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
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
California Wkiver Hearing
May 18, 1978
Conference Room A-B
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California
Reported by:
JERRY R. SMYTHE. C.S.R.
(C.S.R. No. 2393)
-------
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
INDEX
19290
Opening State by Chairman Jackson 4
Statement, Tom Austin 10
Statement, Joseph Calhoun 87
Statement, Harold W. Schwochert 88
Statement, Donald A. Jensen 126
Statement, Donald M. Schwentker 166
oOo--
-------
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
2
APPEARANCES:
For the Environmental Protection Agency:
Panel: BENJAMIN R. JACKSON, Presiding Officer
Director
Mobile Source Enforcement Division
CHARLES GRAY
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control
Staff: MATTHEW LOW
Special Projects Task Force
Mobile Source Enforcement Division
ALAN SILVERSTEIN, Esq.
Attorney-Advisor
JAMES McNABB III, Esq.
Attorney-Advisor
JOAN URBINE
Coordinator
For the California Air Resources Board:
TOM AUSTIN
Deputy Executive Officer
KINGSLEY MACOMBER, Esq.
General Counsel
GARY RUBENSTEIN
Staff Engineer
KATHLEEN KAHN, Esq.
Staff Counsel
For the Chrysler Corporation:
ROBERT M. WAGNER
MICHAEL GRICE, Esq.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
For the General Motors Corporation:
JOSEPH CALHOUN
HAROLD W. SCHWOCHERT
For the Ford Motor Company:
DONALD A. JENSEN
HELEN PETRAUSKAS, ,Esq.
TOM SAYBOLT, Esq.
For the Automobile Importers of America
DONALD SCHWENTKER, Esq.
--0O0--
-------
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
THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1978 10:00 O'CLOCK
oOo
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning.
This is the United States Environmental Protection
Agency public hearing to consider a request by the
State of California for a waiver of Federal Preemption
under Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act for three
actions taken by the California Air Resources Board.
I am Ben Jackson, Director of the Mobile Source
Enforcement Division of the Environmental Protection
Agency. I have been designated as Presiding Officer
for the hearing. My colleague who will assist me
at various times in conducting the hearing is Mr.
Charles Gray of the Office of Mobile Source Air
Pollution Control.
The Panel will also be assisted by Mr. Matthew
Low, who is head of the Special Projects Task Force
in the Mobile Source Enforcement Division; Mr. Allen
Silverstein and Mr. James McNabb III, who are attorney-
advisors with the Task Force; and Ms. Joan Urbine,
who is responsible for maintaining the record and
scheduling witnesses.
The CARB has submitted the request under con-
sideration to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency in order to permit the State of
-------
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
5
California to enforce the following provisions of
its motor vehicle emission control program:
(1) Highway Cycle NOx Emission Standard
for 1980 and subsequent model year passenger
cars and 1981 and subsequent model year
light duty trucks, and medium duty vehicles.
(2) Assembly-line Test Procedures
for 1979 model year passenger cars,light
duty trucks and medium duty vehicles.
(3) Tune-up Label Specifications for
1979 and subsequent model year passenger
cars light duty trucks, medium duty
vehicles, heavy duty gasoline-fueled
engines and heavy duty diesel-fueled
engines and 1982 and subsequent model
year motorcycles.
For the record, the hearing is convened in the
conference room on the sixth floor of the regional
office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, California. That's
Region IX.
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
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
(1) Letters dated March 8, 1978 and
April 18, 1978 from Mr. Thomas Austin,
Deputy Executive Officer of the CARB,
to Mr. Douglas Costle, Administrator of
the EPA, notifying the EPA that California
had made the revisions, specified above,
to its motor vehicle emissions control
program and requesting a hearing of
Federal Preemption for those actions,
(2) A letter of April 17, 1978 from
EPA to CARB, stating that a hearing would
be convened to address California's waiver
request, and
(3) the April 21, 1978 and May 5,
1978 Federal Register notices regarding
this hearing.
In addition, the following will be made part
of the record:
(1) Sections 1960(a) and 1960(b),
Title 13, California Administrative Code
and "California Exhaust Emissions Stan-
dards and Test Procedures for 1980 and
Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light
Duty Trucks and Medium Duty Vehicles,"
as amended April 10, 1978.
-------
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
(2) Section 2057 of Title 13, California
Administrative Code and "California Assembly
Line Test Procedures for 1979 and Subse-
quent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light
Duty Trucks and. Medium Duty Vehicles,"
dated December 19, 1977 and adopted
February 16, 1978.
