
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
rHE & WILSON
¦ieo shopthano rep
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
78
amended, provides in pertinent part that -- and let me
quote this:
"The A dm inistrator shall by regulation
prescribe. . .standards applicable to the emission
of any air pollutant from. . .new motor vehicles
. . .which in his judgment causes or contributes
to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare."
As I mentioned earlier and as Mr. Jensen
mentioned, all available data would indicate that there
is no basis for believing that methane emissions do
or could endanger the public health and welfare. I've
got some citations in the printed material. Accordingly,
a standard requiring control of methane would be
unauthorized under Section 202(a).
Section 202 goes on to provide in Subsection
(b), and that is the 90 per cent reduction -- Let me
just mention that that section refers to reductions
allowable under the standards set for 202(a) for the
1970 model year. Except for the change in the effective
date of the requirement, this provision is unchanged
from the Act as it was amended in 1970.
Under Section 202(b), a statutory hydrocarbon
standard was designed to achieve a 90 per cent reduct ion
in harmful emissions allowable from 1970 models. For
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
that proposition, you will see some citations back to
Senator LIuskie and. others.
Because the 1970 standard was established
under Section 202(a), and because Section 202(a) does
not authorize control of methane, the methane portion
of emissions under the 1970 standard should neither
have been allowed or disallowed; it simply should not
have been regulated at all. Thus, if "allowable" is
meant to refer to the level of a lawful standard
applicable to 1970 light-duty vehicles, one must
conclude that what was intended was a 90 per cent
reduction from a non-methane hydrocarbon emissions, as
determined by a non-methane hydrocarbon test procedure,
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Eppel, I haven't
read your statement, but I presume that someplace
along the line you are going to relate this to a
California waiver.
MR. EPPEL: They have asked for a v/aiver,
among other things, for a .41 total hydrocarbon standard.
I think that relates it. What we are going --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: As an optional --
MR. EPPEL: What we are going to suggest,
Mr. Jackson, is that they have done that only to secure
their waiver against action by EPA in the same regard,,
and I think it's important for the panel to understand
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
<415*
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SO
that action by the EPA in that regard would not be
authorized.
May I go on?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm certainly not endorsing
the nexus, but you may proceed.
MR. EPPEL: Thank you.
In any case, Subsection (b) does nothing
more but place certain additional limitations on the
Administrator's discretion to establish standards
under Section 202, and any standard must meet the
requirements of both Subsections (a) and (b). In the
case of the statutory hydrocarbon standard, this
standard must be a non-methane standard in order to
satisfy the requirements of 202(a), and represent at
least a 90 per cent reduction in order to satisfy 202(b).
We do not assert that this reading of the
language of Section 202(b) is free from ambiguity. The
legislative history, however, clearly resolves that
ambiguity and confirms Congress' intent to control
only harmful hydrocarbon and thereby establish a hydro-
I
carbon standard exclusive of methane.
A full and fair understanding of the 1977
congressional deliberations requires an awareness of
certain background information. I think we are all
aware of it. First of all, the fact is that California, i
MYTHE & WILSON
ES"IF!ED ShORTHANO R6POATEHS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SI
of course, had a 1977 hydrocarbon standard which allowed
the exclusion of methane.
A review of the reports and colloquy which
accompanied the amendments unequivocal1y demonstrates
that in the mind of Congress this California non-methane
hydrocarbon standard was, in fact, the statutory hydro-
carbon standard they were talking about. This view
v/as held by both sides of the debate. It was used
in efforts to demonstrate feasibility of the Federal
statutory hydrocarbon standard by those Congressmen
who urged earlier effective dates. Indeed, the report
referred to earlier by Mr. Macomber, which accompanied
the very stringent Rogers bill which was, of course,
rejected -- that bill was rejected; not the portion
referred to by Mr. Macomber, I might add -- relied
heavily and cited test data from 1978 model year
California certification vehicles, all of which were,
of course, subject to the non-methane correction. That
same report cited, as I mentioned earlier, the EPA
document submitted to Congress, which was based only
on non-methane hydrocarbon standards.
There is also a citation for the proposition
that that report was before the Senate as well as the
House.
The equivalency of California's non-methane
!7Ipieo SHORTHANO reporters
(413) 543-319^/46 1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
hydrocarbon standard, and the statutory hydrocarbon
standard, was likewise assumed by proponents of less
stringent schedules. There are citations here to
Congressman Dingell, Congressman Erown, Senator Riegel,
all of whom predicated their assertions as to fuel
economy costs, etc., against the California non-methane
st andard.
I'll skip forward to Page 6, in the middle.
Even if the statutory language and legislative
history were not conclusive, any contrary interpretation
would subscribe an irrational intent to Congress and
would therefore be in error. It is very clear that
Congress in passing the 1977 Amendments had an overriding
desire to strike an appropriate balance between health
needs and the economic and energy costs of controlling
emissions. While members of Congress differed as to
where this balance should be struck, again proponents
of all the proposals sought to minimize any adverse
impact. To suggest that Congress intended EPA to
control a harmless exhaust constitutent at the cost of
fuel economy and model availability is simply irrespon-
s ib1e .
I'd like to switch over now to Page 7. I'll j
make one comment with respect to the so-called Eckhardt
Amendment, which Ms. Petrauskas will cover later, and
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
that is that the Eckhardt Amendment and the rationale
cited by its proponents would make little sense, of
course, if a California non-methane hydrocarbon standard
were viewed as inappropriate, less stringent, or harmful
to health by EPA.
That summarizes my remarks.
MR. JENSEN: Mr. Chairman, at this point,
I'll leave it up to you as to how you want to proceed.
Ms. Petrauskas, on the last page of my statement, can
talk about really different subjects here, or we can go
back and try to clear up what we've talked about so
far, which are essentially '81 and '82 standards and
answer questions there, because the other piece of
this is sort of separate; or would you rather have her
conclude the whole bit?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Whatever you think is
most effective in presenting your arguments.
MR. JENSEN: I think at this point we ought
to answer questions and try to clear up any questions
you and your panel members may have on the '81 and '82
emission standards and the waiver that California has
requested for that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me put into perspective
the argument here I think Mr. Eppel has made.
As I see it, it's predominately a petition
(415) 543-3194/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
of the Federal hydrocarbon standard as a total hydrocarbon
standard. And if it is, I don't want Ford to believe
that it's being received as such by this forum.
MR. EPPEL: We filed a petition for recon-
sideration on that standard back in June of 1973, Mr.
Jackson. I assume that petition is still open. There
were several notices in the Federal Register with
respect to it.
We don't view this as a petition to anybody.
We view this as a statement of what Congress intended
and we view as a statement of the inappropriateness of
.41 total hydrocarbon standard, first of all for the
Federal Government and collaterally for California.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Even as an optional
standard? I mean in the case where .41 is specified,
there is an optional non-methane standard.
MR. JENSEN: Well, it's coupled with
different levels, though.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It's coupled with a
different level of NOx control.
MR. JENSEN: And CO.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And CO. It seems to
me that your argument should be about the stringency of
those two, and I am not denying that you did make some
arguments in that regard.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CEnTIFlEO SHOATHANC REPORTERS
(415) 54J-3I94/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
MR. JENSEN: My statement did talk about
the CO at the hydrocarbon standard.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It seemed like you have
weighted your argument about the non-methane issue -- or,
indeed, it's not an issue. Where you have an option to
go with a non-methane standard.
MP.. EPPEL: Anything that's noticed for the
hearing is in issue, as far as we are concerned, and it
does impact on us. As Mr. Jensen's statement points
out, the other alternative presents us with a .7 NOx
standard that we don't really know how to comment on
at this point. We felt it extremely important we make
our views known on the .41 hydrocarbon standard.
MR. GRAY: Do you feel that a .39 non-methane
standard in conjunction with a 3.4 CO and a 1.0 NOx
standard is easier to achieve than California's option
would be?
MR. JENSEN: It depends, as Mr. Rubenstein
indicated, upon the control system. Our assumption
right along has been a non-methane standard, so our
catalyst system that we are utilizing does have a larger
percentage of methane coming out the tailpipe. About
30 per cent, that we measured.
If you have a different system -- We haven't
got a whole lot of data on this, Mr. Chairman. We did
SfiTIFIgO SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
86
measure one diesel that's in production and for sale
in a passenger car. We measured a Honda Civic CVCC
engine, and they had less than 5 per cent methane;
whereas our system had a 30 per cent methane coming
out the tailpipe. So, there is a difference, depending
on the system.
That's why I say in here -- I don't indicate
that there is a complete lack of technology. I indicate
that what we have being going with for '81, based on
that assumption has been that that would be the standard,
and the standard would be to the effect of .39 non-methane
hydrocarbon standard, 3.4, and 1. And we have told EPA
and Congress that that was our assumption.
MR. GRAY: This is really an argument,
then, to the EPA, because California's Option A is the
existing EPA interpretation of 1980 passenger car
standards. So, in that context, since it is a California
option, certainly it's a comment here. But, I just want
to be sure that there was an understanding that that's
really directed at EPA as much as the California hearing
by definition.
The ARB made some statements relative to
stringency and in terms of their standards, and v/e
deferred following up on that in discussion with them
until later in the hearings, if necessary, based upon
(415) 543-3194/481-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
discussions with the manufacturers.
It appeal's that the California Option B
is numerically more stringent than their previous
standards with respect to both CO and oxides of nitrogen,
and I believe they at least commented that there was
a chance that at these slightly lower levels that
the technology would not be substantially different
and, therefore, that these lower levels would not be
more difficult to achieve. Do you agree with that?
MR. JENSEN: Well, it depends what year we
are talking about.
MR. GRAY: 1981, still.
MR. JENSEN: '81.
MR. GRAY: The 1980 Option B has changed
from California's previous standards, previous to
September 29, in that the CO level has decreased from
9.0 to 7.0 and that the NOx level has decreased from
1 to .7, and I think they made the argument earlier --
at least it was my understanding of the argument --
that those slight reductions, if you will, do not
impose additional technological constraints. And I
am essentially asking you to respond to that statement.
MR. JENSEN: On Page 5 of our statement,
we indicate and recommend the waiver be granted for
.39, 7.0, and 1.0 gram of NOx. So, the only difference
(41S> 543-3194/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
we've got here is the .7 and 1.0 gram of NOx.
On that particular issue, as I indicated,
we just don't have the data.
Mr. Stroven, you may want to comment with
respect to the stringency.
MR. GRAY: Your comment was directed toward
risk, uncertainty. What is the possibility of achieving
these levels in this time frame? If you could address
your comments toward that question, I think it would be
most instructive.
MR. STROVEN: I think our comments had been
that from a hardware standpoint, we didn't see much
changes to meet the California proposed Option B
standards versus v/hat we've already programmed. The
stringency of those programs is obviously more severe.
i
To meet a .7 NOx standard, as we have stated in the
statement here, we have no technical feasibility across
our entire product line that we can meet that standard.
We weren't working to a .7, since that hadn't been
in the cards in the previous past, and we were working
to 1.0 gram.
I think I stated at the hearings that we
have reasonably good confidence that our small four-
cylinder engines could meet the standard. My assessment, i
i
and it was an engineering assessment only, that the ]
CEBTJP1EC SHORTHANC BEPO^TERS
{415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
89
mid-size and larger engines was from the 50 per cent
or less confidence level. But we really have no data
to back this up.
V/e are planning to investigate this, but
to date, I have no data on which to make a technical
feasibility statement.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: None at all --
MR. STEOVEN: Not on --
MR. JENSEN: -- to stress compliance with
the Option B '81 standards?
MR. STRGVEN: The systems that would probably
be used under that option, and that was brought out
by Mr. Rubenstein, were probably three-way systems
without the cleanup catalyst, along with the feedback
fuel metering system. We have worked with this with
our smaller engines. Therefore, I have data and I
have an idea whether or not we can meet that standard.
We have not worked with these type of
systems, since we were assuming that the standard for
CO was 3.4 and our initial attempts at meeting 3.4 CO
with any of the intermediate and larger engines were
totally unsuccessful. So, therefore, that's why Ford
went with the primary assumption of a cleanup catalyst
behind the three-way, and that's the way all of our I
i
work has been done. i
ERTlFlgO 3HOPTMANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
90
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I seem to be getting a
different answer. It is expected that regardless of
what system you are using and what your target was,
your statement is that with regard to what you intended
to do that you have no data to demonstrate compliance
with the Option B standards for 1981.
MR. STROVEN: On our intermediate and larger
size engines, I have no data to make a technical
feasibility statement on.
We have lots of data at the hydrocarbon
levels of .41, and we have many, many comparisons --
and that's one of the things I am prepared to discuss
today -- of our ability to meet a total hydrocarbon
standard versus a non-methane hydrocarbon standard.
But the issue of 1.0 gram of NOx versus .7 grams of
NOx, I do not have the data there to make a technical
I
feasibility statement on.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Does Ford have any data?
MR. STROVEN: Does Ford?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes.
MR. STROVEN: That's who I am.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Just wanted to make sure.
MR. GRAY: Do you have a judgment --
MR. JENSEN: Let me make --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: The reason I ask that --
DcRTiFlgD SHORTHANO REPORTERS
{413) 543-3194/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
just as a point of clarification -- is that it may not
be availble to you and that may be an accurate statement,
but I wanted to make sure that the question reflected
data available to Ford Motor Company.
MR. JENSEN: I want to make it clear and
repeat, really, what Mr. Stroven said.
On the smaller engines, he did say we do
have data, because we've tried experimental vehicles
with three-way catalyst only in the smaller engines.
But we've always felt, because our assumptions were
3.4 gram CO, that we had to have a follow-on oxidation
catalyst. And, so, we don't have data on the inter-
mediate and larger engines. I think that's what you
said.
So, the statement we have no data is not
accurate. There is data for the smaller engines.
MR. EPPEL: Mr. Jackson, on the other point,
obviously .Mr. Stroven is made available today. He is
the Exec. Engineer in the Advanced Product area, and
he is the person in the company who is reasonably and
probably as well familiar with these issues as anybody
in the company. But I don't really think you can expect
a witness to come here and say -- I'm not trying to
raise a red herring or anything. I certainly don't
know of any. I don't think anybody else does. But I
(415) 543-3194/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
don't think you can get a witness out here and have him
say does Ford Motor Company have anywhere in the entire
engineering research area, one piece of data on an issue.
He is in charge of developing these systems. As such,
I think you can expect him to be familiar with the
material and the work that's going into developing them.
On that basis, I think he can answer that
he does or doesn't have data.
MR. GRAY: What types of systems would you
look at for these larger engines that would be different
than the systems that you would consider for those
engines, comparing the 1.0 gram NOx to the .7 gram NOx?
MR. STROVEN: That would be the same system
that we mentioned we looked at on our smaller engines,
and that would be a three-way catalyst without a
cleanup oxidation system, along with closed-loop fuel
metering system.
MR. GRAY: But that's the same system you'd
use with the 1.0 gram NOx, right, for those engines?
MR. STROVEN: At the 1.0 gram of NOx, again,
we have been assuming that our standard for CO was 3.4
and, therefore, we have worked with oxidation cleanup
catalysts because the larger engines were -- our initial
attempts were so far away that that's why Ford switched
their prime hardware program to a three-way, plus
EPTIFlgO SHORTHANC flgPORTEflS
(415) 543-3194M61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
93
cleanup. Really, the work that has been done in the
last year and a half, two years, has been on those
systems.
MR. GRAY: But to meet the previous California
standards, which are .39 non-methane, 9.0 CO, and 1.0
NOx, what systems would you have used? Certainly, you
had time and, I assume, were looking into that issue.
In other words, I am trying to get an
idea. Are you talking hardware changes in going from
the previous situation to today's situation, or are you
talking about -- What are you talking about in order to
get from 1.0 gram NOx to .7?
MR. STROVEN: The difference between 1.0
gram and .7 grams of NOx, again, if we had a high CO
standard to work to, if that was the assumption, we
would not use the cleanup catalyst and take the
advantage of the additional cleanup, where we don't
re-oxidize ammonia back to NO with the cleanup catalyst.
So, we would take advantage of the three-way, stand-alone
improved efficiency.
Judgmentally, you would be at about the
same feedgas. The emissions out of the engine for NOx
would be approximately the same for the two systems,
but you would achieve a lower tailpipe number.
j
MR. GRAY: Okay. I guess that's what I was j
& WILSON
-lORTHAND REPORTERS
(*15) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
94
wanting to drive at.
With the higher CO standard with the Option
B, as compared to California's Option A, the 7.0 grams
of CO and the .7 NOx , would you need a cleanup catalyst
at the 7.0 gram CO? In other words, Option A is 3.4
and 1, and Option B is 7.0 and .7. Is that an inappro-
priate trade-off? It sounds like that Option B would
allow you to not use the cleanup catalyst and as a
result not oxidize ammonia to NO and, therefore, give
you a lower tailpipe emission level. Is that incorrect?
MR. STROVEN: No, that's correct. As I
said before, we have data to substantiate that we have
reasonably good confidence in doing that with our
small engines. I have no data to say whether or not
I could meet the .7 or the 7.0 gram CO with our inter-
mediate or larger engines.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But absent data, what's
your judgment?
MR. STROVEN: That was the judgment I
gave previously, and I said my confidence level would
be 50 per cent or a little bit less.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: 7/hat would you do in
near term to improve that?
MR. STROVEN: Today, for 1931, my hardware
plans are locked in, our vendor commitments are pretty
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(*15) 543 3194US1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
95
well signed up, and I'd have to go with the systems
I described before. It's a situation of either we
could or could not.
As I stated, my engineering confidence of
being able to do that is 50-50 or less.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But there is absolutely
nothing you could or would do to improve that confidence
between now and the time you have to produce cars in
1981 for California?
MR. STROVEN: Not in the way of hardware, no.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, anything.
MR. STROVEN: The attempts would be made
as taking the hardware I described and determining
whether or not, with calibrations and various strategies
that we have available to us with our electronic controls,
to see whether we could achieve these levels.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What would you do?
MR. STROVEN: First of all, I would start
out with the hardware. I would tackle the problem of
the feedback system on three-way stand-alone and attempt
to determine within -- Starting out, let's say, back
even further with mapping data. Ford does a lot of
mapping of our engines, and that would establish my
initial calibration. I would go to an actual vehicle
engine-type test, and on chassis rolls with that base
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194M61-3G98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
96
calibration, start out with and attempt to refine it
and determine if or not, the hardware that I have in
place that's committed for '81 had the ability on
that particular vehicle and engine to meet those
standards. That's not a quick process. It takes time.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How long?
MR. STROVEN: To find out on feasibility,
I would say nine months away to establishing with
confidence of whether I could meet those standards.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That would be chipping
away at that 50 per cent confidence?
MR. STROVEN: Right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: In other words, it would
be improving? It wouldn't make it any worse?
MR. STROVEN: It could be. I could come
out and find out that my confidence level -- as I said,
it's an engineering judgment. When I get done, I may
say, "Hey, on this engine my confidence level has moved
to 70 per cent and on this engine vehicle package, my
confidence has moved to zero or 20 per cent."
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What's your normal
confidence at this time away from the production year?
MR. STROVEN: When we work with hardware,
we attempt to work to SO per cent confidence level
objectives. In some cases, we have to lower those.
SMYTHE & WILSON
Certified shoathano reporters
(415) 543-3194/4610098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
In some of the work that we have been doing recently,
we have had to lower our confidence levels because we
could not achieve our 80 per cent confidence level
object ives.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What was acceptable to
you? What was the lowest confidence level that was
acceptable to you?
MR. STROVEN: Up until this time, 80 per
cent is what we worked with. That was the 1978 model
year .
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Y/hat is it that you were
referring to that you would lower it to?
MR. STROVEN: In looking at the material
that I have here for the confidence level of meeting
both a total hydrocarbon or a non-methane hydrocarbon
standard, we have been working to an objective of 65
per cent confidence of being able to certify. V/'e could
not achieve our 80 per cent confidence level objectives.
We had to move those objectives down.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So, really in a practical
sense, all you are talking about is improving your
confidence by 15 per cent to be in a position to be
acceptable to the corporation in terms of production of
'81 model year cars?
MR. STROVEN: We don't consider 65 per cent
(41S) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
acceptable, but we have had to live with it recently.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If you have to live with
it, it's acceptable. It's viable.
ME. EPPEL: Mr. Jackson, viable for what?
For an engineer to work with, with three years to go, or
us to put cars on the road in '81?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: The presumption was with
regard to putting cars on the road, because that's
where I am ending up in my comments, is being able to
produce cars for the 1981 model year to these standards.