(3) Section 1965, Title 13, Cali-
fornia Administrative Code and "Cali-
fornia Motor Vehicle Tune-Up Label
Specifications," adopted March 1, 1978,
Sections 1956.5(b), 1959.5(b), 1960(b),
1965.5, 1966 and 1967, Title 13, Cali-
fornia Administrative Code and all
standards and test procedures incorporated
by reference therein, as amended March 1,
1978.
This hearing is intended to provide an oppor-
tunity for interested persons to state their views
or arguments and present pertinent information relating
to the determination to be made by the Administrator
with respect to these aforementioned waiver requests.
However, the determination of the Administrator
regarding the action to be taken with respect to
the subjects under consideration is not required to be
-------
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
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.
The agenda for the hearing has been previously out-
lined in the Federal Register notice announcing this
hearing.
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 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
-------
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
(
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. In fact, I think it
was just made up.
Jt appears that the order is going to cause
one or more of you a hardship, please contact Ms.
Urbine, and she will relay this information to me.
We will attempt to accommodate any time problems anyone
has. We would also appreciate it if all witnesses
would confirm their positions on the schedule with
Ms. Urbine.
The record will remain open until Friday, June
2, 1978 for the submission of any further information
-------
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
by any interested persons.
The first witnesses of the day will be the
representatives of the California Air Resources Board.
MR. AUSTIN: Good morning. Welcome back
to California.
My name is Tom Austin, and I am Deputy Executive
Officer for the California Air Resources Board.
With me today, on my right, Kingsley Macomber, the
Board's General Counsel; on my left, Gary Rubenstein,
a staff engineer with the Vehicle Emissions Control
Division; on his left, Kathleen Kahn, ARB Staff
Counsel.
We are here this morning to request a waiver
of Clean Air Act Section 209(a) in order that Californi
may implement more stringent vehicle emission stand-
ards and test and enforcement procedures. In consider-
ing this request, the Administrator is presented
with three basic issues:
1. There must be compelling and extraordin-
ary conditions in California,
2. California-must make:a determination
that"its standards and tests and enforcement procedures
are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of
public health and welfare as applicable federal
regulations. This determination must not be arbitrary
-------
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
10a
and capricious.
3. California's standards and tests and
enforcement procedures must be consistent with Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act. This means that they
must be technologically feasible within the available
lead time, with appropriate consideration for the
cost of compliance. California and federal regulations
must not be inconsistent.
The Administrator is compelled to grant Cali-
fornia a waiv>er of federal preemption if each of
these conditions is met.
As in the past, we do not wish to burden the
record by repeating arguments relating to the existence
of compelling and extraordinary conditions, since
California's extreme need for stringent and timely
emission control measures has been recognized by
the Administrator in each of his previous decisions
pertaining to waiver requests by California.
In his January 5, 1978 decision, the Administra-
tor stated that: "The CARB has continually demonstrate
the existence of compelling and extraordinary condition
in California."
No significant testimony denying the existence
of such conditions has ever been presented at any
hearing by any party.
-------
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
11
If the Administrator believes that further
documentation is required by CARB on this issue,
it will be provided' before the close of the hearing
record.
Three recently adopted California regulations
are before us for consideration at this hearing:
1. The highway cycle NCbc emissions standard
for 1980 and subsequent model passenger cars, light-
duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles.
2. Assembly-line test procedures for 1979
model passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-
duty vehicles.
3. Tune-up label regulations for 1979 and
subsequent model motorcycles, passenger cars, light-
duty trucks, medium-duty vehicles, and heavy-duty
vehicles and engines.
We believe that these regulations will provide
additional control necessary to combat California's
severe pollution problems, and, for reasons which
I will detail in the remainder of my statement,
we believe that each of these items should be
granted a waiver of federal preemption under Section
209(b) of the Clean Air Act.
Following my statement, Ms. Kahn will make a
formal evidentiary offer in support of our request.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
12
The first item I'll discuss in detail is the
request for a waiver for the highway cycle NOx standan
The ARB staff began considering the proposal
Df a highway cycle NOx standard when it noticed that
certain cars with electronic control systems appeared
to show significantly less control of NOx on the high-
way fuel economy test than on the LA-4 Federal Test
Procedure.
The LA-4 driving cycle, which was developed in
conjunction with EPA,represents a typical morning
commute by a light-duty vehicle in the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Area. Although some freeway driving is
represented by LA-4, the cycle does not represent
freeway driving conditions with light to moderate
ra,ffi"c congestion which are known to occur frequently
throughout the greater metropolitan Los Angeles
Area.