MR. JENSEN: Let me talk a little bit about
the confidence levels, and I'm not as close to it as
Mr. S t r o v e n.
But from where I sit in running the
certification program, if you've got an SO per cent
confidence package, you can run a minimum number of
50,000-mile cars because you are pretty sure you are
going to be home. If you've got 65 per cent, you run
more 50,000-mile cars. You throw a lot more at it
because, as everybody knov/s in this room, the statistical
validity of one car running 50,000 miles is not there.
So, you throw a lot of 50,000-mile cars at it, and
it's more expensive, you start earlier, you run
different waves. There's a lot of things you have to
do if you haven't got an 80 per cent confidence level.
SMYTHE & WILSON
certified SHORTHAND reporters
(415) 443-3134,'4613098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
99
So, what I am saying" here -- from a certifi-
cation standpoint, now, and Mr. Stroven may disagree
from his piece of this because I am responsible for
certification and he is responsible for engineering
the product -- It involves a lot more time, a lot more
cost, and a lot more effort as you drop that down.
But it's still the ultimate goal to get cars on the
road, and that's why you do it that way?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Taking your
comments in connection with his judgment, if he came to
you with a package for which he deemed there was only
50 per cent confidence, it's just a matter of increasing
the number of cars you run, increasing the amount of
money you have to spend to get the cars certified to
assure some level of availability for the dealerships?
MR. JENSEN: It's a changing ballgame, too,
as you know. In the past, what you said would be true.
You throw ten cars and hope one would pass with an
acceptable DF, deterioration factor.
In the future, as you get into more and
more end-of-line production and enforcement procedures,
such as exist in California, and which the Federal
Government is looking at, this could change. So, we
are really talking at a point of time. I would accept
what you said based on today's rules and regulations j
MYTHE & WILSON
SRTIPlED SHORTHAND REPORTERS (<15) 543.3194(46,.3038
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
and so forth, but it could change by '81, as you know.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What are you suggesting
would change?
MR. JENSEN: There's a number of things in
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 that will be
coming down the -- being put into effect by 1981, such
as -- Well, Mr. Eppel , you can list them. They are
looking at in-use tests, they are looking at different
kinds of -- EPA apparently, or at least Congress told
EPA, to look at different kinds of production line
tests. So, these things by '81 could be there.
California is considering revision of
their assembly-1ine test procedures. I don't know
what's going to be in effect in 1981 that we'd have to
meet, but there is more and more emphasis of controlling
the levels that we see in production, in the field,
as opposed to the certification prototype emission
levels.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What you are saying is
that being certified doesn't mean you can meet standards?
MR. JENSEN: That's correct. Could mean
that in 1981. You and I don't know yet. But it's a
pretty good assumption we'll have a lot of different
requirements in that respect.
MR. GRAY: Perhaps following this up from
{4151 543-3194/4Q1 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
a little different path, in the early part of your
comments, you expressed concern that EPA is apparently
now communicating that they may retain the total
hydrocarbon standard instead of moving toward a non-
methane standard.
In that discussion, you make the statement,
"It was on this basis," the assumption of a non-methane
standard, I assume, "that we testified before Congress
that given time," and I assume that meant 1980 because
that's what was adopted, I think, with strong reference
to Ford testimony in Congress, "standards of .41 non-
methane HC, 3.4 CO, and 1.0 NOx were feasible and
could be met with little penalty and fuel economy."
The problem at least I am having in identi-
fying the transition here is, especially as related to
California's option a year later in 1981, which allows
hydrocarbon being the same as what you testified was
feasible, but allows higher CO levels by a factor of
over two times and yet reduces NOx by 30 per cent.
And there seems to be some opportunity at least, because
to achieve a 3.4 CO, I think Ford has amply testified
and stated that in their judgment right now, it would
require a cleanup oxidation catalyst, which also
oxidizes some ammonia to NO, and I'm still having a
hard time getting back to if you can meet .41 non-methane,
rcoricien euno-ru*k.,r\ oesrarCBQ
(41!) 543-3194/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
3.4 CO, and 1.0 NOx, why, when you are allowed to take
off the cleanup catalyst which oxidizes ammonia, you
couldn't get lower NOx. And I guess the issue is: How
much NOx is formed with the cleanup oxidation catalyst?
Are we talking about three-tenths of a gram, or are we
talking about one-tenth? Is that additional two-tenths,
one-tenth, whatever, attainable through adjustments?
We still have other possibilities to control NOx, and
how does this fit back to what you testified is feasible,
I guess, is the heart of it, in relation to the cleanup
catalyst oxidation among the first, and then we will
go from there.
MR. JENSEN: Mr. Stroven should answer this.
Let me talk first about the testimony, because I was
there and Mr. Stroven wasn't.
The Senate hearings in '".arch -- V.'as it March
or May? -- at any rate, this spring, the Senate
Committee asked each manufacturer what they could meet
and at what fuel economy penalty. Mr. Misch was our
witness and said that, in effect, if we hit all home runs,
if our development proceeded satisfactorily, we could
achieve .41, 3.4, and 1.0 gram of NOx in 1981 with a
minimum fuel economy loss. And the .41 he was referring
to was a non-methane hydrocarbon standard. That is
why we had the prime system "-lr. Stroven is talking
CcPTJFIgD SHCBTMANO aePOfiTEflS
|415) 543-3194/^61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
103
about, which is the follow-on catalyst.
Now, your question is a technical one that
Mr. Stroven could answer and I couldn't.
MR. GRAY: I think I mentioned 1980 before,
and I was in error. 1981 is correct.
MR. STROVEN: The problem is that what you
were assuming, if we just remove the cleanup catalyst
and we will get the extra benefit of NOx conversion
with a three-way only, the issue is then can I meet
the CO standard. And that's where I don't know. If
I can't meet the CO standard and I require that oxidation
catalyst, then you have substantially increased my
task from an engine out standpoint because right now
I know about how far I can go down with an engine before
the engine will not be acceptable for a customer to
drive.
You are asking from a conversion efficiency
standpoint a substantial improvement that we do not
believe is currently there as far as the technical
feasibility of -- our catalyst technology, I should say,
I don't think is there right now.
MR. GRAY: Is that a CO control problem
instead of a NOx problem without the catalyst? If you
didn't have a cleanup catalyst on the tailpipe of these
heavier vehicles, larger engines, what levels of NOx
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) S43-3194M61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
104
and CO would come out?
MR. STROVEN: I'm not sure. Again, as I
said, I don't have the data. I'm not sure what my NOx
will come out. I think I will be a lot closer to the
seven-tenths than I would be with the cleanup on,
definitely, because I am going to get that improvement.
But my issue is: I don't know whether I can meet a
7.0 gram of CO standard.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: In your engine mapping,
which you indicated you did -- I don't understand it
all -- but what was your assumption with regard to the
cleanup catalyst in terms of the amount of CO it would
take out and the amount of NO it would create? You
must have had some judgment about that when you added
that for the purpose of getting to 3.4.
MR. 3TROVEN: We've worked with an actual --
what's final. You know, the net effect, not rather
than what's happening in between, in the intermediate
steps.
Our assumptions have been that our catalyst
technology is such that we think that over 50,000 miles
we can maintain SO per cent efficiency on hydrocarbons,
80 per cent on CO, and 40 per cent on NC'x. But to tell
you how much that reconverts if I start with a given --
As you said, my mapping data tells me what I start
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(4151 543-J194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
with, and with the two catalysts in place, that's
what I get in the final tailpipe number. The bulk of
the CO percentage is with the cleanup catalyst. It's
less on the hydrocarbons and, of course, the cleanup
catalyst is actually hurting you. It's a negative
efficiency on NOx.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand. That's
what I am getting at. Nowhere is there available at
Ford information which would permit them to determine
for these bigger engines how much CO you got from the
cleanup catalyst, how much CO cleanup you got, and how
much NOx detriment you got.
MR. 5TR0VEN: Given time, as I said before,
I think I could answer that question. And I could
probably make a better judgment in less than the time
it takes me to develop a complete car that is actually
demonstrating these levels.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But you haven't done that?
MR. STROVEN: I have not done that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What you are telling us
is you really don't know. It may be that you are
getting less CO cleanup and more NOx production on this
cleanup catalyst than what you hypothesized when you
get to this 50 per cent judgment.
MR. GRAY: I'm not sure, when you restated
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
my answer, what you meant.
MR. JENSEN: Let me interrupt here just a
minute. We do engine mapping in a lot of places in
the company and not all under Mr. Stroven. I don't
know if there is data. You keep saying if we've got
data like that around. I don't know.
Vr'ith your permission, Mr. Chairman, let me
go back and see whether we've got that data that would
answer this question. I think it's a reasonable
question, and we may have some engine mapping data that
would answer it. If we have, we will furnish it for
the record.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me explain to you
where I am coming from. I think Mr. Gray has raised an
entirely relevant point here, and it gets to this judgment
that you have to make with regard to your ability to meet
these standards. ^Je have learned that engine mapping
or some sort of judgment about the kind of control you
are going to get from various different pieces of hardware
is something that is very sophisticated and Ford goes
to a lot of trouble to determine; yet we are asking
the question: 7,'hen you take off this cleanup catalyst,
how much does that hurt you in terms of CC control, and
how much does it help you in terms of NOx control? And
that would allow us to take existing data, apply those j
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
1415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
factors, and make some judgment of our own about your
capability to meet these Option B standards in 1981.
And it just seems to me that if that information is
available in some form that it would be relevant to
your case here.
MR. EPPEL: Mr. Jackson, we will try to get
it for you in ther terms that you asked for it. I
think you asked for it in terms of grams per mile or
tenths of grams per mile if we have it. I don't have
any idea if we have it or not. If we have it in that
form, we will give it to you.
I just feel called upon again to caution
you about International Harvester and other technical
judgments. It's one thing to take it off one kind of an
engine and apply it to a similar engine, and some other
thing, I am sure, to take it off of a four-cylinder and
apply it to an eight.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's not what we are
asking you. The smaller engines we are not talking about
because you've got high confidence there. What we're
talking about is the bigger engines.
MR. EPPEL: I understand that. But I am
suggesting to you -- you said we can take that data and
apply it to data that we might have. All I an saying
is I caution you again about applying, for example, in
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(4151 50-3194/4610096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
108
the case we might have it on the four-cylinders and
putting it on the eight cylinders and adding and
subtracting grams per mile. I
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, no. I am proceeding
to develop our capacity to go through the same kind of
judgment that this gentleman did.
MR. EPPEL: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And I was just looking
at the information somewhat differently and not trying
to go from one car line to another car line necessarily,
but looking at the same car line.
MR. EPPEL: Fine.
MR. GRAY: Y;hat system did you anticipate
using in the event that your suggestions or recommenda-
tions were adopted by California; just the three-way
system with no cleanup catalyst?
MR. STROVEN: My assumption now v/ould be
I'd stick with the system that is a Ford prime system
with a cleanup.
I assume, Mr. Gray, you are referring to
the .39, 7.0, and 1.0 suggested in Mr. Jensen's
statement.
VR. GRAY: I think in regard to the trade-off,
as to the use of additional cost and fuel economy
penalty or what have you, this cleanup catalyst and how
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461 3093
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
it relates to NOx, it is very critical to your case
here and certainly the data that you do have would be
quite beneficial.
Looking at the light-duty trucks -- unless
there's more questions on light-duty passenger cars,
which I guess there's not -- it appears that you are
making the judgment that for one group, the lighter
group of light-duty trucks, that because of higher test
loads that the standards may be more difficult to achieve
for that group of trucks; is that right? 7hat is your
argument that you are presenting to us as to why those
lighter light-duty trucks could not meet the California
standards?
MR. EPPEL: Mr. Gray, before we get to that,
Mr. Stroven has with him, and v/e are prepared to discuss,
and we'd like to at least offer it for the record, some
data that we have that speaks to our ability in the
1981 time frame to reach a .41 total hydrocarbon standard.
MR. GRAY: T.7e will come back to that. I just
felt that this was a technical feasibility issue in a
general sense, especially as it relates to CO and NOx,
and then we can come back to HC. That's why I intention-
ally wasn't asking anything about that.
EPPEL: Ckay.
MR. JENSEN: Do you want to ans'ver it, Mr.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194M« 1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
Stroven?
MP.. STROVEN: Yes. The standards, as proposed
are -- When we make a break point at 4,000 pounds -- In
other words, a 3500-pound light truck would be subjected
to standards that are quite a bit more severe than would
be a 4,000-pound vehicle. ?/ith the switch from GVW-type
of classification to inertia weight, it's moved a lot
of our vehicles right down to the 4,000, 4500-pound
point. With fuel economy standards to be met, there is
incentive, for the manufacturers at least, to reduce
weight. But there is a counter-incentive from an
emission standard --
MR. GRAY: May I interrupt you just for a
second to be sure I understood a point that you made.
That was that Ford anticipates being able to
drop its light-duty truck weights from 4500 pounds to
below 4,000?
MR. STROVEN: A lot of our trucks classified
on inertia weight fall into the full-size light trucks
as we would term our F100, E100 series vehicles will
fall into the 4,000-pound inertia weight class.
As I was saying, there's additional incentive
with fuel economy standards to want to even further
reduce weight in this light-duty recreation vehicle
I
class, or where the vehicles are used for light hauling,
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS (415)
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
down even further.
But there is a counter-argument to once you
drop the weight of that vehicle, now you are subjected
to having to meet a substantially more severe emission
standard, which tends to negate the fuel economy gain
made by reducing the weight.
MR. GRAY: I understand your concern.
MR. STROVEN: Therefore, you've kind of taken
away the incentive. We want to get good fuel economy,
but if we lower the weight and go through the cost of
redesigning and taking weight out and then find out
that the net effect is we didn't get anything for it.
MR. GRAY: Okay. I just wanted to be sure
your comment was understood.
You are saying that there is a serious
effort in Ford to down-size its prime half-ton pickup,
which is the F100, so that it would fall into the 3500-
pound inertia weight category?
MR. STROVEN: There would be incentive to
do that if we could get the fuel economy advantage,
with the emission standards as they are right now, and
if it is feasible within our cycle plan to do that.
MR. JENSEN: Let me interrupt just a minute,
because fuel economy standards for trucks is an issue
here .
SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
112
Under the Energy Act, the Department of
Transportation, Secretary of Transportation, has to
adopt fuel economy standards for 6,000-pound trucks
and under, and he has an option between six and ten
thousand pounds. Unfortunately, from our standpoint,
his time period for doing this, as spelled out in the
Energy Act, is like a year before the trucks hit the
marketplace. So, all we've got now is a '79 model
year fuel economy standard. We don't know what he is
going to specify for '80, '81, and so on down the line.
We've talked to the Department of Transportation and
have sent them communications asking for advance notice
on where they are headed.
'i'e' ve got an advantage on passenger cars
because we know what we've got to meet in 1985 and what
we've got to meet each year to get there. We don't know
what we've got to meet on trucks. We don't know how
high he will go.
Mr. Carter in his .March energy message did
say that they we re going to put standards in for all
the trucks up to 10,000 pounds. We don't know how they
are going to categorize them. Until we know this --
and we've told this to the Secretary of Transportation --
we can hardly make these kind of judgments about how
we are going to meet the standards; take the weight out
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND P6PORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
like we are doing on passenger cars, or different
engines, or whatever. So, we really are in a kind of
state of uncertainty until we know where DOT's going
on this, because we only right now have one year
specified by them, and that's the '79 model year for fuel
economy for under 6,000 pounds.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: This seems kind of against
your argument about your incentive. The one thing you
do know is what the fuel economy requirements are going
to be and emission standards are going to be for under
6,000 pounds.
MR. JENSEN: No. Just for 1979. One year.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Just for one year?
MR. JENSEN: That's our problem.
MR. GRAY: But how can we take your argument
on that hand, and from the perspective of emissions, be
obliged to consider it, because you made the argument
that this more stringent standard will be such to
increase fuel economy, perhaps -- fuel consumption, that
is — for the small trucks because of higher emission
standards. So, what we are simply asking is: Are you
saying that it's feasible to down-size a pickup truck?
'.7e want to get at the heart of the basis for this
statement. I mean, is it a reality that you may be
down-sizing these trucks, and is it a reality that they
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 5*3-3194/4S1 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
will indeed be subjected to more stringent standards,
or is it --
MR. JENSEN: We've got to go through our
thought processes at Ford. We read what the Secretary
of Transportation did in passenger cars. Everything
that's ever come out by the Secretary of Transportation
has been to make fuel economy standards much tougher
than anybody ever recommended from the automobile
industry. He adds two miles per gallon year by year.
We don't expect him to give away the store to the
automobile industry and trucks. We've got a lot of
people back at home looking at what we have to do if
the Secretary of Transportation does it to us in trucks
like he did it to us in passenger cars. And one of the
things we are looking at as a potential is the down-sizing
of trucks.
But I can't really answer your question.
Are we going to do it, or are we not going to do it?
There's a lot of people saying maybe he will take into
account that trucks move goods and, therefore, they
shouldn't give them such a tough fuel economy standard.
There's about half the company that doesn't believe that.
I'm in the half that doesn't believe that.
MP,. GRAY: I understand your point there.
All I am getting at is: Are you making the argument i
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 343*3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
here today that it's feasible that you can take an
F100 which has a payload of, say, 2,000 pounds and take
weight out of that vehicle such that you don't compromise
payload, and make it fall into a smaller inertia weight
category? If so, then you've a legitimate concern
relative to the emission standards. If not, you don't,
because it will be a different kind of truck.
MR. JENSEN: On technical feasibility, I'll
have to ask you, Mr. Stroven.
MR. STROVEN: We think it is possible to
get that class of a truck down to that weight. Otherwise,
we wouldn't be making this argument.
MR. GRAY: Okay. Then, relative to the
stringency with respect to this -- I think your other
point was that you had a heavier load on the trucks
as compared to passenger cars because we are comparing,
really --
MR. STRCVEN: The road load horsepowers are
higher, correct.
MR. GRAY: But California -- if I can find
the right table.
MR. JENSEN: Page 12.
MR. GRAY: Right. For light-duty trucks in
this particular category that you are concerned about,
I
the light category does have the same level of hydrocarbon]
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOflTWANO SEPOflTEPS
(415) 543-3l9*f4«i-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
control, the same level of carbon monoxide control, but
appears to have recognized the concern, the problem,
over the higher duty cycle for light trucks in that they
did allow a substantially higher oxides of nitrogen
standard for that category. So, are we somehow missing
your point, because the data that we have at least
indicates that this road load effect is primarily an
effect on oxides of oxygen?
MR. JENSEN: You are talking about 1980.
If you look down at 1983 and subsequent to the bottom
part of that table, look at the oxides of nitrogen
there.
MR. GRAY: Is your comment, then, just
directed toward '83 and subsequent, since that's the
year that it appears there's not a proportionally higher
standard?
MR. STROVEN: That also applies in '81. You
are looking at 1.0 gram of NQx also in that light-duty
truck.
MR. GRAY: Right. It depends on which option
you assume a manufacturer is going with, I guess. Of
course, you have recommended 1.0 gram for passenger
cars. I'll grant you that.
MR. STROVEN: You have to compare that to
the standard for the 4,000-pound inertia weight class
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS S43.3,mm61.30M
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
vehicle, which is the one just below it, which is .5
on hydrocarbon non-methane, and 1.5 on NOx.
MR. GRAY: I agree totally with your
concern. I mean, you have made the point that there is
a mo re stringent standard for lighter trucks and that
that would have certain technology implications for
any manufacturer. I mean, there is a step function
change in the standards. I think we have heard your
argument there and have tried to clarify your test imony
in that regard.
But separating that and then just looking
at that particular group that you are concerned about,
your concern really comes to play depending on how things
fall out in '81 and then '83 because in '82, it reverts
back to a more stringent level for the passenger cars?
MR. STROVEN: Yes. The issue is more
between the two truck standards, I believe, than the
passenger car-truck issue so much as it is between --
There is the incentive, if you v/ant at 4,000 pounds to
spend money to down-size, to take weight out, etc., to
get down to 3500 pounds to meet a substantially more
severe emission standard, it's generally resulted in
lower fuel economy. The net effect may be that you
get nothing for the money spent to down size the vehicle
!
and take weight out, besides having to use higher j
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(115) 543-3194/4C1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
technology hardware. The bottom line is you went through
the exercise and didn't get anything for it.
MR. GRAY: I only asked the other question
because you had mentioned it as a concern in comparison
to that smaller category to the passenger car standards.
That seemed to be the one key technical problem that you
commented on with respect to the small truck category
in terms of technical feasibility. That group of trucks
has a higher, more stringent test situation, higher
road load, more specifically, than do passenger cars;
therefore, it would be more difficult to meet a given
level of control.
First of all, I was trying to find out if
you were arguing that it would be more difficult with
respect to HC and CO, and I assume it's not. If you
do, let me give you this opportunity to say that you
think it would be more difficult with respect to those
two pollutants.
MR. STROVEN: Well, hydrocarbons, if we
include the zero- to 4,000-pound vehicle, I have the
same issues there as I do with passenger cars, as far
as manual transmissions go.
MR. GRAY: Right. But comparing one to
the other, you are not arguing that higher road load
has a substantially higher --
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
MR. STROVEN: Oh, the higher road load, okay.
MR. GRAY: The effect is on NOx?
MR. STROVEN: The effect is on NOx, that's
right.
MR. GRAY: Okay. I v/anted to clarify that
point.
Then, once we have clarified that, I was
simply trying to address the remaining more specific
issue of the fact that California at least initially did
give some recognition to the differences in NOx control
potential, if you will, between these categories. I
guess it really boils down as to whether or not in 1981,
which is where the discrepancy stands now as to the
feasibility of one gram for light-duty trucks -- Is that
correct?
MR. STROVEN: That and compared to -- I
think our other argument we covered here was the issue
on the 4,000 pounds. It's the break point as to where
it's properly placed.
MR. GRAY: I fully understand your argument
there.
I guess going, then, back to the issue of the
hydrocarbon standard, perhaps a way to introduce this
discussion would be to ask Ford if there is agreement
with CARB that there is only a marginal difference in
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO ^PORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
terms of the difficulty of meeting a non-methane standard
at .39, and a total hydrocarbon standard at .41.
MR. STROVEN: With the systems that v/e have
planned -- and I'll be covering that -- there is a
significant difference in our ability to meet one versus
the other.
MR. GRAY: Would you quantify "significant"?
MR. STROVEN: It takes me from a confidence
level in some cases of low or moderate, to a case of
either a very high cert risk, or the ability not to
certify at all. I'll cover that here in this material
that I just gave you.
MR. GRAY: Okay. Do you want to present
this before we have more questions?
MR. STROVEN: Yes.
As Mr. Jensen mentioned earlier, all of
Ford's emission control plans and development efforts
for low hydrocarbon and NOx standards had been done
under the assumption of a non-methane hydrocarbon
standard.
As I mentioned earlier in speaking to CARB's
proposed Option B, I really have insufficient data to
speak to that at this time.
Y»"hat v/e would like to address today is our
ability to meet the Option A standards, more specifically,
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOPTWAND *EPOflTEfl$
(415) 50-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
the total hydrocarbon standard called out in Option B.
In doing this, several methodologies were
employed by Ford to project the capability of meeting ;
I
certification durability requirements. j
i
The first methodology we used was to take
our best effort development levels, which I have in this
package and we will cover, modified by a systems'
maturity task, which is -- We've made assessments of
those things that we still have to incorporate, and so,
what that will be worth to us before '81. These were
compared to Monte Carlo methodology development objectives
A 65 per cent confidence level of success was employed,
consistent with a multiple 50K car certification
strategy. As I mentioned earlier, this was a deviation
from our past practices where we have always assumed
80 per cent confidence levels.
The second methodology I used was to project
a 50K tailpipe levels. These were compared to the 50K
standard. Development emission levels, modified again
by a systems' maturity task, were projected to 50K using
DF's obtained from actual fleet experience. These were
primarily fleets that ran with the systems or systems
very similar to what we are programming for 1981.
The third methodology used was: projected
50K tailpipe levels were compared to the 50K standard.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
122
These were based on feedgas development emission levels
projected to 50K utilizing DF's obtained from fleet
experience; projected nominal catalyst efficiencies
were applied of 80/80/40; then a systems' maturity
task was applied; and then, finally, these were compared
to the 50K standard.
We feel this is probably a very bullish
position, because what we have assumed here is that we
will have the ability to just meet the standard at 50K.
That I have termed as being a low cert risk, and that
does not take into mind things like end-of-line, selective
enforcement audit, etc.
I want to flip to our second page. I have
the three methodologies outlined.
Under the first one where we use the L'onte
Carlo methodology -- and I think, Mr. Gray, you are
familiar with that methodology that Ford has used in
the past. I have included on Page 5 the Monte Carlo
simulation of the certification durability process
and what we went through and what the objectives were
that were established from this.
Using this methodology and taking into
mind our development task, v/e' ve assessed our ability
to meet a non-methane hydrocarbon standard versus a
total hydrocarbon standard for a complete array of engines!
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3093
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
123
that we plan to have for the 1981 time period.
In the first case, I did not have any data,
so I did not make an assessment.
In the second case, I had data for the
manual, and our confidence level of meeting both is --
our cert risk, I should say, is low in both cases. If
you look at the best effort data, you will see that this
is in the lower inertia weight class, the smaller engine.
In the second case, for both manual and
auto, we had data, and our risk assessment for the
manual was low. Excepting under total hydrocarbon, my
manual assessment was moderate. The automatic was
low cert risk in both cases. Again, these are in lower
inertia weight vehicles.
Now, as I start to move up in inertia weight
class, the vehicle, or engine D, the automatic is
assessed as being a low cert risk with non-methane, but
high under total hydrocarbon.
In the next class, I had data for both
manual and auto. Again, this is a mid-range on inertia
weight. Our confidence level of being able to certify
manual transmissions for this particular engine control
system was we had no confidence of being able to certify
either under non-methane, or total hydrocarbon standard.
For my automatic, my risk assessment was low to moderate
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOflTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543*3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
124
under total hydrocarbon, and the risk assessment was
high for total hydrocarbon (sic).
The next engine I did not have data for.
Moving down to the next one, Engine G, I
have data for both the manual and the auto again. At
this point in time, we have no confidence of being able
to certify a manual at either standard of non-methane
or total. My risk assessment on the auto was moderate
risk for non-methane hydrocarbon standard, but a high
cert risk for a total.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think we pick up --
MR. STROVEN: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think we pick up your
line of thinking on this.
MR. STROVEN: The second methodology, as
you can see, that was the one where we took actual DF's
and projected them -- or multiplied best effort data
to date — and, by the way, this best effort data was
based -- V.'hat I have shown you on Pages 3 and 4, we
selected out of approximately 400 vehicles and 20,000
tests, our best efforts which here represents around
44 vehicles and 155 tests. I have listed these for
feedgas, for tailpipe, shown efficiencies, and this
data is all based on vehicles that have roughly three
to eight thousand miles on them with catalyst systems
SMYTHE & WILSON
certified shorthand reporters
(415) 543-3194/401-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
125
that are aged for 4,000 miles. This is the basis for
comparing these numbers, No. 1, to the Monte Carlo
objectives for our Prognosis No. 1.
Prognosis No. 2, I took best efforts and
mult iplied them times a DF that we established from
fleets, from actual experience, and again, the risk
assessments you can see down there run from low to
not being able to certify the manuals again. In the
larger, heavier vehicles, the risk is low to moderate.
Under total hydrocarbon, several situations of not being
able to certify.
In the final case, we used feedgas levels
only, and we made the assumption of what the catalyst
technology will be for 1981, assuming some task of
beyond what we have been able to demonstrate today, and
use those catalyst efficiencies and apply them to the
feedgas level and project out to 50K. And, again, I
got a risk assessment for non-methane hydrocarbon and
total.
And then the next-to-last column was a
consensus of what we felt that risk would be from the
three methodologies that our prognosis is made. That's
kind of a composite of the three.
|
And then the last column I've shown what 1
i
I
|
the fuel economy loss would be. As we see it from j
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194M61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
mapping data right now, if we had to take the hydrocarbon
levels that we are getting to meet a non-methane hydro-
carbon standard, and bring those down to a level we I
i
would have to meet for a total, that shakes out to |
anywhere from no loss in fuel economy to as high as j
about 25 per cent loss in fuel economy. J
I'd like to make one correction that you
have in your sheets there. In Footnote 2 and Footnote
3, there is reference to -- In the middle of Footnote
2, the reference says, "Tailpipe best effort shown in
Exhibit III." That should be "Pages 3 and 4.'' Pages
3 and 4 were an exhibit I had in another document. I
renumbered them and didn't pick it up here. ?.re will
send you a corrected copy for the record.
Under Footnote 3 below, the second line says,
"Feedgas best effort shown. . Again, it should be
. . on Pages 3 and 4," not "Exhibit II." j
MR. GRAY: Okay. Isn't this detail really '
more appropriately directed just to EPA, since I think J
the ARB has made little doubt, in that their actions j
clearly, at least to me, appear to demonstrate that
they only adopted a total hydrocarbon standard for
1981 so they could enforce their program because the
Federal Government had not yet adopted a non-methane
standard. Looking before and after, the California
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOATHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3T94'«61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
program is non-methane, and even in '81, there is a
non-methane option. So, rather than EPA to respond at
the CARB waiver hearings in terms of a technical dialogue
relative to details, I am sure Ford expects pretty
extensive follow-up from EPA on this issue. Is there
any point in us going into that, since it is an EPA-Ford
or EPA-industry problem instead of an ARB problem,
since the ARB only wants to enforce their programs and
actually stands on record saying that they favor a
non-methane standard? They had some pretty strong
language in their own statement that could be interpreted
as against the EPA position. So, what more can Ford
ask for?
MR. EPPEL: I think you are correct if your
suggestion is that our fight's with you and not with the
ARB on this one. I don't quarrel with that.
But the fact remains that you are going to
have to reach a decision fairly soon on a set of
standards that ARB has requested a waiver for. And they
have requested a waiver for, among other things, .41
total hydrocarbon. We think those standards are
unauthorized, they are unwise, and they are damaging
to Ford Motor Company. And we are not going to just
sit here and not make that known on the record of
this hearing, and v/e are not going to suggest that
SMYTHE & WILSON
CSBTIF1EO SHOATHAND bepopteps
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
there shouldn't be a decision out of the EPA waiver
proceeding on the .41 hydrocarbon.
Now, if you are telling me you are going to
just withhold a decision at this waiver proceeding on
.41 total hydrocarbon, I guess I'll have to scratch
my head and think whether I think that's good or bad.
MR. GRAY: I guess the only point here is
that certainly you have made your case, and I think
very strongly, in each of the areas that seem appropriate
relative to the non-methane issue. But still, that
is the Federal problem, that is the Federal standard,
and that is the current Federal interpretation of how
that standard will be implemented. So, without the
Federal position changing, it would be very difficult
for the agency -- I mean inherently if the agency
denied its waiver request on the grounds that you have
put forth as being logical, then inherently they have
changed their position. So, the agency has to first
resolve the Federal position, and I think you are
very much aware of the current position.
I guess all I am saying is there's not much
more that can be done, other than to receive your
comments on this issue, because it is a Ford-EPA issue,
unless I am missing something in this.
MR. EPPEL: Other than the fact you have to
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(41S) 543-3194M61 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
129
reach a decision on it, and you have to make it with
respect to this waiver request.
MR. GRAY: We have to meet an obligation
relative to the waiver decision, there is no doubt.
But before that can be done, the agency has to establish,
first, what position it will take with respect to this
issue before it can act on this issue. That's all I
am saying.
MR. EPPEL: We are not quarreling with that
proposition at all.
MR. GRAY: Okay. Looking if we might, then,
more specifically to Option B for 1981, which does
allow a non-methane standard, then I think -- if I
may summarize and be corrected if I am inappropriate
in my statement -- that Ford has not problem with
the CARB standards up until the 1981 model year; is
that correct?
MR. JENSEN: Yes.
MR. STROVEN: Yes.
MR. GRAY: Okay. In 1981 model year, the
problem is with respect to the non-methane issue with
Option A. I assume, since if it was a non-methane
standard and since it would be the same as the Federal
standard, that Ford would have no problem with Option
A in 1981 under those provisions. That's what you are
& WILSON
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
saying, too?
MR. JENSEN: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: I am just trying to understand
what you are saying in a more concise manner.
Under Option B, which allows a non-methane
factor, you say at this point there is some degree of
risk associated with meeting the lower CO and NOx
standards together, and you will provide us some data
relative to the trade-off between CO and NOx with
respect to the cleanup catalyst, what data you do have --
MR. JENSEN: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: -- to help us better assess that
issue. And also in '81, there's concern about the
feasibility of the NOx standard for light trucks?
MR. JENSEN: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: Or is it more of a concern of
the transition to counter --
MR. JENSEN: It's where the cutoff points
are.
MR. GRAY: You don't have a technical
feasibility argument, then, with the small truck class?
In other words, in 1981 --
MR. JENSEN: We object to the .4, as you
know, in '83.
MR. GRAY: I agree. I mean I understand.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461*3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
131
MR. JENSEN: Our main issue here is we'd like
to see the segments go from 3,000 pounds inertia weight
to 6,000 poun ds.
I
j
MR. GRAY: I think that's understood. But
I want to be sure that we understand you were saying
that it wasn't technically feasible. You said that it
suffered a fuel economy penalty if you had to meet the
more stringent standard?
MR. STROVEN: The technical feasibility
issue would remain for manuals with the under 4,000
pounds. I think automatics, we have not taken exception
to it .
MR. GRAY: I guess there is one other problem
that we really haven't heard too much Ford comment on,
and that's this take-it-as-a-package approach that
California has offered here. In the event that Option
A became feasible for Ford, namely that -- Let's just
say for the purposes of these hearings that ARB had a
non-methane standard as they do in 1982. Could you
meet the 1982 standards under Option A? I mean, I
haven't heard any comment on that today.
In other words, if I understand the CARB
proposal or regulation, if you go with Option A in
1981, you've got Option A in 1982.
MR. JENSEN: We did, at the top of Page 5,
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 943-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
object to the 1982 standards. But since we have been
through all that at the August 4th waiver hearing, we
just went back to that. Rather than repeat all that,
we just referenced it.
MR. GRAY: Fair enough.
Then, from a very practical standpoint,
Option A is not a viable option for Ford?
MR. JENSEN: The way it stands now, that's
correct .
MR. GRAY: And Option A is the only one
that speaks of a total hydrocarbon standard?
MR. JENSEN: In '81.
MR. GRAY: And it's only in 1981?
MR. JENSEN: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: So, in effect, the non-methane
issue is really not pertinent to Ford's position with
respect to these hearings, since Option A is not a
viable option for Ford anyway in 1981 because that's
the only year there is a non-methane issue.
MR. STROVEN: I'd like to make one comment.
If we found that we could not meet Option
B with certain packages, we could A. I might elect
to build cars for one more year with Option A, rather
than taking them out one year before.
MR. GRAY: It's practical only in the
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461*3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
context that Ford can make cars one more year? I mean,
Option A is a package for '81 and '82, and it means
that Ford can only build cars if you elected Option A
in 1981 if you are saying that in '82 it's infeasible.
MR. JENSEN: We talked about a total product
line. Right along the line, we've said on smaller
cars -- Mr. Stroven has said we have a higher confidence
level, and his charts all showed that. What you say
is accurate, if you are talking about Ford being in
business on a total product line as we are now.
MR. GRAY: We have covered a lot of ground,
and this is a complex maze of options and changes.
I just wanted to try to focus upon some more specific
issues that EPA can try to get into that would relate
more to the guts of the issues as Ford has raised
them. It appears that Option B with respect to feasibi-
lity and CO and NOx is a very real technial objection
that Ford has raised and will have to analyze that
with consideration to additional data, and it's only
in the context you are trying to establish what
specifically EPA has to establish here, or to evaluate
that I am trying to get some sort of summary of our
rather lengthy discussion.
MR. EPPEL: Mr. Gray, just a second. Are
you suggesting that EPA doesn't have the power to j
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
M1S> 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
conditionally grant waivers so that you could break up
that package?
MR. GRAY: No.
MR. EPPEL: Okay.
MR. GRAY: I'm just trying to establish
what Ford's position is as clearly as I can so that
I'll know what we've got to deal with.
MR. EPPEL: That's all we want.
MR. GRAY: I think, as you said before,
that your comments to the August 3rd and 4th hearing
still apply relative to 1982 Option A, or 1983 total
package, and we need not go back into that today, as far
as Ford is concerned.
MR. JENSEN: Yes.
Mr. Chairman, we never did let Ms. Petrauskas
say anything.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We are going to. I know
what she's got to say, too.
Just for my own edification, Ford can meet
1981 .39 non-methane, 3.4 CO, 1.0 NOx?
MR. JENSEN: Yes, sir.
MR. EPPEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before we go to Ms.
Petrauskas, I wanted to clarify something that may have
been misleading in terms of a statement made by Mr. Gray
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(4151 543 3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
135
as to what the EPA must do before they can grant a waiver
to California.
It is unresolved as to whether the USEPA
must make a definitive determination with regard to the
HC standard before a waiver can be granted to the CARB
for its HC emission standard.
MR. EPPEL: Mr. Jackson, I guess I am kind
of slow. I didn't understand that. Could you read
that again.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It is unresolved as to
whether the USEPA must make a definitive determination
with regard to the Federal HC standard of .41 before
a waiver can be granted to the CARB for its 1981 hydro-
carbon standard.
MR. EPPEL: Let me see if I can state that
so I understand it. Are you suggesting that there
need not be a final firm Federal standard prior to the
granting of California, a waiver for their standards?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I didn't say that. I
said it's unresolved.
MR. EPPEL: It's unresolved?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's why I used the
word "unresolved."
MR. EPPEL: Okay. I hope somebody resolves
it quickly.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(41S1 543-3194M61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before we leave your
statement, Mr. Jensen, I want to make another point
for clarifying the record.
On Page 5 and I believe again on Page 7,
you asked that "Our testimony before the EPA waiver
hearing on August 4, 1977, in this respect be incorporatec
as part of the record of this hearing."
As we pointed out in the notice of the
hearing, we are willing to receive any new or additional
information with regard to these matters, but as far as
the physical incorporation of that testimony into this
record, I don't believe it's necessary because this
record is indeed a part of that proceeding.
MR. EPPEL: That's fine.
MR. JENSEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It's a continuum that's
flowed from the amendments to the Clean Air Act.
MR. JENSEN: Yes, sir.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: I'd like to discuss briefly
a document that's entitled "Statement of Ford Motor
Company Clean Air Amendments of 1977 -- Limitations on
Maintenance Adopted by California," a copy of which
you rece ived.
At the August waiver hearing, Ford testified i
i
I
that with regard to the maintenance restrictions j
i
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
I
i
adopted by California, it was very important to view
separately the restrictions that apply during
i
certification and the restrictions that apply to in-use i
!
I
vehicles. That is, limitations on what the manufacturer
may tell purchasers.
We took the position that no waiver could
be granted because the California provisions would
conflict with Federal requirements and that indeed the
regulations weren't even eligible to be considered for
a waiver because they were not a standard or an
accompanying enforcement procedure.
Let me take the last of those first, because
it's a reoccurring statement that the ARB has made.
Section 209(a) provides that first, no
state shall adopt standards relating to new motor
vehicles; secondly, it says that no state shall adopt j
any condition precedent to the sale of title or j
registration that's related to control of emissions.
It then goes on, and for one state -- Let's
put the Eckhardt Amendment aside for the moment. For
one state, carves out a mechanism by which they may
receive waiver for standards. The Act has not been
amended to broaden the class of requirements, or if
you want to view them in terms of what Section 209(a)
says in terms of conditions precedent.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND fl£POPTERS
(415) 543-3194/46) 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Let me get back to the first point, and that
is that the point we made was that the waiver could not
be granted in any case because there would be a conflict
of Federal requirements.
As you recall, at that time, we were
addressing the requirement of the then Clean Air Act
that the manufacturers provide reasonable and necessary
maintenance instructions. There was a great deal of
discussion at that time having to do with, first, who
decides what's reasonable and necessary in the first
instance; and, secondly, how is it that EPA goes about
enforcing that provision.
The concerns that you raised, and I think
you raised most of them, Mr. Jackson, aren't concerns
anymore, because the Congress has now acted and has
now given the agency substantial rule-making authority,
affirmative rule-making authority, not just enforcement
authority in this area.
I'd like to pick up on Page 5 of that
document and say by way of introduction we feel somewhat
vindicated in our view of what the Clean Air Act
provides. That is to say that the 1977 Amendments
reaffirm the obligation of purchasers to properly use
and maintain their vehicles. Indeed, what v/as implied
before in connection with the warranty provisions is
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND *EPORTEB$
(4t5) 5*3-3194M61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
139
now expressly stated in the Act. The owner is responsible
for performing the maintenance included in the instruc-
tions furnished by the manufacturer.