ARB staff report 78-1-3, a copy of which has
been provided for the record, reveals the average
speed data which indicate that the EPA Highway Driving
"ycle better represents such freeway driving. Although
carbon monoxide emissions which occur during freeway
driving are considered less of a problem because of
the lower vehicle densities associated with such
operations, the control of hydrocarbon and oxides of
-------
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
13
nitrogen emissions is just as important as during
more congested conditions because photochemical
oxidant precursors have their greatest impact after
several hours of atmospheric transformation. Over
this period of time, the emissions from congested
roadways are uniformly mixed with emissions from
less congested freeways.
In the past, some manufacturers have attempted
to use systems which optimized emissions performance
on the Federal Test Procedure but which switched
off EGR systems or advanced spark timing under con-
ditions such as those found on the highway cycle in
order to improve driveability, fuel economy or per-
formance at minimum cost.
Certain of these devices are easily classified
as defeat devices because they are not activated
during the Federal Test Procedure. With the use of
electronic control systems, however, it is relatively
easy to program emission control systems to be
effective for almost all of the FTP, but ineffective
for almost all of the highway driving cycle.
System programming which reduces the effective-
ness of emission control systems has been considered
accepted to EPA as long as they are programmed
to decrease effectiveness on FTP as well as on the
-------
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
14
highway cycle.
The obvious problem with this approach to system
evaluation is that a system can be programmed to
operate at reduced effectiveness for an insignificant
portion of the FTP while it substantially degrades
emission control during the highway driving cycle.
Control systems are now sufficiently complex
so as to render the simplistic EPA evaluation technique
virtually worthless. After receiving a totally inade-
quate explanation from EPA as to why they cannot
quickly solve this problem for the nation, we are
compelled to pursue an independent approach to detect-
ing defeat devices for which we are today seeking
a waiver.
The ARB has adopted a limit on highway NOx
emissions which requires approximately the same per-
centage of NOx control as has been achieved on the
Federal Test Procedure. We compared city and highway
NOx emissions from both controlled and uncontrolled
vehicles and found that, in general, controlled
vehicles demonstrate the same degree of NOx control
on the highway cycle as on the LA-4 cycle.
The notable exceptions were vehicles with
electronic controls which altered engine calibration
on the highway cycle. A highway cycle NOx standard
-------
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
15
of 1.33 times the applicable city NOx standard has
been adopted for passenger cars, and a standard of
2.0 times the applicable city NOx standard was adopted
for light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles.
Before adopting the highway cycle standard for
light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles, the
Executive Officer allowed a comment period. From
the comments received from manufacturers and from
some additional study performed by the CARB staff,
it was determined that 2.0 times the applicable NOx
standard represented an appropriate feeling for NOx
emissions on the highway.
This was derived using much the same principles
which were applied to the passenger car standard.
The 1981 date was chosen to reduce the testing burden
on manufacturers, since 1980 is a carry-over year
for these vehicles, having the same standards as
1979, and implementing a new testing reguation would
disrupt their plans to carry over vehicle test data
from 1979 to 1980.
No requirement has been established for hydro-
carbon emissions since we are unaware of any systems
in existence or under development which do not
provide acceptable control of hydrocarbons during
highway cycle operation.
-------
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
16
In assessing the technological feasibility
of the highway cycle NOx limitations adopted by
ARB, it is important to note that most systems cur-
rently in use already comply. Only those few
vehicles which incorporate systems which reduce NOx
control during highway driving are affected, and
even these vehicles can be quickly modified through
relatively simple calibration changes. The record
of the Board's January 25, 1978 public hearing on
this subject indicates that neither the technological
feasibility nor the lead time adequacy was a major
issue.
The transcript of this hearing has been sub-
mitted for the record.
The most significant lead time related issue
raised dealt with the increased testing requirements
which several manufacturers claimed would be needed
to provide assurance that compliance would be achieved
during the "official" EPA fuel economy tests. To
address manufacturers' concerns in this area, the
Board adopted a provision that allows a manufacturer
to submit evidence showing why a vehicle which fails
to comply with our requirement during the EPA testing
did not actually include an improper calibration or
a defeat device.
-------
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
17
One would expect that Chrysler would have
the greatest problem complying with the Board's
highway cycle standard, since it is the only manu-
facturer which presently markets vehicles with
extensive electronic controls. At the January 1978
Board meeting, however, the Chrysler representative
stated that "During the limited time we have had
to review this proposal and in recognition of the
timing implications of including these additional
cycle requirements in the certification program for
1980, Chrysler believes the ARB objectives can be
met with a highway fuel economy cycle and, at least
for passenger cars, Chrysler will be able to meet
the proposed highway emission standards with some
recalibration and additional development of our
advanced electronic control system."