Under the 1977 amendments, however, the
manufacturer must not only furnish instructions to the
ultimate purchaser for the proper maintenance and use
of vehicles, but such instructions must now, for the
first time, conform with regulations promulgated by
EPA. Congress has now directed EPA to actively enter
and clearly, beyond any argument, preempt the field
of rule making with respect to emission control-related
in-use maintenance. At the same time, while Congress
amended other provisions relating to Federal preemption
of new mobile source pollution controls, Congress did
not amend Section 209 to carve out an exception for
California in the preempted field of regulation of
in-use maintenance.
Unless there are any questions on that, I'd
like to go on and discuss briefly our document regarding
Section 177 of the Clean Air Act as amended, which is
the so-called Eckhardt Amendment.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: As in the past, our
silence should not be interpreted to be an endorsement.
MS. PETP.AUSKAS : I'm not surprised.
I am referring now to a document that's
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
415> S43-3194M61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
140
entitled "Statement of Ford Motor Company Effect of
Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, on
proceedings conducted pursuant to Section 209(b) of the
Act . "
The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments contain
a provision which for the first time enables certain
states to impose emission control requirements on new
motor vehicles. This departure from the broad, general
principle of Federal preemption is of necessity very
narrowly drawn.
First, eligible states are given no discretion
as to the level of standards. They may only adopt
standards which have been previously adopted by California
and which have been found by EPA to be entitled to a
waiver or preemption.
Second, eligible states may adopt only the
standards. They may not implement their own certification
and mandatory testing procedures. This is one aspect
of the legislation that's very, very clear, based on
the legislative history.
If you look at Page 3 of the document,
there are some excerpts there that I think are worth
reading from the report which accompanied the bill that
the Congress Committee reported. That bill, of course,
was substantially amended on the floor of the House,
SMYTHE & WILSON
certified shorthand reporters
(415) 543*3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
141
although not with respect to this particular section.
That report states that states are not
authorized to adopt or enforce standards other than the |
i
California standards. States are not authorized to
establish different test procedures.
The provision is not intended to allow
states, other than California, to require additional
new vehicle certification testing, or enforcement
procedures since such testing and enforcement will be
conducted under Federal and California laws.
Turning back to the first page. Rather,
the sole enforcement authority available to these
states is that the sale of new motor vehicles for use
and registration in such state may be prohibited unless
the vehicles are covered by a certificate of conformity
issued by California. There can be no doubt that
Section 177 provides a mechanism for bringing California
cars into states other than California. It does nothing
more .
Further, it is clear -- What I've done here
is try to describe the scope of state authority under
I
the Eckhardt amendment, but the next section deals
with what is it that EPA must do.
This morning, counsel for ARB told you
that you should draw certain inferences from the fact
MYTHE & WILSON
ERTIFIED SHCRTHANO reporters
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
142 j
that Congress didn't establish a specific -- or didn't
impose on EPA a specific procedure for evaluating a
potential state action. If they are correct on that
i
inference and if you agree with that inference, then i
I think it represents a very major, both legal decision
-- very profound, both legal decision and policy decision
on the part of EPA.
If it turns out, as has been speculated by
some within EPA for that matter, that the number of
states that may be eligible to adopt standards under
the Eckhardt Amendment is very, very high, if you accept
what California is saying, you are accepting almost
total abbrogation of the new mobile source control
area to the states. And it is a substantial departure
from the general policy that the Congress established
since the act was first amended; and to suggest that
that's something that Congress would do, not expressly,
not by stating it, but merely that that's an inference
that should be drawn I think is improper as a matter
of statutory construction.
On the contrary, if you look at some of
the provisions that accompany the Eckhardt Amendment,
I think you find that a different reading is much more
j
compatible with the notion of Federal supremacy in j
the mobile source area. For example, the same report '
i
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
143
that I cited earlier says that it was intended that the
Eckhardt Amendment place no burden on manufacturers.
The provision itself expressly states that a state may
not endorse standards unless it is a standard that has
been adopted by California and one for which a waiver
has been granted.
In fact , EPA is expressly directed to engage
in rule making as to the timeliness of actions by the
states.
So, I think the only way you can rationalize
a remaining overall general broad policy by the Congress
in favor of Federal preemption and new mobile sources,
and to protect that notion, and at the same time to
be consistent with what that House report, which I
cited and Mr. Macomber also cited this morning, that no
burden be imposed on manufacturers as a result of the
Eckhardt Amendment. The only way you can do that is
for EPA to take into consideration the impact of that
requirement were it to be adopted by other states.
In the case of the regulations that are
before you, we are making these points with respect to
the assembly-line test provisions and the inspection
provisions. This time around, there is a very easy
answer, and that is to say that the states do not have
authority to have any testing. Other than California,
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOflTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543* 3194/461 • 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
of course, they have no authority to impose certification
testing. They have no authority to do any assembly-line
testing.
If you grant the waiver with the express
condition that that's EPA1s assumption and that's EPA's
understanding of the Act, the impact of the Eckhardt
Amendment, based on our analysis today with regard to
the provisions of the Act, goes away. Your only other
alternative is to, in effect, hold California's waiver
request in abeyance until you can make determinations
as to lead time necessary to meet their assembly-line
test requirements were other eligible states to adopt
them.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I didn't follow that
last point.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: Your only other alternative
is to indeed determine which states are eligible, what
actions those states are going to take, and how much
time it's going to take to meet those requirements.
Assembly-1ine testing means you have to have facilities
in which to do the testing. Somebody has to put those
facilities up. As our statement says in some detail,
it's not simply a matter of additional volumen of
testing. There's also the question of geographical
I
distribution. So that even though the increase in
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
number of the vehicles tested may not be so great, but
now you find you have to put test facilities into plants
that don't have them today.
And, finally, if you have all manufacturers
-- presumably you would — proceeding to put in these
facilities at the same time, within a short period of
time it's very likely that the lead time for obtaining
the instrumentation and putting up the facility is
going to be considerably longer.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think I understand
your point, and I think I agree with your conclusion.
However, the plain language of 177 leaves me with a
problem: ". . .and take such other actions as are
referred to in 209(a)."
MS. PETRAUSKAS: They are given the authority
to adopt and enforce certain very narrowly described
standards. I think their enforcement in that regard
is limited to a requirement that any car that's
intended for sale and registration in that state is
a car that's covered by a California certificate.
There is simply no other way to read that provision
and reconcile it with what the committee that reported
the bill says.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand that, but
you would grant me that there is a legitimate problem
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(41$) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
146
there in that some state desiring to proceed with more
aggressiveness than just adopting the standards could
have a basis for arguing that they have authority to do --
MS. PETRAUSKAS: I don't think -- Well, you |
are asking a subjective question. I don't think they
would prevail in that. They can't prevail in that
view because it would cause chaos.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand that. I
mean, that's a result, but —
MS. PETRAUSKAS: But then one is forced to
conclude that Congress deliberately saddled, not just
the manufacturers, but EPA, with a chaotic situation.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Your thrust is they
really didn't mean to do anything other than make
available to the other 49 states, lower emission
st andards ?
MS. PETRAUSKAS: The right to demand
California cars in lieu of Federal cars.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: With the understanding
that the Federal Government would enforce compliance
with those standards in those states in a manner
I
similar to which they enforce Federal compliance
everywhere else?
MS. PETRAUSKAS: No. That's a big jump j
I
I
I
from the first statement you made to the second statement !
i
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND KEPOATESS
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
147
you made. Vfhen the report says, states you shouldn't
get into the enforcement business with respect to these
standards because these will be done under California
and Federal law, I think what the meant there was that
if a manufacturer is unable to get a vehicle certified
in California and, therefore, has no certificate, then
it would be unlawful for him to sell that vehicle in
one of the states that active under the Eckhardt
Amen dment.
Or, for example, if a manufacturer has had
a certificate revoked for reasons relating to the
performance of those vehicles -- emission performance,
now -- then other states which act under the Eckhardt
Amendment could likewise prohibit sales of those
vehicles because they are no longer covered by a
California. I think it's important to be very careful
in looking at the enforcement provisions.
For example, California at one time proposed,
although never enacted, regulations which would permit
California to revoke certificates for just a variety
of misdeeds having nothing to do with the emission
performance of vehicles.
Let me give you one example. They have a
statute in California which requires that you submit
a progress report similar to the report that EPA has,
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
148
an annual progress report. Failure to submit that
report theoretically allows ARB to revoke the certificate.
If you lost a certificate for a reason like that, I
think the proper reading of the Eckhardt Amendment and
legislative history is the other states would then
have to make some sort of mechanism whereby you could
demonstrate but for this other ancillary, unrelated
requirement you would have been eligible for a certificate
in California and, therefore, you should be eligible
to sell vehicles in that particular state.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You could read it, though,
that it means that the Federal Government can certify
and do whatever else it does with regard to new cars
to the California numbers as described by the Federal
test procedures.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: I don't know how to come
to that conclusion, because everything else -- all of
EPA's authority, its authority to establish certification
procedures, only relates to standards established under
Secton 202(a) of the Act. Its authority to do assembly-
line testing, SEA, is limited to sections established
under 202(a). Its authority to compel recall is
related to the failure of a class or category of
vehicles, a substantial number of them to fail to meet
standards established under 202.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIF1E0 SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543*3194/401-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
149
So, I see no basis for EPA enforcing a
state standard. It's conceivable that -- Well, let me
back up a little bit.
I think the Federal enforcement or the Federal
oversight is going to happen as a result of exactly
proceedings like this one; namely, that one of the
things you are going to look at is see whether the
requirements can be met and whether they are consistent
with Federal requirements under Section 202(a). So, I
think enforcement in that section means something in
the way of oversight responsibility on the part of EPA.
There is one aspect of enforcement that I
think the Federal Government could get involved in,
and that is Section 209 has been amended to provide
that vehicles that meet the California standards are
deemed to meet Federal standards; therefore -- Let's
put aside any in-use compliance testing, but just the
basis of certification of a vehicle that's eligible
for sale in California and, therefore, is eligible for
sale in the other states, absent any other Federal
action, would be eligible for Federal certification.
I imagine what would happen is that California will
issue a certificate and simply that fact will enable
a manufacturer to obtain a Federal certificate for the !
vehicles in question. I
I
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOSTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
150
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Following through this,
if in the course of certifying the Federal standards,
you submit a car, an engine family, and by whatever
|
draw of the straw it meets the California standards.
Okay ?
MS. PETRAUSKAS: We are talking about a car --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: An engine family.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: -- that is being tested in
order to obtain a Federal certificate?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: A Federal certificate,
right. So, no implication to California. You've got
an entire engine family. The State of Illinois has
adopted legally the California standards, according to
the Eckhardt Amendment. Could you sell that engine
family in Illinois?
MS. PETRAUSKAS: Let me see if I understand.
I think the answer has got to be no.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I don't think the answer
has got to be no.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: If the State of Illinois
has adopted regulations where they have a statute
which prohibits sale of vehicles that are not covered
by a certificate granted by the State of California,
sale of that vehicle is unlawful.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's not what the
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
151
Eckhardt Amendment says. Can adopt standards.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: Adopt and enforce standards.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It doesn't say anything
about California certification. It doesn't say anything
about this report you were talking about.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: Mr. Jackson, given the
chaos that would result if you give any other reading
to the Act, it just strikes me incredible that anyone
would ignore -- I am not suggesting that you are ignoring.
I am just saying you have no choice. Congress has
adopted a very, very difficult provision. To the extent
that there is some guidance in the reports, we have
no choice but to look at those reports.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think you are making
it more difficult. I can't understand why you can't
live with the reading that says, in my scenario, that
if that happends, it would be perfectly legal for you
to sell that car in the state of Illinois. What's the
problem with that? Is it burdensome, or is it illegal?
MS. PETRAUSKAS: You are saying rather than
have certification testing be conducted by ARB, I
would come into EPA and deliberately target my car
to meet the California standards. The dilemma you get
into is when you have standards, as we've had in the
past at these hearings, standards that meet California
_ I
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO agPOPTEPS
(4M) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
152
regulations that don't meet Federal regulations, and
that's the box you get in and that's one of the problems
with saying you -- you can't meet both sets of standards
under some circumstances. And it was that amendment
to Section 209 that said if you meet California standards,
you are deemed to meet Federal standards. It was
expressly --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It says standards. It
doesn't say certification.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: It was expressly designed
to take care of the situation where California opts
for a lower NOx standard and a higher CO standard.
MR. EPPEL: Mr. Jackson, are you suggesting
that EPA might give a Federal certificate to a vehicle
that meets a .39 non-methane, 7.0 CO standard, as Mr.
Gray pointed out almost double the Federal standard,
that EPA would certify that vehicle?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If it were a waived
standard, you mean?
MR. EPPEL: I could get a United States
Environmental Protection Agency standard for a 6.8 CO
car?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It's entirely conceivable
in the scenario of my own engine family.
MR. EPPEL: It's conceivable under the
ERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543*3194/461 • 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
153
scenario, but I don't know about under the Clean Air
Act .
MS. PETRAUSKAS: The problem you have with j
i
granting the certificate is you are only authorized to
certification with regard to standards established under
Section 202.
MR. EPPEL: That vehicle doesn't meet
standards established under Section 202. How can you
give somebody a certificate for it?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: (Indicating).
We will break for lunch and return at 1:30,
and we will ask Ford to come back.
(Luncheon recess.)
MR. GRAY: I had a question related to
a document that Ford Motor Company provided to us. I
don't know what you really would refer to it as. It's
a document --
MR. EPPEL: Post hearing memo?
MR. GRAY: Yes. I guess a legal document
of sorts.
In that document, there's a discussion --
MR. EPPEL: What page are you on, Charles?
i
MR. GRAY: Page 8. This is before EPA
hearing to consider California's request for waivers of
I
Federal preemption pursuant to the Clean Air Act, as j
J
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
amended. The discussion is dealing with the question
of in the aggregate more protective of the public health
and welfare than the Federal standards, and what it
really means.
In the middle of that paragraph on that
page, the top part of it actually beginning, "Indeed,
in the proceedings held by CARB prior to its adoption
of a 0.4 and related truck NOx standards, substantial
questions were raised with respect to the air quality
impact of a further reduction of NOx emissions. The
record developed by the CARB was inconclusive."
And I guess the question I had is that is
Ford contending that this provision that relates to
EPA's review of the arbitrary and capricious nature of
CARB's actions is met if the record v/as inconclusive,
or is that sufficient to require EPA to deny a waiver
if in Ford's opinion it's inconclusive? Is that the
message you are trying to get across there? "hat are
you trying to say there?
MR. EPPEL: I don't think that's grounds
for EPA to do anything. I think it's a question of
what the record is. It's not a statement of opinion,
and it's a statement of EPA review of the record and
a lack of definitive finding one way or the other.
Normally, when the arbitrary and capricous
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND SEPORTEFIS
'415) !43-3194i461-3C9a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
155
view is applied, and certainly consistent with the
definition of those terms as used in 307 of the Act,
there's required a finding that is sufficiently definite
to allow the reviewing party, whether it be a court,
or in this case EPA, to make some conclusions with
respect to the evidence behind that finding.
All we are saying here is that as far as
we were concerned, it wasn't really our argument of
going back and reviewing the record. It seems to us
that a fair review of the record was there was issues
decided not one way or the other, and I don't know how
you review that.
MR. GRAY: But you are not arguing that
EPA should have to be faced with the obligation of
having to agree that the CARB decision was appropriate;
rather, that CARB listen to all comment -- I mean --
MR. EPPEL: No, we are not suggesting under
the arbitrary and capricious standard of review -- I
think California covered it earlier. There is no
question that the reviewing agencies need not substitute
its own judgment. However, it must make an independent
judgment as to the facts underlying the findings. If
there are no facts, or if there are substantial facts
on the other side, unexplained on the record, then
there is no way you can affirm that finding as being j
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
not arbitrary or capricious.
And I think the memorandum goes on to discuss
what arbitrary and capricious means in the Clean Air
Act now as a result of 307. It cites the Associated
Industries case, which the report cited is a type of
definition of arbitrary and capricious. It's not a
hard and fast thing. Anybody that has read any of
the cases in this area knows that there is some degree
of review that is required, and in order to exercise
that review, there is some nature of a record that
must be before the reviewing agency.
MR. GRAY: I asked the question just for
clarification what Ford intended by this particular
section of the document. Certainly there is dispute
over what is necessary here, and that's why I refer to
it as Ford's opinion. I just wanted a clarification
back to what you were driving at when you said, "Because
the CARB record was inconclusive, then it must be denied."
I mean, you can have a lot of evidence on
two sides, and then reasonable people can review the
evidence and make a judgment, and someone else may
decide the data were inconclusive. But if the CAF.B
looked at the data and gave appropriate consideration
to all information and then made a judgment and it was
as good a judgment as anyone else could have made, are
(413) 943-3194/461-3099
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
157
you imp lying here that that would be arbitrary?
MR. EPPEL: No. If that were the case, I
don't think we'd disagree with that. I think what
we are suggesting is there wasn't enough evidence on
either side for somebody to come up with an answer.
The reason reasonable men disagree is because the
questions that were raised on the one side were never
answered. There were never dealt with.
V.'e don't have an air quality expert up
here with us today, Mr. Gray. I am not in a position
to rehash all of the issues.
MR. GRAY: CARB stated this morning that
they felt that the proceedings that surrounded this
determination were quite extensive and referred to
several Staff Reports and that they would commit to
providing the record of those, I think, January hearings.
And it appears at least that in their viewpoint they
have considered all appropriate information.
But I just didn't quite understand what you
meant and how far-reaching that statement should be
applied.
MR. EPPEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much
for coming back, Mr. Jensen.
MR. NUTSON: Thank you, gentlemen. My name
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
.•*13) 543-3194/401-3O98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
158
is L. Lawrence Nutson, Senior Engineer, Emissions
Certification, Volkswagen of America, Inc. On behalf
of Volkswagenwerk AG and Audi NSU Auto Union AG, we
appreciate the opportunity to make the following comment.
Volkswagen and Audi understand the basis
for the CARB standards that have been adopted up to
now as being active measures which deal with the
compelling and extraordinary conditions that exist in
the state of California. However, we have concern with
the recently adopted CARB passenger car standards for
the 1981, 1982, and 1983 model years, and we have our
continued concern over the need for and technical
feasibility of a NOx standard of 0.4 grams per mile.
With the Clean Air Act of 1977, the Congress
recognized the necessity to actually first make a
determination of the need for such a NOx standard to
protect public health and welfare. Beyond the need,
since the cost and technological capability of attaining
such a standard have yet to be determined, as Congress
also recognized, we believe the granting of a waiver
for a NOx standard more stringent than 1.0 gram per
mile should not be acted upon at this time.
Furthermore, we want to emphasize again
the NOx limitations of the diesel engine and the recog-
nition of this fact by Congress in allowing the waiver
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
159
to a level of 1.5 grams per mile for 1981 through 1984
model years. Volkswagen would have to seriously
reconsider its development and availability of diesel-
engined vehicles in the California market with the j
waiving of an applicable NOx standard below 1.5 grams
per mile.
In this same concern, it appears that the
recently adopted CARB 1981 and 1982 model year standards
for passenger cars have arbitrarily included a NOx
standard of 0.7 grams per mile. This is with no
allowance for any optional NOx limit for 100,000 mile
certification. Although Volkswagen does not agree with
the 100,000 mile certification option, in this circum-
stance, we could only elect the primary set of CARB
standards for our entire product line, so as to exercise
theNOx option for diesels. To choose the optional set
of standards would eliminate the diesel from the Californi
market. 7/e would encourage EPA to consider the desire
i
to maintain fuel-efficient vehicles throughout the
entire U.S. energy demand.
Volkswagen has developed the three-way
catalyst concept with closed loop system and we are
confident to attain the 0.41/9.0/1.0 set of standards
in 1980 with a pilot program in California, in preparatiorl
for the 1981 Federal standards. At the moment, however, i
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
160 |
we cannot make any firm determination if we will be
ready in 1981 to minimize our safety margin with the
three-way catalyst system to comply with the 0.7 grams
per mile NOx standard. Therefore, we again emphasize j
that granting a waiver for a NOx standard below 1.0
gram per mile should not be acted upon at this time.
We would like the record to reflect that
previous comments submitted at CARB meetings and EPA
Waiver Hearings remain as accurate statements of
our position in regard to allowable maintenance and
evaporative emission standards and test procedures. '
i
To that last paragraph, I would add we may
have to submit some documents for the record other than
previous EPA hearings, but maybe of CARB hearings.
One further clarification is that when we
address NOx standards, we also address light-duty trucks
in the same respect for gasoline below l.o and diesel
below 1.5.
Thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is vour o
b y°ur statement that
With regard to the diesels, your problem with the 1981
option A standard is not the total hydrocarbon standard
of .41 or the NOx standard, where you have the option
running 100,000 miles, but the CO standard of 3.4,
MH. NUTSON: No. The
present requirement
THE & WILSON
fieo shorthano reporters
(-*15) 543-3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
161
I
is it's for the entire product line. If we go with the
NOx option for cliesel, the gasoline cars are forced
I
in '82 to go to 0.4. You have to look at it again j
I
j
together in '81 and '82 as a package. Option A shoots
the gasoline cars in '82, and Option B shoots the
diesel in '81.
MR. GRAY: Why are you saying that Option
B would eliminate the gasoline vehicles in 1981? The
.7 as compared to a 1.0, that difference would eliminate
all Volkswagen vehicles?
MR. NUTSON: It comes down to a relatively
recent decision from CARB and not having enough
sufficient data available to know what we can do at
this t ime.
MR. GRAY: You mentioned that you are
confident that you can attain a .41 with a three-way
system. Is that total hydrocarbons?
MR. NUTSON: Yes.
i
I
MR. GRAY: 9.0 CO and a 1.0 NOx with gasoline
vehicles, of course, with a three-way system?
MR. NUTSON: Right. We are talking a
fuel injection system, okay? j
MR. GRAY: Right.
I
You say the pilot program preparation for !
1981 Federal standards. Is it infeasible for you to j
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(4'S) 543-0194/461-3Q98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
162 !
I
i
meet a 3.4 CO standard?
MR. NUT SON: 'AThen?
MR. GRAY: In '81 federally. !
MR. NUTSON: Not across the entire product i
line.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before we leave that
point, I'd like to ask for a point of clarification
from the CARB.
Is your interpretation of the product line
to include both gasoline and diesel in the definition
of "product line," or would there be a potential for
a breaking apart of the product line with regard to
gasoline and diesel?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: That isn't very explicit
in the regulations, and we have to have some more
discussions in-house before v/e can develop that. TCe
will do that before the close of the comment, and
inform the affected manufacturers. j
i
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me clarify the point, j
then. If they were to say "Product line only means j
gasoline"? j
MR. NUTSON: Might make a difference.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: v.Tould it make a difference?
MR. NUTSON: In regard to the 0.7 NOx, we '
still have the same problem, the ability to meet that. j
. 1
SMYTHE & WILSON
CEFT1PIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461.3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163 |
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You can select Option
A ostensibly. Then you have the CO problem?
MR. NUTSON: For which, gasoline?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Diesel.
MR. NUTSON: No, we don't have a CO problem
for diesel. We have a NOx problem for diesel.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What I am saying is
you break them apart.
MR. NUTSON: Makes a difference, yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Select Option A for
diesel, Option B for gas. Of course, you'd still have
to stick together for the two years.
MR. NUTSON: The Option A still presents
a problem for this 100,000 mile certification, which
is not too pleasant.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Other than not being
too pleasant, can you do it?
MR. NUTSON: I'm not sure about that. I'd
have to check back on that. We have reservations
about the 100,000 mile certification, okay, which
implies ten years also.
MR. GRAY: Vfhat do you plan to do with
respect to the Federal requirement for 1981?
MR. NUTSON: For 1981, there's a NOx
waiver available.
i
SMYTHE 3. WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
<41S> 543-3194/461-3C98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164
MR. GRAY: Which is Option A of the
California proposal?
MR. NUTSON: But at 50,000 mile certification]
!
If California were to revise their thinking and go
along with the same EPA thinking and do away with the
100,000 mile requrement,
MR. GRAY: What is your point with respect
to the problem with the diesel at the Option A standards
in California?
MR. NUTSON: Requires 100,000 mile certifi-
cation.
MR. GRAY: And how is that different from
the Federal requirement?
MR. NUTSON: Federal requirement is 50,000
miles.
MR. GRAY: At 1.0 gram NOx?
MR. NUTSON: At any level. Okay? But the
Federal standards are 1.0 in '81, with a waiver
available for 1.5 for diesel.
MR. GRAY: V/ith 100,000 mile certification?
MR. NUTSON: No. 50,000 miles.
MR. GRAY: You are saying the difference
is you can't demonstrate that level with the diesel
for 100,000 miles?
MR. NUTSON: Can't or want to?
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(419) 543*3T94/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
MR. GRAY: Well, the question is, is it
feasible?
MR. NUTSON; But then you hope for this i
i
ten years also, which is a problem, and the emission •
I
t
warranty, however California would enforce that.
MR. GRAY: I know, but we are trying to get
whether or not Option A would be feasible for diesel
vehicles in California.
MR. NUTSON: We may not opt for Option A
for 100,000 miles just for that reason.
MR. GRAY: But then I think you said in
your statement you couldn't sell diesels?
I
MR. NUTSON: That's right. j
!
MR. GRAY: Couldn't, meaning it's technically j
infeasible, or that you wouldn't; which one would be j
I
appropriate here?
MR. NUTSON: Maybe we wouldn't.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You are not saying it's j
technically infeasible? !
I
j
MR. NUTSON: You can run a car 100,000 miles.
j
Somebody else brought up this subject this morning of j
j
one car running for that mileage for certification 1
t
purposes, but there's a lot of ramifications on vehicles
in the field.
SMYTHE «. WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(«lSi 543-J194/461-3C98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
16 6 j
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you, sir.
MR. NUTSON: Thank you.
MR. NELSON: Good afternoon, Mi'. Jackson,
I
members of EPA, and ladies and gentlemen. I am Edwin
E. Nelson, Assistant Director, Automotive Emission
Control, General Motors Environmental Activities Staff.
With me today on my far right is Harold
W. Schwochert, Staff Engineer, General Motors Environ-
mental Activities Staff, and Richard I. Petersen,
Attorney with GM Legal Staff.
Mr. Jackson, we submitted a letter two
days ago that indicated we would only have comments
i
on two of the waiver hearing discussions. I assume ;
!
that you received that letter and that's a part of the |
record.
i
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: This letter dated October j
j
11,1977,from Mr.Fisher? |
MR. NELSON: That's correct. !
j
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We did receive the letter, j
We will make it a part of the record.
MR. NELSON: Thank you.
I
Do you have any preference as to the order j
i
I
with which we take the two subjects that we would like i
to discuss?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No sir
i
^ I
SMYTHE & WILSON
CSSTIF'EO SHORTHANO PEPOHTERS
(415) 543-3194/461 -309®
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
167 |
MR. NELSON: All right. I will start off
with the one that affects passenger car standards for
i
model year 1980 and subsequent model years. i
General Motors submits the following comme n t s j
regarding the consideration of granting California a
waiver for 1980 and subsequent model year passenger
car exhaust standards. The proposed California require-
ments continue the hydrocarbon standard at the present
level, increase the stringency of the carbon monoxide
standard from the present 9.0 grams per mile standard,
and increase the stringency of the oxides of nitrogen
standard through severl steps to the 0.4 gram per mile
I
level in the 1983 model year. |
I
The specific California standards and \
test procedures being considered at this hearing,
including the amendments recently adopted by the Air j
Resources Board on September 29-30, 1977, are extremely j
complicated. One method of reviewing the California j
proposal is to individually comment on the standard
for each pollutant.
Hydrocarbons. The need for hydrocarbon j
i
control in California has not been questioned because j
scientists generally agree that hydrocarbon reduction j
is a straightforward means of reducing oxidant everywhere j
in the state. Because the basis for controlling
.. !
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/4610098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
168
hydrocarbons is their contribution to atmospheric
reactions leading to oxidant formation, General Motors
supports the Air Resources Board's non-methane hydrocarbon
I
control rationale. Californi's standards emphasize
control of hydrocarbons most important to ambient air
quality and offer incentive to develop control systems
which address reduction in the more reactive hydrocarbons.
Carbon Monoxide. Control of carbon monoxide
to levels more stringent than the present 15 and 9
grams per mile Federal and California standards,
respectively, has received considerable discussion
over the past months. As our testimony and statements
I
have indicated, we believe a 9.0 grams per mile
automotive emission standard is sufficient control to i
I
j
achieve the CO ambient air quality standard in California
and all other areas of the country. T,Ve have been
unable to find any technically valid data which
support a more stringent standard. All of the data j
which we have examined and the analyses which we have
reviewed, support this conclusion.
Oxides of Nitrogen. As we pointed out at |
I
i
the August 4, 1977, EPA hearing, the NOx control j
i
question is surrounded by a great deal of technical i
uncertainty and, hence, substantial controversy. !
General Motors is genuinely concerned that any air
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
169
pollution control strategy be the correct one. Our goal
is one of assuring ourselves that a specific program
will have positive "real world" effects.
Regarding NOx control, a dilemma exists
because air quality standards have been established
for both nitrogen dioxide and oxidants. Control of
NOx to meet the NO£ air quality standard is at odds
with meeting the oxidant air quality standard. When
these seemingly conflicting requirements are considered
along with the complex meteorology which exists in some
areas of California and the geography of the Los Angeles
Basin, it is our judgment that extreme caution should
be exercised in controlling NOx to levels more stringent
than the previous standards.
To date, the scientific community has not
put together an atmospheric model which considers
i
I
the necessary parameters and predicts the atmospheric |
benefits of more stringent NOx automotive standards. As
indicated at the previous EPA hearing, the APRAC
organization has contracted with Environmental Research
a-nd Technology to analyze the detailed collection of
atmospheric data from the LARPP study. An objective
of this APRAC contract work is to mathematically model
the Los Angeles Basin using the LARPP data to verify
the model. With some scientific judgment, the model
S^TWson ~~
0 SHOf S43-3194U51-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
170
can be used to extrapolate the atmospheric impact of
various NOx control strategies.
Although this analysis may not provide the j
j
final answers to all questions, it should add information j
to existing knowledge and allow better evaluations of
various control strategies. In the meantime, we are
using the best data available to make the judgments
which we have discussed at the previous hearing. Our
smog chamber data have shown that further reductions
in NOx will result in an increase in oxidant at the
pollution source which also is the area of highest
population density.
I
Recent chamber studies have also looked at
the downwind oxidant effect of NOx reductions. It is
not clear what the precise oxidant effect will be in
downwind locations such as Riverside. It does appear
that this effect will be rather small, and oxidant may
actually increase or decrease depending upon the location
I
and the factors considered.
It seems clear to GM that consideration
cannot just be given to the downwind oxidant effect.
Our recommended caution in moving toward more stringent
NOx control is based on projected oxidant increases
in the high population density areas. Experimental
smog chamber data have verified time and again that
I
i
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOCTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194M81-309S
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
171
oxidant increases will be observed. Since most health
experts agree that ozone health effects are more severe
than NOg health effects, the net effect is expected to !
be adverse for additional NOx reduction. :
Since a program is underway which will
provide additional information sometime early next
year, General Motors believes the results of this
atmospheric modeling should be used in evaluating the
scientific validity of NOx reductions more stringent
than 1.0 gram per mile.
During the recent amendments to the Clean
Air Act, Congress also recognized that the control
of automotive NOx emissions to 0.4 gram per mile
deserved additional study. To this end, Congress
requested the Environmental Protection Agency to study,
among other things, the public health implications
of such a standard.
For the reasons just explained, we feel
that it would be inappropriate for EPA to grant a
waiver on the 0.4 NOx standard at this time.
If studies show more stringent NOx control j
j
is required, the CO standard should be set at as high j
j
a numerical standard as possible while still achieving j
{
the ambient air quality standard. From a manufacturer's !
standpoint, this consideration is very significant. 1
i
SMYTHE & WILSON
certified shorthand seporters
*15) 343-3194/461 - 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
172
I
Development work has shown that future control systems
experience substantial NOx/CO trade-off effects. To a
degree, the optional set of California standards has j
i
recognized this factor, and we are encouraged by the s
i
flexibility offered by this option.
If you'd like we can present the other
statement and then have questions on both, or we can
do it individually.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Go ahead with the other
sect ion.
On May 26, 1977, the California Air Resources
Board adopted regulations that reduce or eliminate
permitted vehicle maintenance effective with the 1980
and subsequent model passenger cars, light-duty trucks
and medium-duty vehicles. These regulations were first
proposed in November 1976, and they were the subject of
several ARB workshops and hearings between November 1976 '
!
and May 26, 1977. General Motors participated in i
this rule-making process by appearing and testifying
during the various workshops and hearings and by
submitting information to the Air Resources Board.
Many other manufacturers participated in this rule-
making process to a similar extent, and therefore, the
record of this rule-making proceeding is an extensive i
record. j
^ I
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
173
On August 3, 1977, EPA conducted a waiver
hearing to determine whether or not California should
be granted a waiver of Federal preemption to enable the '
l
ARB to enforce these maintenance regulations. During
this hearing many interested parties testified, and
the record for that hearing clearly indicates that the
regulations are the subject of strong opposition and
are supported only by the testimony of the ARB. General
Motors hereby requests that the record of the August
waiver hearing, including the entire record of the
ARB rule-making proceeding, be incorporated into the
record of today's hearing.
j
I
General Motors has and will continue to I
i
strive toward design changes to eliminate maintenance
items where the technology is available and where it is
feasible to do so. We firmly believe and history shows
that General Motors strives to reduce vehicle maintenance
requirements to the minimum amount which is reasonable
and necessary to help assure continued satisfactory
vehilcle operation.
Effective emission control is only one of
many factors in determining the amount of maintenance
which General Motors recommends to its customers: other
I
I
equally important factors include vehicle safety, j
fuel economy, reliability, driveability , durability, '
SMYTHE & WILSON
certified shohthano bepostess
(415) S43-3194/4# 1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i
174 j
I
and overall customer satisfaction. General Motors has
repeatedly emphasized the fact that the recommendation
of a specific maintenance item is often based upon
several of the aforementioned factors; and although
it may be technologically feasible to eliminate a
maintenance item if consideration is limited to effective
emission control, it may nonetheless remain technologi-
cally infeasible to eliminate that same item when
vehicle safety, fuel economy, reliability, or some
other factor is considered. The Air Resources Board
has failed to address this important issue.
The Air Resources Board has failed to
demonstrate that the regulations are technologically
feasible. In fact, the ARB has only made a weak attempt
at best to support the feasibility of these
regulations by contending that all manufacturers are
capable of eliminating recommended maintenance for all
i
vehicles to the minimum amount of maintenance for any
single item which is recommended by any of the manufac- j
i
j
turers. This contention is based upon an assumption and i
is not supported by any data establishing its validity;
it is clearly illogical and not supported by plain common
sense. j
|
Maintenance recommendations vary between !
models manufactured by the same manufacturer; components !
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOHTHAND S6PORTEBS
(415) 543 3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
are different and different modesl are designed to
serve different purposes and therefore maintenance
requirements necessarily differ.
As we pointed out in our submission to Mr. ;
Jackson dated August 26, 1977, there is a real
possibility that these regulations will inhibit develop-
ment of improved technology, including emission control
technology. The most obvious example involves the
maintenance of the oxygen sensor required for three-way
catalyst systems. Had these regulations been adopted
at an earlier date, they would not have allowed any
maintenance to these devices.
I
General Motors has also questioned whether
or not the regulations will result in any improvement
whatsoever to air quality. As we have already pointed
out, the data on the record indicate that about four
out of five owners claim to closely follow manufacturer's
I
recommended maintenance. Further, those cars have been
shown to have a "passing frequency" nearly double the
remaining 20 per cent whose owners do not follow
manufacturer's recommendations. In forcing reduction
of recommended maintenance the ARB runs a major risk j
i
i
of degrading teh emission control performance of the
J
80 per cent of vehicles whose owners now say they
follow manufacturer's recommendations - with no tangible ;
I
SMYTHE & WILSON
certified shorthand sspoatebs
(41S) 543-3194/461 -3099
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
176
evidence to indicate a significant improvement in the
remaining 20 per cent. Thus, we believe that there is
reasonable support for the proposition that these
regulations will cause a degradation in air quality and
that therefore they will not be as protective of public
health as current EPA requirements. ARB has provided
no persuasive data to the contrary.
General Motors respectfully submits that
the subject requirements are clearly arbitrary and
capricious. They are unsupported by valid technical
data which demonstrate any improvement in air quality
and were adopted in spite of unanimous opposition by
interested parties. EPA, therefore, has no choice
but to deny this waiver.
Thank you.
MR. PETERSEN: Mr. Jackson, I'd like to add
just a couple comments.
My name is Richard I. Petersen, and I am
an attorney on the General Motors Legal Staff.
This hearing is being conducted pursuant
to Section 209 of the Clean Air Act as amended. That
section of the law authorizes EPA to waive Federal
preemption to enable California to enforce more
stringent emission standards than those applicable to
the other 49 states.
17IF160 SHORTHAND R6PORTSPS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
177 |
I
In part, Section 209 provides that a waiver
shall be granted if California determines that the
state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as 1
protective of public health and welfare as applicable
i
I
I
Federal standards, but that no such waiver shall be
granted if the Administrator finds that the determination
by California is arbitrary and capricious, that California
does not need the standards to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions, or that California standards
and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with Section 202(a) of the Act.
At prior hearings, EPA has heard testimony
regarding consistency, cost and technological feasibility.
The 1977 Clean Air Amendments now require EPA to consider !
I
whether or not California's requirements are arbitrary
and capricious. Thus, the rule-making records of
the various ARB proposals become even more important
than before, and their review is absolutely necessary
before EPA can fulfill its functions under the law.
i
What do these words "arbitrary" and |
"capricious" mean? As a responsible Federal agency, |
i
EPA is well aware of their meaning, so I will not belabor ,
I
i
this point. But for the record, I would like to state j
a few basic components of these characters "arbitrary" j
and "capricious."
|
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED shorthand REPORTERS
(«1S1 S43-3194UftV309«
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
178
California courts have defined arbitrary
and capricious regulations as conduct not supported by
fair or substantial reason, stubborn insistence on
following unauthorized courses of action, action not
supported in the record for the action, action taken in
disregard of the facts, action without rational basis,
and unconsidered willful and irrational choice of conduct
unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.
I submit that these descriptions clearly
apply to the regulations on which we are testifying
today. In making a determination on this issue, EPA
must view the entire records of the appropriate rule-
making proceedings and determine whether or not based
upon the rule-making record arbitrary actions were
unreasonable and taken without consideration to facts,
data, and testimony provided by interested parties.
Although the review of the record will not
be easy, EPA's final determination will be.
The maintenance regulations present a clear
and undeniable case of arbitrary and capricious action.
One only need review the transcript of the December 1976
workshop when the ARB staff officials stated that the
regulations were based upon gut feelings rather than
actual data.
Mr. Jackson, more than a gut feeling is
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOSTHANC REPORTERS
U'S) 543-3194'4A1 -309d
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
179
required to substantiate costly and burdensome regulations
like those we are addressing today.
I'd like to add just a couple more points. !
On Page 8 of his prepared remarks, Mr.
Macomber stated that the maintenance regulations are
at least as protective of public health and welfare and,
quote, obviously not arbitrary and capricious, end quote,
because no comparable Federal regulations exist. This
statement strains even the worst logic. An ARB regulation
can be arbitrary and capricious regardless of the
existence of comparable Federal regulations.
Secondly, although I have not seen the
legal memorandum referred to by Mr. Macomber this
morning, I inferred from his testimony that this
memorandum addresses and describes what represents the
rule-making record, which EPA must review in order
to determine whether or not the ARB regulations are
arbitrary and capricious. Because I haven't seen his
memorandum, Mr. Macomber may well agree, and I submit
that the relevant rule-making record includes all data I
I
and all information upon which ARB relied in promulgating !
this regulation. This includes statements submitted
by interested parties and all transcripts of ARB hearings |
i
and workshops held upon these regulations. ARB must !
submit such information for the record of this hearing
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED shorthand pepobters
(415) 543-3194/441-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
180
so EPA can fulfill its responsibility under Section 209
of the ACT. Obviously, the ARB rule-making records
do not include information not available at the time
the regulations were adopted by the Air Resources Board
on May 26th, 1977.
Thank you.
MR. GRAY: Referring first to your comment
regarding the exhaust emission standards, as I understand
your comments, they refer more to the air quality
need argument, rather than a GM argument of technological
infeasibi1ity; is that appropriate or inappropriate?
MR. NELSON: That's correct.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
MR. PETERSEN: I'm sorry, Mr. Gray, could
you repeat that question?
MR. GRAY: Surely. I simply asked in
listening to the prepared statement and trying to read
it as it was being presented, it appeared that the
emphasis of the testimony was related to the need for
the various standards, rather than the technological
infeasibi1ity of achieving those standards. And if
there was an argument being made of technological
infeasability, then I wanted to pursue some thi ng mo re
specific because I didn't see anything that specific
in there on that topic.
& WILSON
HOWTHANC «€PCRTgPS
(415) 543-3194/481-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_____
181
MR. PETERSEN: I think that's correct on
today's statement, and I think we will stand on the
record of the previous waiver hearing so far as the
issue of technological feasibility is concerned.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
Referring to the second statement on allowable
maintenance, I simply want to ask a clarifying question.
On the first page, the last paragraph begins
with the statement, "General Motors has and will
continue to strive toward design changes to eliminate
maintenance items where the technology is available
and where it is feasible to do so." Is that a fair
summary of GM's position on this and GM's technical
judgment as to the technical situation; that is, that
General Motors cars now have only that maintenance
recommended that is technically necessary?
MR. NELSON: I think if you consider, Mr.
Gray, the statement we made that maintenance isn't
done just for one purpose; it's done for many purposes,
including the intangible customer satisfaction, the
convenience he has in operating his vehicle, the
breakdown frequency, these kind of things, I'd say that
yes, that statement does characterize what General
Motors has continuously done for years and years, and
still strives to do. And that's to provide the minimum
C8KTIF16D ShO"Th/»no "EPOP^ESS
(4151 543-3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
182
maintenance that's required to obtain those parameters
that I described.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: On the unnumbered page,
I believe it's the first page of your statement with
regard to allowable maintenance practices, the last
sentence in the second paragraph says, "General Motors
hereby requests that the record of the August waiver
hearing, including the entire record of the ARB rule-
making proceeding, be incorporated into the record of
today's hearing."
Would you explain your reasoning for that
request.
MR. PETERSEN: I don't believe that it's
possible for ARB to make a determination on the arbitrary
and capricious issue without revealing the entire rule-
making record for the subject regulation.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If it's not possible for
the ARB?
MR. PETERSEN: I am sorry, if it is not
possible for the EPA.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So, following your line
of reasoning, it would be to the detriment of the ARB
if they did not provide this?
MR. PETERSEN: I am sorry, it v/ould be to the
detriment --
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED 3HOSTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/4610096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
183
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Of CAEB's position,
according to the waiver, if they did not provide this
record?
MP.. PETERSEN: I can't speak on what would
be to ARB's detriment. I believe that the Clean Air
Act mandates action on the part of EPA, which requires
that EPA have the entire rule-making record in front of
it. I don't think EPA can make a determination on
the arbitrary and capricious issue without the record
of the entire rule-making proceeding in front of it.
That's impossible.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You mean that it can
find either way without looking at the entire record?
MR. PETERSEN: I am saying it cannot find
on the issue of arbitrary and capricious. It cannot
find either way, that's right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Either way?
MR. PETERSEN: Yes. I think the case law
clearly supports that. You can't make a determination
of whether or not a regulation is arbitrary and
capricious by just looking at part of the record.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You are going to cite
us some case law?
MR. PETERSEN: I would be more than glad
to Xerox some copies of some pages out of some
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194,'461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
184
Administrative Law Horn books, if that's necessary. I'll
be glad to provide some cites.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I must presume that by
this request you are asking me to direct the CARB to
incorporate this material into the record.
MR. PETERSEN: Yes, I am. You will recall
that we requested that that record be made part of the
record during the last waiver hearing. I don't think
that EPA has any discretion on this issue any longer.
I think EPA has to direct ARB to submit the entire
record of the rule-making proceeding.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Obviously, any rule-
making body has discretion. There's two: one is the
CARB, and one is the manufacturers. The EPA is in the
position of reviewing a decision-making process and
making certain findings and coming to a conclusion
with regard to a grant of a waiver, which would be in
their interest and not in your interest. So, we've
got two parties with separate interests here. How
they best present their case for the purposes of
review, in light of what their interests are, would
seem to be up to them, as opposed to me directing them
as to what they've got to put in the record for their
case .
MR. PETERSEN: In order to not belabor this
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3l94>461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
185
point today, I will submit something in writing on this.
The question before EPA is not whether or not these
regulations -- The question on the arbitrary and
capricious issue is not whether these regulations are
good or bad. The question is whether or not they were
adopted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. So,
we are talking about the adoption, the act of adopting
the regulations. That is the significant issue.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are you saying that
they were adopted in an arbitrary and capricious manner?
MR. PETERSEN: I am saying without doubt
these regulations were adopted in a arbitrary and
capricious manner, and the only --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You are satisfied that
the information to support that contention is contained
within the record of these proceedings?
MR. PETERSEN: The record of the ARB rule-
making proceedings.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: The record of these
proceedings ?
MR. PETERSEN: In order to make a determina-
tion --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You are not answering
my question. What I'm getting at is what you are
interested in, and you are making an allegation that it
certified shorthand reporters
,415) 543-3194/4«'-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
186
was arbitrary and capricious. If you've got information
which will permit the agency to make a finding that
their adoption was arbitrary and capricious, I submit
that you should provide that into the record on your
own behalf. It's either one way or the other.
MR. PETERSEN: I'm not sure I agree with that.
I don't think EPA can make -- EPA has an obligation
under Section 209 to make a determination -- EPA has to
make the determination -- whether or not these regulations
are arbitrary and capricious. EPA cannot do this
without reviewing the entire rule-making record for
the regulations.
General Motors has requested through the
MVMA the entire rule-making record for the ARB regulations.
To the extent that we have obtained that record, it
has been submitted, I believe, to EPA. The request
is still outstanding. So, if there is anything left
in the record, ARB is still under a request to submit
that information and it will be forwarded to EPA prior
i
to the close of the record of the waiver hearing. j
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So that moots the |
question as to whether or not I should direct -- t
j
MR. PETERSEN: It moots the question except j
j
that a request from the Environmental Protection Agency j
i
to the ARB certainly carries a lot more weight than a j
SMYTHE & WILSON
cestifieo shorthand reporters i«,5i s43-3i94/4«i-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
187
request to the FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION. Our request does not carry penalties of
Federal rule for failure to submit full and complete
information. We are looking out for our interest.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I figured that.
MR. PETERSEN: We will submit to EPA as
much of the record as ARB gives to us.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Fine. I think we will
leave it there.
MR. PETERSEN: Mr. Jackson, let me add one
more point.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is this a red herring?
MR. PETERSEN: Yeah. No, it's not.
ARB is in the best position to know what
is the complete rule-making record, not General .Motors,
MVMA. ARB is.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: In support of that which
is of interest to them, we can presume they will put
their best case forward.
MR. PETERSEN: But based upon their best
case, EPA cannot necessarily make a determination as
to whether or not these regulations were arbitrary
and capricious.
Let's take an extreme case. Let's say that
ARB only submits to EPA their staff reports and their !
J
5MYTHE & WILSON
:ERTIF160 SHORTHAND REPORTERS (41S) J43-319«M«i-309a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
188
data and does not submit to EPA any conflicting or
opposing data or information.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm not so sure that that's
relevant, as long as what they submit to us leads
actually to the conclusions that they arrived at.
MR. PETERSEN: I don't believe that's
exactly correct, Mr. Jackson. I think that the standard
of arbitrary and capricious imposes the burden to
look at the evidence on both sides. If the evidence
on one side of the question is substantial and
substantially outweighs the evidence on the other side
of the question, courts have found that regulations
are arbitrary and capricious.
Not only that, one of the important questions
in the issue of what is arbitrary and capricious is
did the administrative agency consider all the facts
and information in reaching their decision. Not
whether or not they came out on one side or the other,
but did they consider all the relevant facts.
Now, EPA can't make a determination as to
whether or not ARB considered all the facts unless
EPA has all the facts in front of it. If you are
relying on ARB to submit under its own free will v/hat
it desires for the record, they might only submit that
information which is favorable to their case. I'm
-EflTIFlED SHOflTHANO REPORTERS
(4151 543-3194/4810098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
189
not implying that they will.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I would presume that
they may be inclined to do that. However, there is
nothing to preclude General Motors from presenting
whatever information, evidence it may wish on its own
behalf, not for a moment embracing your concept of our
review, but at the same time saying that to the extent
you have material which you want to provide to this
proceeding to support your contentions, feel free to do
so .
But the issue of my directing the CARB to
provide information, and I'm not sure which way it would
go, whether it's for your interest or against your
interest, is inappropriate because at some point in
time, if we make a review, presumably we must make a
finding one way or the other. It could go against the
CARB as well as going for them in the context of
information that is provided upon which we perform
our review.
MR. PETERSEN: Well, let me just repeat --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If you are just going
to repeat the same thing, you don't need to.
MR. PETERSEN: ARB is in the best position
to know what is in the record, and EPA cannot make
their determination without reviewing the entire record.
¦,F|E0 SHORTHAND REPORTERS
14151 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
190
I'll be glad to submit something to support that. That
is a very simple and basic concept of common law and
administrative law.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I see that Mr. Macomber
has come forward, and he may have something to say on
this matter.
MR. MACOMBER: Mr. Jackson, I think I can
represent right now that we intend to submit the
entire record as GM requests. It' s not our intention
to expurgate portions of the testimony that we may wish
to cite in support of their position at all. I think
that would be unfair.
I think as a legal matter, I tend to agree
with your position that we can submit as a matter of
law whatever portions of the record we would like to
submit. However, as a matter of fairness and our role
as a public agency, I think it's only appropriate for
us to submit the entire transcript of our proceedings
or the written comments provided by General Motors and
other interested persons.
I think you will see that we have committed
to that already in our identification of the record
provided in my statement that was submitted earlier.
So, it's not something that we simply come up with here
under duress. It's a question of fairness that we've
SMYTHE & WILSON
CITIFIED SHORTHAND reporters
(41S) S43 3i#4M«1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
191
already evaluated, and we are ready to be four square
about this problem. There is no question about that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Those comments tend to
continue to moot the question.
MR. PETERSEN: I would submit that to the
extent ARB submits to EPA all information, testimony,
data, evidence upon which the ARB regulation was based,
the question is mooted and General Motors is satisfied.
Furthermore, EPA will be able to fulfill their functions
under 209.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: In response to your
further remark, we have made no statement about what
we believe the standard of review is. By our not saying
that does not mean that we embrace your interpretation
of what our standard of review is.
MR. GRAY: I'd like to follow up on the
statement relative to technological feasibility. I
guess in thinking about your answer to my question
earlier, I'm not sure that it really gets at the question.
Let me be more specific and ask, perhaps
if I can approach it in a similar manner as was done
with Ford, does General Motors have any problems with
the current CARB regulations up until 1981 model year?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: I think the record will
be clear, Mr. Gray, regarding passenger car standards
SMYTHE & WILSON
C5PTIPIEQ SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194'«l-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
192
we did not voice any strong opposition relative to the
1980 passenger car standard. I think the record is
also clear regarding the truck standard, which we are
considering for 1979 and subsequent model years. We
did have some objection to that standard, and our
objection is put forth in previous testimony.
MR. GRAY: To summarize that position, is it
the 1979 light-duty truck standard that you have problems
with, or the 1980, or both?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Starting with 1979, and
principally, as you perhaps recall from the previous
testimony, with the hydrocarbon standard; although
once we get the same NOx standards that we do in
passenger cars that we have trouble with, obviously
we have trouble with those standards for trucks as well.
But it's the hydrocarbon standard starting in 1979.
MR. GRAY: You have no problem with the
oxides of nitrogen standard for light trucks or the
CO standards up until 1981?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: I think that's a fair
statement, yes.
MR. GRAY: Beginning in 1981, do you feel
that the passenger car total hydrocarbon standard of
.41, 3.4, and 1.0 total HC, CO and NOx is feasible?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: You have quoted the Federal >
SMYTHE & WILSON
-SmiFIED SHORTHAND REPOPTEPS
(4151 343-3134/481-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
193
standard; is that correct?
MR. GRAY: Yes, existing Federal standard.
MR. SCKWOCHERT: We are working toward that !
standard, Mr. Gray, and right now we hope to be able I
to meet that standard in 1981.
MR. GRAY: Do you believe you can meet the
hydrocarbon standard in 1980 with the lower level of
CO and NOx required -- I mean higher level, excuse me.
Do you see any problem right now in achieving the .41
hydrocarbon standard for passenger cars Federally in
1980?
MR. NELSON: Mr. Gray, we'd like to answer
your question, but we aren't sure exactly what you're
asking. Could you repeat that, please?
MR. GRAY: I just want to be sure I understand
correctly, and I am being redundant, I admit, in that,
specifically do you see that there is no problem, or
do you anticipate no problem of being able to comply
in 1980 to the Federal standards? I think you said
that earlier.
MR. NELSON: Thanks for being positive for
us. We weren't that positive in our statement.
MR. GRAY: Well, I am asking you. Do you
anticipate problems in being able to, or not? \
MR. NELSON: I didn't realize this was a
— I
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANC REPORTERS
543-3194»4*v30*«
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
194 j
I
I
Federal standard review. We are hopeful to make it,
yes .
MR. GRAY: Should I say .41 in 1980? Would j
that be better for you? There has been a question i
raised with regard to the feasibility, and I want to
be sure I understand General Motors' position.
MR. NELSON: We aren't challenging the
feasibility of the Federal standard for 1979. I didn't
think that was the subject of the hearing.
MR. GRAY: No, 1980 in terms of when a .41
I
i
!
hydrocarbon standard can be met for passenger cars is
the question I am asking.
MR. SCHWOCHERT: I think it would be fair, j
iWr. Gray, to say that we believe right now we will
i
have vehicles that we can offer for sale at that hydro- \
carbon standard level. We can't say for sure that
it'll include the entire product lineup that we now j
i
have, but we sure hope that we can provide as many !
vehicles as possible. Surely, we will have some that
we can provide at that standard.
MR. GRAY: Has General Motors made any j
i
sort of a tentative conclusion., at least perhaps, as to j
i
which option they would elect in 1981 if California '
is granted a waiver for those standards?
MR. NELSON: We have not made such a
|
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORThANO REPORTERS
(4*.$> 943 3194/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
195 j
I
conclus ion.
MR. GRAY: Do you feel that both are
feasible, or both are infeasible? !
MR. NELSON: I'd like to stand on the j
i
i
statement we made, that we were encouraged that ARB j
in adopting the alternate or option standard provided
additional flexibility to us in meeting the requirement.
From that viewpoint, we are encouraged by the require-
ment. We haven't made any determination which direction
i
we would elect to go.
After all, I think you ought to recognize
the hearing was just a week ago that established those
s t andards.
MR. GRAY: Do you feel it's infeasible
in 1982 to meet a .4 NOx standard?
MR. NELSON: We have stated many times we
do not know today how to meet that requirement.
MR. GRAY: Do you believe you could meet
the Option B in 1981? I refer only to the .4 NOx in
'82 because of the companion nature of '81-'82 options.
It seems the real difficulty of that option is tying
a manufacturer into the .4 NOx standard in 1982. Do
you feel that you can achieve the Option B standard
for 1981 and 1982 since it's the same for both years?
MR. NELSON: There's a better possibility
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
1415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
196 j
I
of meeting Option B than there is Option A for '82.
That's fairly apparent. We certainly haven't been able
to evaluate our product capability accurately enough
I
to tell you yes, we can meet it or no, we can't. We ,
|
did not make that argument. We discussed technology
feasibility at the last waiver hearings, and we were
under instruction to present new information at this
hearing.
MR. GRAY: I am driving at the question i
i
of the new option in particular. You do acknowledge
in the introduction of your comments that option is j
new and that the basic option has, of course, changed.
Since this is a new subject, I am simply asking: Do you
have difficulty, or do you think you would have difficulty!
with respect to compliance with those changed standards? j
i
It doesn't appear that you can totally rely on your ;
comments in the previous waiver hearing, since we were j
really talking about, as I recall, different levels for
1981. We were talking about .39 non-methane, 9.0 CO, j
i
and 1.0 NOx, and there's not an option exactly like
that available now for us to consider.
MR. NELSON: Certainly the option, as I
explained, does offer some flexibility because you can
go more than one direction.
Harry, do you have anything to comment?
SMYTHE 4 WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
197 j
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Yes. We will have difficulty
in meeting those standards. Again, we can't give you
any real definitive answers as to what part, if any,
of our product lineup will be able to meet those
standards. It's going to be difficult, surely. One
gram of NOx or lower control is going to be difficult
with the combined hydrocarbon standards.
MR. GRAY: Does GM plan to count on the
cleanup catalyst that we've heard referred to today in
order to achieve the lower levels of CO control?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Right, now, based on what
we know today, we feel that we would need such a device
at a 3.4 gram per mile CO standard.
MR. GRAY: Do you have evidence to show
what increase in NOx emissions results with the use
of such catalysts due to the oxidation of ammonia with
your catalyst systems?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: It appears that the amount
of increase is probably somewhat dependent upon the
NOx level.
MR. GRAY: At the 1.0 gram NOx level, if ;
I
you will? i
i
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Perhaps most of our work !
i
has been directed toward as low a NOx level as we can j
achieve. And, so, if we talked about a .4 gram per mile
MYTHE & WILSON
iRTIF'ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(413) 543*3194/461'3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19 S |
NOx level approximately, we see maybe one-tenth or
two-tenths of a gram per mile increase at that level
across the oxidizing converter.
Now, I would like to point out that we don't ;
completely understand that increase, because it doesn't
appear to be just a straight oxidation of ammonia. At
least insofar as we can measure the ammonia output
from a system without an oxidizing converter, we cannot
account for the increase then that we do see when we
would put an oxidizing converter on that same system.
I
So, we don't quite understand why there is that increase; j
nevertheless, there is an increase that appears to go
i
beyond what we see as far as the ammonia emissions go ;
i
I
without the oxidizing converter. i
i
MR. GRAY: Will the additional one-year j
lead time for a .4 NOx standard, if General Motors |
I
elects Option B for '81 and '82, be a signficant help !
in terms of being able to achieve that level? I mean |
1
your comments at the previous hearing were directed j
I
i
at .4 NOx for 1982, and this is another area where the j
California Air Resources Board has changed their i
programs last month. In electing to delay the .4 NOx |
standard, if the manufacturer took Option B in '81 and i
j
'82, does that change your position with respect to I
achieving that standard, the additional one-year lead .
j
SMYTHE & WILSON
CE9TIFIE0 SHOBTHANO SEPORTEHS
(415) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
199
time? j
MR. NELSON: Certainly, an extra year would J
1
allow you to do more work to reach the goal. It doesn't i
give us confidence that we can get there. It certainly '
gives us more time to work on that. From that viewpoint,
it's a help. We aren't sure that that's needed, as
we hope we pointed out clearly in our statement. If
we have to go that route, extra time is beneficial.
MR. GRAY: So, you don't have any sort of
a probability estimate or something like that as we
I
have heard discussed before as to what additional help I
this would represent in terms of probability of
compliance, or something of that sort? It just generally;
I
would help? j
!
MR. SCHWOCHERT: You would have to keep in j
i
i
mind, I think, that we are going to be introducing '
i
I
the types of systems on a large scale basis that we j
i
would hope to use to meet more stringent standards if j
they were promulgated. Insofar as getting more and J
I
more experience, hopefully that would increase your i
i
learning process. But that's speculation to look into j
a crystal ball and say for sure it would. i
MR. GRAY: Do you have a quantitative !
i
indication of the relative stringency -- if I can I
continue to use that word for the discussion here -- of
i
——— j
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(4151 543-3194Mfl 1-3095
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
200 |
a total hydrocarbon standard of .41 versus a non-methane
s tandard of .39?
MR. NELSON: I listened to the testimony !
of the Air Resources Board this morning, and this differs
slightly from the interpretation I heard you make this
morning. That is, I thought that Mr. Rubenstein was
evaluating air quality differences and not stringency
of meeting the standard, and his comment was that they
are marginally different, depending upon — I don't
know if he discussed this, but depending upon the type
of system, control system, whether it's a diesel or :
stratified charged engine, or what. There is a very j
i
marginal difference from that viewpoint, and we agree ¦
with that. There is a marginal difference and ability j
to meet such a standard, but we don't have any quanti-
fication to discuss.
MR. GRAY: What about a gasoline engine
I
with a three-way catalyst system, which I assume will j
be most of GM's product line?
You did make a comment in your statement j
today also that you supported a non-methane standard. |
i
I
I am asking you in principle or in a practical situation,I
i
l
insofar as it would actually make the standard easier j
to achieve. !
I.1R. NELSON: I would support it both from
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(*1S) S43 319414(1 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
201 |
a principle and a practical viewpoint.
In principle, it certainly makes sense that
you want to put your emphasis on the bad actor, and |
in practical reality it may also be important.
MR. GRAY: Following up on the latter aspect
of this, do you have an indication of how important
it is from a practical standpoint what per cent of the
total hydrocarbon would be non-methane, or would be
methane, let me say, at these levels for the systems?
MR. NELSON: Well, I think we are running j
i
j
about 15 per cent. Presently, we are running about i
15 per cent methane. I don't know if that will be
the same or change in the future. j
MR. GRAY: Is this presently running that J
I
level with your three-way catalyst systems that are
targeted for these levels?
i
MR. NELSON: No. The ones that were j
j
certified this year.
MR. GRAY: Right. But I mean with the
systems that you are working on now that have the j
potential for achieving these levels, do you have an j
indication of what the methane fraction is of those
vehicles? ;
t
t
MR. SCHWOCHERT: I don't think we have ;
enough informat ion on extended mileage to give you a
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(41S) 543-3194M61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
202
good reading. The primary information that we have
on extended mileage vehicles are those that we certified
this year, or that we ran for certification purposes.
I
So, I don't think we can really give you a good
indication down the road. We just don't have that
information. We really don't have much reason to
believe that it's going to be significantly different,
because as we see it, the amount of methane that one
forms is a function of what goes on in the engine. That
is, there is essential change in the amount of methane
i
across the catalyst, and with three-way catalyst
systems, you are talking about the same air/fuel ratio.
Whether we are targeting for 1978 standards or 1980 j
I
standards, at least during most of the operating modes
during the Federal test, and air/fuel ratio is a very
important parameter, as far as the methane fraction in
the engine, I think. So, I don't expect big differences,
but we don't really have enough data to say that will
or will not happen.
MR. GRAY: Do you have any insight as to
why Ford Motor Company this morning would have raised i
i
the issue as to the difficulty in meeting the total j
i
hydrocarbon standard, as compared to a non-methane
hydrocarbon standard when, as best I can understand
the sytems, the basic approach that GM is following, or
!
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(41S) 543*3194/461 -3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
203 j
I
that GM will be following and Ford is following are j
very similar? Why would we expect a difference? Do !
you have any technical comment to offer, or judgment
there?
MR. NELSON: I'd like to make a comment, j
Mr. Gray.
One of the big advantages of using methane
adjustment is because of the requirement to optimize •
fuel economy, and we haven't been able to quantify j
exactly what that benefit will be. But it's significant.:
And it may assist us in meeting other requirements. So, <
i
we think it's very important. i
t
I
Why artificially go farther than you have
to go for a given level of control? So, by using the ;
methane adjustment, we can accomplish several of our j
objectives, hopefully, or at least get the best balance |
i
possible between those objectives. j
MR. GRAY: So, you have not seen a catalyst j
formulation that would affect, for example, the i
oxidation of methane? You stand on the statement that j
i
vou made earlier that the methane content in the exhaust
i
-- that the tailpipe methane level is only a function
of the feedgas to the catalyst? You have not seen
that vary with Cal's formulation, for example?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: I think we'd stand on the
I
i
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED shohthano reporters
,4151 5-»3-319*.4«i J093
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
204
statement that basically the methane in the tailpipe
is the result of its production in the engine.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you, gentlemen.
(Short recess.)
MR. PERKINS: I am Stuart Perkins of American
Motors Corporation. I want to talk very briefly in
an oral statement on two subjects: One is the technolo-
gical feasibility of California passenger car standards
for low-volume manufacturers for 1980 and bevond; and j
I
i
i
the other topic is 1979 and beyond light-duty truck j
i
exhaust emission standards and test procedures.
I
Do you have any preference which short I
statement I make first? j
I
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No. ;
MR. PERKINS: On the subject of 1979 and
beyond, light-duty truck exhaust emission standards and ;
I
test procedures, American Motors would like to supplement ]
!
its May 18, 1977, statement concerning the 1979 light- |
|
duty truck standards. I
i
As we previously stated, equating as a j
proposed 1979 standard to all light-duty trucks under ;
I
4,000 pounds test weight with passenger cars is not
realistic with respect to our Jeep vehicles that are i
i
designed primarily for off-road operation. The newly
amended Section 209(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(413) 543-3194^461-30M
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
205
to deny a waiver request if he finds the standard was
arbitrary and capricious. American Motors submits
I
that the Air Resources Board was arbitrary and capricious
in requiring four-wheel drive vehicles designed
primarily for off-highway operation to meet the same
level emission control as passenger cars, if their
test weight was under 4,000 pounds.
As standards become more stringent ,
regulatory considerations need to be cognizant of all
i
i
aspects of the vehicle population they are regulating.
Failure to recognize the unique characteristics of
four-wheel drive vehicles is an example of this lack
of consideration. ;
i
!
It is our belief that the ARB arbitrarily j
I
and erroneously included our Jeep vehicles in their J
t
j
light-duty truck standards. The following quote from j
i
their statement to the EPA at the May 18, 1977 waiver j
i
t
hearing supports this belief: |
"The lighter classes of light-duty trucks i
j
and medium-duty vehicles are almost identical to
I
passenger cars in design and weight and, therefore, !
t
these vehicles should be able to meet the passenger j
car standards with application of existing !
technology already being used on passenger cars
such as three-way or oxidation catalysts, exhaust
SMYTHE & WILSON
CeSTIFISO SHOPTHANO HEPOSTSPIS
i1Sl S43-3194'*«' 3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
206 |
gas recirculation and air injection."
The record of the May 18, 1977 waiver
I
hearing includes testimony and discussion on the basic ¦
differences between our Jeep CJ vehicles and our ;
i
passenger cars that disputes the ARB's rationale for
the 1979 truck standards.
In addition, American Motors is unaware of
the basis for selecting 3,999 pounds as the split for
the light-duty truck class. Therefore, we consider
t
that the split at this point was purely arbitrary and !
!
!
capricious and a waiver for these vehicles must be j
I
denied. j
The other subject is technological
feasibility of California passenger car standards for j
low volume manufacturers for 1980 and beyond. j
!
The 1977 amendment to the Clean Air Act j
provided in Section 202(b) that the Administrator j
shall prescribe standards which provide that emissions j
I
of oxides of nitrogen may not exceed 2.0 grams per j
vehicle mile in 1981 and 1982 for lower volume manufac- j
turers who are dependent on other manufacturers for •
|
technology development. i
The ARB staff in a September 12 report to
its Board recommended that this exemption not be adopted
by California. American Motors disagrees with the ARB
SMYTHE & WILSON
certified shorthand aepohtehs
<41S) 543-3'94V46i-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20 7
staff's contention that California's regulations need be
consistent only with Section 202(a) of the Act, vhile the
exemption is contained in Section 202(b). The specific
federal limitation on emissions is wholly contained
within Section 202(b) and, therefore, is relevant to
California waivers.
In summary, American Motors asserts that
California ARB must develop some exemption in concert
with the intent of the Clean Air Act Amendments for
delay in the application of more stringent NOx standards
for lower volume vendor dependent manufacturers. To do
otherwise would be in direct conflict with all three of
the conditions that must be satisfied by California to
obtain a waiver. Consequently, the EPA must deny the
waiver.
We will not comment on each of the legal and
technical issues at this time. American "otors is vorkin
with the ARB staff to develop language to parallel the
Clean Air Act Amendments. We will soon submit a position
paper to the EPA record. We therefore request the EPA
to delay for 45 days its decision on the California
waiver related to California's emission standards for
passenger cars for the 1980 model year and beyond.
Thank you.
CIIAI ?.?¦: AN JACKSON: That 's a neiv tvist . I
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND RfiPOflTEflS
(415) $43-3194/4*1-3
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
208 |
thought about it, I guess, but I hadn't heard it
i
|
articulated quite that way. i
What you are saying is that you think the ;
problem is going to be worked out as a result of your
efforts to get California to adopt an exemption provision
similar to that one which is in the Clean Air Act that
would apply to vendor dependent manufacturers?
MR. PERKINS: I'm not sure that I would go
i
so far at this point to say that I am certain that some- i
I
thing is going to be worked out. My statement is that
I
we have talked to them, and we are working with my in- ;
i
tention toward that end. S
I
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You expect something to be
i
done in 45 days? 1
\
MR. PERKINS: I'm certain there would be a j
j
conclusion within 45 days, either that we can work soir.e- |
thing out or that they would refuse to, and then we can ,
make a statement to the record of each of the lecal and i
i
technical arguments, rather than going over all of it at |
i
this point.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Has the CAP.B got anything
to say on this matter?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I think we would oppose any !
delay in the EPA's consideration of the 1930 standards '
because of this matter. If something were worked out at j
SMYTHE & WILSON " ~
certified shobthano reporters
14151 J43-3194/4«130M
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
—— 1
209 |
a later date, there is no reason why the Board couldn't J
make its regulations and apply lor a waiver at that time.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: One other observation that ;
i
I have with regard to your conclusion about the regulation
of four-wheel drive vehicles equivalent to the standard
drive counterpart. You might note that the Amendments to
the Clean Air Act, although addressing heavy duty
vehicles, provided specific language in terms of including
in the heavy duty regulations vehicles which have special
I
features in either off-street or off-highway operation j
and use, the point being that the Congress in addressing j
heavy duty vehicles specifically said includes off-highway!,
j
off-street. j
i
MR. PERKINS: These are light duty vehicles.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, this is heavy duty.
MR. PERKINS: I'm sorry. These are light j
duty (indicating his statement). j
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understand that. I am
i
I
just saying with regard to heavy duty, Congress has made
i
i
an acknowledgement of its intent to that regard, thus you i
can argue they had in front of them the EPA and CAF.B
regulations which would have given them the opportunity
to go the other way if they were concerned about that !
point with regard to light duty. !
MR. PERKINS: I would disagree with that.
SMYTHE & WILSON ' """
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(41S1 S43-J1Mu*l.J0»(
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
210
They addressed heavy duty. They did not address light
duty .
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's the point, the
fact they didn't.
MR. PERKINS: They didn't consider it. They
didn't think about it.
But it comes, then, to the question of
technological feasibility with our four-v/heel drive, and
these are not four-v/heel drive counterparts to two-wheel
drive vehicles. We only build our Jeep CJ in the four-
wheel drive configuration. There is no tv/o-wheel drive
configuration. It is technically infeasible for those
vehicles in the time span that was allowed to meet the
standards imposed by California.
The inherent design of the vehicles with
heavy transmissions, transfer cases and axels that are
different than passenger cars makes the application of
the same technology to Jeeps impossible to meet those
same low numbers as passenger cars do.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me make it clear that
I understand what you are concerned about with regard to
the exemption. I don't have your statement in front of
me, so I can't refer back to it.
Is what you want us to do is delay the
decision for 45 days from this date?
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND reporters
(415) S43-319
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
211
MR. PERKINS: Yes, permitting: us, as quickly
as possible, to get a position paper to you. I don't
think it's appropriate for us to use this meeting as a
forum for American Motors and ARB to debate whether or
not Clean Air Act exemption for low volume manufacturers
applies to California. I think it's better that we try
to resolve many of those issues outside the public forum,
to agree on them ahead of time; and if it can be worked
out satisfactorily to what we view as feasible for
American Motors to produce vehicles during those model
years in California and ARB to conclude that with whatever
is worked out that the air quality in California is pro-
tected, I think it's better for us to do within technical
discussions rather than to debate this in a public forum.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I would encourage you to
provide whatever you are going to provide within the time
provided for the record to be open, which is October 31st,
I believe. I don't think on the basis of what you have
presented there is a sufficient case to commit to you that
the agency will not make a decision before 45 days from
this date. Although, if you look at our past record, you
probably don't even need to ask.
MP.. PERKINS: V'e are currently working with
I
ARB on the subject, and both of us would like to resolve j
it as quickly as possible.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) S43-3l9«'4«1-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
212
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
MR. WAGNER: I am Robert Wagner from the
j
Chrysler Corporation.
I
My statement will be short. I believe the j
others have covered the issues very adequately. I think
the record clearly states Chyrsler's position on the
issues today.
We have supported the non-methane standard
primarily because it makes sense. It is clear that
methane is not reactive.
r,fe support the flexibility offered in terms
of the options, even though we might not support the
numbers. We believe that there is a serious question
associated with the need for additional NOx control.
It is fairly clear to me that the effects of additional
NOx control are not very clear as to oxidants. I did
attend the January workshop, and one of the things
I did carry out of that meeting was that what I consider
the best scientific experts in this field concluded
was that they could not come to any conclusion about
the effect of NOx control on the atmosphere. They all
agreed tnat a substantial amount of additional study
was necessary before it was very clear what those
effects would be.
Questions?
I
¦ i
SMYTHE & WILSON '
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(41«( 543*3194/4610098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
213
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But there wasn't any
question but what the more stringent NOx control would
reduce NOx in the immediate vicinity of the population
of cars?
MR. WAGNER: Oxidants?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Not oxidants.
MR. WAGNER: NOg.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: NO„, yes.
4mi
MR. Vi'AGNER: Yes, there is agreement to
the extent of MO^ in the immediate area.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So the question is --
MR. WAGNER: The question associated with
oxidants and obvious questions associated with the
effect of ozone on health, whether the amount of ozone,
oxidants, in the atmosphere would increase or decrease
with lower NOx, those are serious questions in people's
minds. Would it actually increase or decrease? It
was interesting to me that there was not agreement
among those scientists as to whether those oxidants
would increase or decrease with lower NOx.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: 3o it could go either
way ?
MR. WAGNER: Could go either pay.
Ch AI EM AN JACKSON: I presume you were here
when Ford made their arguments about their oroblems
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
U15> S43
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
214
with the total hydrocarbon standards?
MR. WAGNER : Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Option A and Option B
provides a non-methane hydrocarbon standard for 1981.
What is Chrysler's position with regard to its ability
to comply with either or both of those options for 1981?
MR. WAGNER: I believe that we could comply
with either one. I don't think either one of those
will put us out of business. As I previously stated,
we prefer the non-methane standard.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Because it makes sense?
MR. WAGNER: Because it makes sense.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: As opposed to its
technological infeasibility?
MR. WAGNER: Right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you have data which
demonstrates compliance with .39, 7.0, and .7?
MR. WAGNER: On what basis; on a one-car
research basis, or do you mean --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Whatever.
MR. WAGNER: Do you think we can go into
production with those numbers?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you think you can go
into production with those numbers?
MR. WAGNER: Not at the present time.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461-3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
215
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: By 1981?
MR. WAGNER: We think we can meet .7 at
least on our small engines. There is serious question
as to whether our V-8's will meet .7. But I make that
statement from very limited information. We have been
shooting for the 1.0 NOx level, and we have stated that
we are going to meet 1.0 NOx level for 1980. And,
obviously, for 1981.
Whether we will have the same full product
offering as we presently have is certainly in serious
question.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much, sir.
I believe the CARB has requested an
opportunity to return to the -- Did I notice a hand?
MR. SCHWENTKER: I'd like to make a few
procedural observations before you close.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We will permit the
procedural observations by Mr. Schwentker before the
CARB returns.
MR. SCHWENTKER: Do you want to do it now?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes.
MR. SCHWENTKER: Good afternoon. My name
is Don Schwentker, and I am counsel to the Automobile
Importers of America. I'd just like to speak briefly
to a few procedural issues.
CERTIFIED SHOSTWANO REPORTERS
(415) 343-3194/461>3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
216
The optional standards that California
adopted were considered at an ARB hearing on the 29th
of September. The decision was announced on the 30th
!
of September. AIA was notified that ARB intended to
consider these optional standards on Monday, September
26, three days before the public hearing, and we under-
stand that even the domestics, who are a lot closer, only
received notification the previous Friday. So, no one
had much notice that this was being considered at the
public hearing on Thursday, September 29. Therefore,
manufacturers couldn't adequately determine the effect
of these standards on their planned product line for
1981 and 1982.
This is especially true of manufacturers
whose engineering and production facilities are overseas.
The ARB record doesn't support the
technological feasibility of meeting these optional
standards in the lead time that was remaining. As a
matter of fact, at that hearing on Thursday, a week
or so ago, at the end of the day, the ARB chairman,
Tom Quinn, asked a couple of domestic manufacturers |
I
about their ability to meet Option B by 1981. When
i
the manufacturers told them they were unable to answer
the question, they were told that they should phone
I
i
back to Michigan during the night and have someone '
ERT'PIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 343-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
217
figure it out and give them the v/orcl the next morning,
to which I objected on the theory that the ARB record
ought to be based on something other than the overnight
determination by General Motors as to whether it can
meet Option B by 1981, and I still feel that v/ay.
The ARB statement, on Page 14 of their
presentation, is also a bit misleading. The bottom of
Page 14 says, "Furthermore, at the Board's September 30,
1977 meeting when these changes were adopted, no
vehicle manufacturer expressed serious problems with
these changes and most manufacturers expressed the
belief that the optional standards would provide them
with additional flexibility which could improve their
ability to meet California's standard at minimum cost."
I attended the hearing on the 29th of
September, and whereas the manufacturers did agree that
an optional approach certainly offered flexibility, j
I think it is misleading to say that no one expressed
serious problems. I think that everyone agreed that
they didn't know the effect that these standards would
have on their product line for 1981 and 1982.
And I think it's also not enough to say
that these standards are options. "-'hen someone complains
about the lack of a non-methane standard for hydrocarbon
under Option A, he's told that's an option. And then j
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED 3HORTHANO REPORTERS
(415) 543*3194; 461-3093
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
218
when he complains about .7 NGx under Option B, he's
told that that's an option. But if you have problems
with one or more elements of each option, the fact that
it's an option doesn't console you a great deal.
We also think the options ought to be by
engine family and not by the entire product line. We
understand that the ARB concern is that if a manufacturer
v/ere allowed to select Option A or Option B by engine
family that after having selected Option A with a
one-gram NOx standard in 1981 for part of his line and
for Option B with a .7 NOx for the remainder of his
line, the following year, if he felt he couldn't meet
i
.4 wtih the engine families for which he had selected
Option A, that there would be great pressure brought
to bear on the ARB to get rid of the .4 NOx standard.
That's something they have to face up to. They have
to face up to that 1983 in any case. If they are
concerned about public pressures about the ability to
meet a .4 NOx standard, they do have to face up to that.
I think it's inappropriate to say that this is reason
enough not to allow these standards to be met by engine
family at the manufacturer's option. They have concluded
that air quality is going to be served equally whether
the manufacturer selects Option A or B. If that in fact
is true, then he certainly should be allowed to do that j
CcPTIF'ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
U15I
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
219
by engine family.
I'd also like to ask a question regarding
the sale of California vehicles outside of California.
Helen Petrauskas was raising an issue similarly earlier,
but I didn't hear any discussion on the option of a
manufacturer to sell a California vehicle outside of
California. It becomes very, very important to a
manufacturer who ships California vehicles, for instance,
to all West Coast ports for sale at all of the western
states, as is done by some of the import manufacturers.
It would be important to them to be able to sell these
other California vehicles in other states in the west
outside of California.
I'd like to know whether you have any
interpretation of the Clean Air Act Amendments with
respect to that, as distinct from the Eckhardt Amendment
under which a state could require California vehicles
to be sold.
Have you made any determination about that
question, or is it something that you haven't thought
about or don't care about.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: One, haven't thought
about it until you just brought it up in exactly the
same slant that you have put on it.
MR. SCHVv'ENTKER: It's an important
ERTIFIEO SHORTHANO REPORTERS
(~15) 543-3194/461-30®®
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
220
consideration if the California standards are indeed
different than the Federal standards.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I guess just at the risk
of being reversed and wrong, the way I see it working
would be: taking the language that says, "Compliance
with California standards will be deemed to be compliance
with Federal standards." At such time as another state
adopts California standards, then it would be in that
context.
MR. SCHWENTKER: I think that's clear.
It's not so clear --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: When it breaks it out
in terms of the -- in the context in which you have
broken it out, the other state, whatever it may have
been, hasn't made this determination of its willingness
to adopt the California standards, which may include
a less stringent CO standard.
MR. SCHWENTKER: Right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Therefore, you would
be preempting the state to some extent from the
prerogative of having a greater CO control as mandated
by the Federal standards, because that state didn't
say I want California's standards. Y'ith that line of
reasoning, I would argue that unless certified to the
Federal standards inclusive of the California standards,
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTWANO REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194/461 3090
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
221
that the sale of such a car v/ould not be permitted.
MR. SCHWENTKER: This is a big problem,
I think, for domestics as well as importers. It's
probably a critical thing for importers who ship
California cars to West Coast ports. But I think
domestic manufacturers also sell California vehicles
in neighboring states to California.
One parting shot. I think before you
rule on the arbitrariness or capriciousness of California
rule making, you guys ought to be sentenced to sit
through a few rule-making sessions of the ARB. I think
that mighf open your eyes a little bit.
That's all I have to say. You might call it
cruel and unusual punishment.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you have an-/ way of
enforcing this sentence?
MR. SCHWENTKER: No. No. We could offer
you something, I guess.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much,
Mr. Schwentker.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: At the risk of inflicting
some additional cruel and unusual punishment on Mr.
Schwentker, I would like to make some final comments,
if I may --
MR. V'AGNER: Would you speak a little
IYTHE & WILSON
ITIPI6D SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(41$) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
222
louder, Gary?
MR. RUBENSTEHI: I'll have to eat this
thing.
With respect to a comment made by Volkswagen,
I just wanted to reconfirm that we will clarify both
to the EPA and to the affected manufacturers the
question of whether or not that Option A or Option B
split can be applied separately for gasoline and diesel-
powered vehicles.
The second point --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you have any idea of
which way it might go?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: No, not at this time.
The second point is that if EPA promu1 gates
a non-methane hydrocarbon standard for 1S81 model
passenger cars, or if EPA. in some way states that .39
non-methane hydrocarbon standard for 1981 passenger
cars in California is at least as protective of public
health as .41 total hydrocarbon standard, then under
either of those conditions, I beliove the AP.B staff
would recommend to the Board that it adopt a non-methane
hydrocarbon standard for Option A in 1981 for Califoriia
standards.
That was to address some concerns raised
by some other vehicle manufacturers.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHOflTWANO REPORTERS
S43.3144/4A1.1A0II
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
223
The third point I'd like to address is
on the discussion that occurred this morning on the
Eckhardt Amendment. We, I think, believe that's mostly
a discussion between EPA and the vehicle manufacturers.
The only point to which it concerns us is
that we very strongly believe, regardless of how the
EPA determination comes out, the Eckhardt Amendment
should not in any way make California's waiver conditions
or obligations more difficult. We believe that the
intent of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 is
very clearly to ratify and strengthen California's
position in requesting and obtaining waivers and that
the Eckhardt Amendment was not intended to diminish
that right in any way.
MR. jiACOMBEP.: That point is addressed
in my legal memorandum, which is in the record, in
further length.
MP. P.UBENSTEIN: My fourth comment is
that GM made several additional arguments today
regarding air quality, and I guess several other
manufacturers as well. We don't believe that any new
I
arguments have been presented in terms of the air
quality and the trade-off between N02 and accident and
that all of these arguments were previously heard and
considered by the Board when they made their decision :
YTHE & WILSON
TIFIEO SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(415) 543-3194,461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
224
to adopt the .4 NOx standard and related standards.
The fifth point is that GM in their st atement
indicated that ARB had not considered several things !
in adopting the maintenance regulations, and I'd like
to clarify that ARB did in fact consider the need for
scheduled maintenance for reasons other than emissions
control. Both in the transcript of the May 1976
hearing and an exchange between General Motors and
the Board, and as well in the final regulations, the
ARB did in fact recognize that there were some
circumstances in which maintenance for reasons other
than emission control might be required on emissions-
related components.
The last point that I'd like to make deals
with a comment, again by General Motors, regarding a
statement made at a workshop last December in which
they quoted an ARB staff member as saying that the
proposed regulation was based on "a gut feeling." This
is again with respect to the maintenance regulations.
That statement was made by an individual
ARB staff member and is not reflective of the Board's
decision-making process. The staff member's statement
further went on to say that in his opinion additional
work was required prior to final rule making.
After that 1976 rule-making workshop, as
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO BBPOPTEnS
i*15| 543-3194M61-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
225
a matter of fact, there was a questionnaire sent to
vehicle manufacturers for information on the subject
of maintenance. Written comments were received from
the manufacturers by the staff, a two-day workshop
was held, and two public hearings were held before
the Board made its final decision in adopting the
regulation. We think that it is totally absurd to
indicate that a "gut feeling" statement made by a
staff member early in the decision-making process could
in any way reflect on the effort and the consideration
that the Board gave to adopting those maintenance
regulat i ons.
Sort of a final comment on that, we also
very strongly believe that the arbitrary and capricious
test clearly applies only to the "protective of public
health" finding and not ARB's entire rule-making
process. I believe that point is also covered in
Kingsley's memorandum.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: With regard to the
maintenance instruction issue, as you probably noted
from the testimony by Ford, the Clean Air Amendments
changed considerably EPA's authority in that area.
".Vhat is your view of that change as it
relates to your program and intention to regulate the
content of maintenance instructions?
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(414) 5*3.3194(4*1.30M
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
226
MR. MACOMBER: As far as the legal issues
are concerned, that again is addressed in the memorandum
I
already that we have supplied. I'm not aware of any I
intention on our part to modify our regulations, or !
to hold further hearings with respect to, say, appealing
or rolling back that program in any aspect.
Gary, are you aware of any thoughts along
that line?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: No. We may reconsider our
program if at some point in the future EPA does in
fact use that authority to propose or adopt regulations,
but at this point in time, since none have been
oroposed, we have no plans to change our programs at all. j
I
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's a staff view?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It has not been addressed
by the Board? i
MR. MACCMBER: The Board certainly has
never stated that they would consider rolling back a
program that they recently adopted, so I think we have
i
to assume that the Board intends to go ahead with those j
regulations. We certainly have received no instructions
from them since August 7th to reconsider that program.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I just reflect
on the motorcycle program, for example, where Federal
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND reporters
(415) 543-3194/401.3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
227
action in the area resulted in CARB rolling back, if
you will. Maybe that's not an appropriate way to
characterize your action, but my concern was whether this :
had the same kind of effect, this change in the Federal i
law, as the adoption by the Federal EPA of motorcycle \
standards, and the kind of attitude towards that program.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I think it could conceivably,
but we are at a different point in time in terms of our
relative rule-making processes than we were on the
motorcycle issue. I think that if EPA did in fact
adopt regulations governing vehicle manufacturers'
maintenance instructions to their owners that the staff
would definitely evaluate those regulations and would
recommend to the Board one way or another whether or
not the Board should modify its own regulations. Until
that time, we see no reason to approach the Board on
the subject.
MR. MACOMBER: I might point out, if I
understand the manufacturer's contentions on the legal
issue, it simply boils down to whether or not California
is somehow 100 per cent preempted from acting in this
area as a result of the Clean Air Act Amendments. As
we said in our memo, we don't think that's the case at
all. We think the question of preemption can be taken
care of by a waiver as a result of these proceedings.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
«
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
228
I
That's why we are here today seeking a waiver for our
maintenance restrictions.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think their point was j
i
it was not waiverable.
MR. MACOMBER: Okay. I will concede that
to be their point. I'm not disagreeing with that being
their point.
What I am saying is that it clearly is
waiverable because, as our regulations require, it's
a condition for certification of new vehicles in
California. That's clearly a waiverable kind of program.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Clearly a precedent to
initial sale; is that what you are saying?
MR. MACOMBER: Yes.
MR. GRAY: I'd like to ask a couple questions
that we began to pursue this morning and deferred them.
The first one deals with the substantiation that the
CARB might have with respect to the feasibility of
the increased stringent 1981 passenger car standards.
Will the CARB or does the CARB intend to
supply additional inf ormat ion to the record that would J
better justify the basis for their changing of that
regulation in terms of its feasibility? What information j
does CARB have in hand that they felt would justify !
making the standards more stringent?
SMYTHE & WILSON
CSPT1F16D SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(413) S43-3194/4*1-2098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
229 |
|
MR. RUBEN3TEIN: Taking a look at the
feasibility issue for Option A and Option B separately,
I
with respect to the Option A, I guess we did not feel i
I
the need to submit any substantiation of that standard's j
feasibility since that, as we understand it, will be
the Federal standard for all cars in 1981. Therefore,
we did not, as I say, see the need to submit any
further substantiation.
For Option B in 1982, the only change in
that standard from what we had previously addressed
at previous waiver hearings was a change in the standard
for CO from 9.0 down to 7.0. We indicated and we
believe that the testimony from the transcript of the
I
I
September 29th Board meeting will also support our
contention that that change in CO standard did not
I
affect the stringency or the lead time or the feasibility |
I
issues for those standards. j
i
MR. GRAY: To clarify, the transcript of j
that hearing is the basis upon which you make that j
j
statement that the --
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Change from 9.0 down to 7.0? j
I
MR. GRAY: Correct. j
MR. RUBENSTEIN: That's generally correct.
It's also based on the data that we used to support j
the .4 NOx standard in the first place. T.',Te submitted
SMYTHE & WILSON
cesrineo shobthano ieportebs
(*15) 543-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
230
many documents supporting our position that the .4 NOx
standard is feasible for 1982, and we believe those
|
documents would also support our contention that there
is no effect on feasibility or lead time by changing
the CO standard from 9.0 to 7.0.
Looking at the feasibility for the Option
B, we believe that that should be treated primarily
as an option. We believe that there is some data that's
available. We believe that there has been -- *Ye have
testimony from vehicle manufacturers to date about the
ability of at least small vehicles to meet those
standards.
Obviously, I think the bulk of our testimony, \
\
I
though, has been directed at demonstrating the
feasibility and the lead time for Option A, and I think j
the EPA would concur, as they have in previous times,
that the feasibility as demonstrated for at least one of
i
the options, then the question of feasibility for the i
i
second option is somewhat mooted.
i
I
MR. GRAY: That question was basically [
I
just framework upon which to ask this question: Do j
i
you consider your Option B a strategy that would be j
easier for a manufacturer to achieve? j
MR. P.UBENSTEIN: I could say that conversa- '
tions with manufacturers and their testimony at the
i
_ l
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED shorthand reporters
(419) 543 J19«'461 3096
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_ ,
231 |
last ARB hearing indicate that many manufacturers see
advantages to Option B. I presume those advantages
would be in the form of those standards being easier to !
I
comply with than the Option A standards.
MR. GRAY: Is that to say that in the
aggregate -- whatever the appropriate words are in the
Act now, in the aggregate, do you feel that that package,
Option B, is at least as protective of the public
health and welfare as is Option A?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Yes. j
I
MR. GRAY: Do you have backup for that
j udgmen t ?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: The Board made that finding
at its September 30th meeting, and backup for that !
finding would be based on the Staff Report, supplemental
Staff Report, and transcript of that hearing.
MR. GRAY: The Staff Report which is what?
Which Staff Report?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: 77-20-2.
MR. GRAY: At least in my reading of that
staff report, I do not recall seeing addressed the
question as to the benefit of that strategy as compared
to the strategy A in terms of improving the public
health and welfare.
MR. MACO.MBER: I'm a little bit confused
(415) 343-31944461-3Q96
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
232
by the question.
MR. GRAY: I guess what I am concerned
about -- |
|
I
MR. MACOMBER: The law requires the comparison!
to be relative stringency or protectiveness to be made
with respect to Federal standards, not vis-a-vis
internally among California standards.
MR. GRAY: Option A is the Federal standard?
MR. MACOMBER: Right.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: In 1981.
MR. MACOMBER: Right, but it's a two-year
package.
MR. GRAY: The basic question, then, that
I am asking at this point is simply: Upon what basis
did the ARB make the determination that Option B is
in the aggregate at least as protective of the public
health and welfare as the Federal standard, which is
Option A?
This may be a little different twist to the
application of the arbitrary and capricious criterion,
but it seems like at least it hasn't been brought up
in this discussion here.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Let me try to get your
question one more time. You're asking what the basis
is for the Board's finding that the standards in Option
SMYTHE & WILSON
CEBTIH60 SHORTHAND REPORTERS
(*1S) 543-3l9*/««1 30 98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
233
B are at least as protective of the public health as
the Federal standards?
MR. GRAY: Yes.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay.
MR. GRAY: As I understand the waiver
provisions, the EPA must make a determination that the --
MR. RUBENSTEIN: CARB must make a determina-
tion.
MR. GRAY: -- CARB did not make an arbitrary
and capricious determination with respect to adopting
Option B, which the manufacturers can adopt, which the
EPA must allow to be sufficient, which other states
can adopt, etc. So the question is simply --
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. I believe —
MR. GRAY: -- to support that contingent.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I believe that the basis
for that finding is contained in the supplemental Staff
Report which addressed those standards in particular,
and the Board essentially looked at the advantage of
achieving additional NOx control one year earlier --
or, excuse me, that's not the correct frame of reference.
We are comparing these with Federal standards
in each year.
MR. GRAY: Correct.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: The standards are at least !
i
SMYTHE 4 WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND SEPOSTEflS
(415> 543-3194/441.JQ98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
234
as protective of public health because they provide
an additional benefit of oxides of nitrogen at the
expense of a higher carbon monoxide standard and, in
our opinion, a marginally higher hydrocarbon standard.
Given the nature of the oxidants, carbon monoxide,
and NC>2 air quality problems in Southern California,
as were outlined in numerous Staff Reports already
included in the record of this hearing and presented
before the Board, the Board made the determination that
those standards in Option B for those two years were
in the aggregate at least as protective of public
health as applicable Federal standards.
MR. GRAY: Of course, that's the main reason
I was pursuing the question initially relative to the
quantification of "marginal." If marginal is 2 per cent,
then it's probably a moot point with respect to the
judgment. But if a non-methane standard really results
in significantly less control of reactive hydrocarbons
than would result with the implementation of a total
hydrocarbon standard, then that's a little different.
If you still say the trade-off is between HC and CO,
and that the hydrocarbon trade-off is just marginal,
it's not really worth considering, then data that
we may receive from the manufacturers showing that a
non-methane standard is much easier to achieve technical]
ITHANO PEPORT5RS
(415) 543-3194/441.3090
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
235
will also show that a non-methane standard will also
control reactive hydrocarbons to a much lesser degree
than would a total hydrocarbon standard. It would
seem consideration of that would be an important
consideration that the ARB should have.
I guess perhaps you have answered my question.
I didn't mean to elaborate so much.
The sole basis, then, is in the report of
that hearing and the Staff Report 77-20-3.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: That's correct, but in the
context of California's air pollution problem which was --
MR. GRAY: I realize that, but there is an
oxidant problem in that as well, and it seems like
that that is definitely the area that seems to be
troubling me, as it has been clearly expressed in the
line of questioning.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: The transcript of the
September Board meeting, I believe, will show that the
Board is not -- Perhaps this is not relevant for this
particular waiver decision -- is not giving up, as it
were, on oxidant control or hydrocarbon control for
motor vehicles and has directed the staff to investigate,
among other things, the possibility of reducing non-
methane hydrocarbon standards for future model years.
I can't see that — I guess what I am saying
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHANO SEPOHTEBS
(«1S> 543 3194/4413098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
236
is that I think the Board's decision was based on a
presumption of the kind of technology that would be
developed to lead to either the .41 total hydrocarbon
or the .39 non-methane hydrocarbon standard. And based
upon the presumption of how that development would
proceed over the next several years before 1981, the
staff recommended and the Board agreed that the increase
in hydrocarbons, the difference in terms of health
effects between the non-methane standard of .39 and
total hydrocarbon standard of .41, were in fact marginal
or smal1.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You are telling us,
though, that the Board has made an affirmative determina-
tion with regard to the optional standards as to whether
they are at least as protective of public health as
applicable Federal standards?
MR. RUBEN5TEIN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And you are satisfied
that the basis upon which that determination was made
is provided in the record?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And you've cited in what
you believe adequate manner the places where that
support can be found?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Yes.
SMYTHE & WILSON
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND AEPOfiTESS
(415J S43..11Q4/4A 1.1AOA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
237
MR. MACOMBER: I think the record will
speak for itself, and I'm sure that EPA will study it
carefully. I don't think we intend to bind ourselves
necessarily today in indicating exactly where the record
is. But I think Mr. Rubenstein's statements are
accurate, to my knowledge. But we don't intend to
be bound precisely with what we are saying today. The
record will speak for itself.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Along this same line,
it seems to us that your concerns, Mr. Gray, about the
difference between a non-methafie and total hydrocarbon
standard in terms of their health effects in California
must be based on some presumptions as to the kind of
technology that will in fact be used, just as our
determination or our statement that there is only a
marginal difference in terms of health effects were
I
based on some kind of technology. We believe that unless I
i
you can in some way show that the Board's finding was
arbitrary and capricious that you have no grounds for
substituting your judgment for that of ARB or its staff.
MR. GRAY: Is this the first time that
you've heard Ford's comments relative to the non-methane
issue? Ford, in essence, said today that there were
substantial differences in the reactive hydrocarbons --
to keep away from the word "stringency" -- of a non-methan;
CEBTFIED SHORTHAND AEPCRTEBS
(41S) 343*3194/461 -J098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2 38
standard, as opposed to the so-callecl equivalent total
hydrocarbon standard.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Given the technology that
Ford is working with. No, this is not the first time
we have heard those comments. We have had discussions
with Ford and other manufacturers ever since the Board
first adopted the methane correction factor for the
'77 mode 1 year.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Then you continue to
harbor your beliefs, even given that the domestic
manufacturers who supply a preponderance of the cars in
California don't intend to use that technology or
appear not to be intending to use that technology? I
presume you are talking about the Volvo technology.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: You are basically talking
about the difference between the technology that has
5 to 10 per cent methane fraction versus the technology
that has 30 to 40 per cent?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's correct.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: We don't believe that the
manufacturers strongly indicated one way or another
today which technology they would be using under Option B
CHAIP.!.!AN JACKSON: well, Ford made it clear
that they only had one choice in terms of hardware,
and that's what they had locked in already. And that
SMYTHE 4 WILSON
"sktipied sho"thano hepqrtebs
(4tS) 343-3194/461-3094
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was not, as I understood, the Volvo technology. And
therein lies their problem.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Ford can correct me if I
am wrong, but I believe — if they are still here; they
are still here -- that at the September Board meeting,
they indicated that if they chose to go to Option B,
there was a chance that they could delete the cleanup
oxidation catalyst on at least some portion of their
model lines, but then return to the straight three-way
catalyst system which is the one that has the relatively
low methane content.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you, gentlemen.
I have a statement to make about the
proceedings as they go from here.
There has been quite a lot said today about
the standard of review the EPA must apply in making its
findings required under the Amendments. V.'e have been
given a good deal of directions as to how we should
perform our review by the manufacturers and, indeed,
by the CAP.B. V,'e may have from time to time said some
things on the part of the panel that reflected to some
extent our interpretation of the way the review will
be performed.
It's fair to say that the agency has made
no formal determination as to how it will make the j
tMYTHE & WILSON
;epTlFIE0 SH0HTHAN0 REPORTERS U15) 543-3194MUM098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
240
findings, perform the review required by the new
Amendments. We will take under consideration and
advisement the offerings made by the CARB, the manufac-
turers and, of course, our own lawyers in determining
how we will reach a conclusion here. But I say this
to avoid any undue reliance on statements that we may
have made here in response to some of the questions,
or indeed in posing some of the questions that would
lead the parties to conclude that the agency had formally
determined its policy with regard to the review issue.
With that, I'll ask if there are any more
statements that anyone desires to make to the record
of this proceeding.
If not, this hearing is adjourned.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: When will the record be
closed, Mr. Jackson?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: The 31st of October.
oOo
(415) 943-3194/461-3098
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
241
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
o
City and County of San Francisco )
I, JERRY R. SMYTHE, hereby certify that the
proceedings in the Public Hearing on the California
Waiver Requests, held at the United States Federal Build-
ing, Room 13450, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
California 94102, on October 13, 1977, v/ere taken down in
shorthand b3? me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and a
disinterested person, at the time and place therein
stated, and that the proceedings were thereafter reduced
to typewriting under my supervision and direction.
I further certify that I am not of counsel or
attorney for either or any of the parties to the said
proceedings, nor in any way interested in the event of
this cause, and. that I am not related to any of the
parties thereto.
IN "VITNESS vVIIEP.EOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and affixed my seal of office this 17th day of
October, 1977.
$ OFFICIAL SE4I. g
i . . ^ I
NOTARY PU3LIC in and for the
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
(41S) 543-3194/481-3098
------- |