Several other manufacturers will be introducing
such systems in the near future. ARB believes that,
if Chrysler finds the Board's requirement to be
technologically feasible in the remaining lead time,
then short-term recalibration and minor development
work will solve the problem for other manufacturers
also.
Since the regulations do not take effect
until the 1980 model year, ARB recently requested
-------
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
18
that certain manufactuers attempt to comply with the
spirit of the regulation for the 1979 model year in
recognition of the air quality problem which non-
complying cars would aggravate. Ford has agreed
in writing to comply with this request.
Since no comparable federal standards exist,
the ARB's determination that its highway cycle stan-
dard is at least as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable federal standards may not,
as a matter of law, be found arbitrary and capricious.
As mentioned earlier in my statement, the
existence of compelling and extraordinary air quality
conditions has previously been determined by the
Administrator. We therefore expect that any opposition
to the highway cycle standards expressed here today
will focus primarily on claims that the application
of these requirements will conflict with federally-
mandated fuel economy requirements.
In evaluating such claims, I encourage the
Agency to acknowledge the fact that emission control
requirements place no fundamental limitation on the
level of fuel economy achievable with a motorcycle.
While optimization of any given parameter is generally
easier when constraints are minimized, even the
maximum claimed effect of the new highway NQ?c
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
standards is only about one-half mile per gallon in
composite fuel economy. For the systems planned
for use by most manufacturers, there is no adverse
effect at all.
In addition, it is our position, as previously
communicated to EPA, that the fuel economy issue
is not relevant to any of the factors, including
feasibility and cost, which EPA has jurisdiction
to consider in these proceedings.
Before completing this portion of our statement,
since we have had the benefit of reviewing a couple
of the manufacturers prepared statements on this
issue, it appears as though there is one other
issue that will be brought up today regarding the
highway cycle, and that issue deals with the
desirability of achieving further NOx control in Cali-
fornia. The argument being that excessive amounts
of NOx control will aggravate the oxidant problem.
I believe the way the Act is structured, it's
California's decision to make regarding whether the
NOx control will in fact enhance or aggravate air
quality in California, not the Administrator's, as
long as the Air Resources Board has laid out a
rationale on which his decision was made, has deraonstrat
that the decision is made not in an arbitrary and
-------
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
20
capricious manner.
For the benefit of the Panel, however, I think
it's important to point out that our staff report on
this issue and in previous work the Air Resources
Board has done on desirability of NOx control in
California, we have indicated that NOx control is
needed for several reasons, not just compliance with
the NO2 standards. We believe that the NOx-control
that is going to.be obtained with the existence of
the highway cycle will in fact be needed to comply
with the NO2 standard, but we also believe it will
improve the oxidant situation in a number of California
air basins not aggravated. And perhaps even more
importantly, the control will substantially improve
the level of secondary particulate which is causing
violations of both the federal and state ambient
air quality standards for particulates in California.
We have data which indicates that secondary
particulate alone will cause violations of the
federal standard in California, and nitrate is a
substantial fraction of that secondary particulate.
Of course, nitrate is the result of photochemical
transformation of NOx emissions from automobile
and stationary sources.
Mr. Macomber indicates that there was material
-------
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
21
submitted on this subject during the waiver hearing:
on the .4 NOx standard. Since the same issue
regarding the appropriateness of NOx control in
California is coming up again at this hearing, we
would request that the documentation which the
Board submitted specific to the desirability of
NOx control in California be also made a part of this
hearing record.
One other thing I might point out: I think
the proper perspective, the proper context for this
particular issue will only exist if we recognize
the fact that we are not adopting a standard which
will in fact increase the amount of NOx control that
we ha!d previously intended to obtain. The standard is'
to prevent an increase in NOx emissions from cars that
may result from the use of certain devices, a few
of which are in use in 1978 model year, more of
which would have been in use in California had we
not gone forward with this type of regulation.
So basically, the degree of NOx control that
would be achieved with this regulation is essentially
identical to the degree of NOx control that we
had originally intended to achieve with the previous
standards for which we have already been granted
a waiver.
-------
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
22
This completes the portion of our statement
which relates to the highway cycle NOx standards.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: May I interrupt
MR. AUSTIN: Would you like me to break
here for any questions on this before we go on to
the next, or what's your preference?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I would, because I don't
think I can remember the questions I have that long.
Two points: Without preempting whatever it is
that your attorney is going to do, do you want to be
more specific about the records you were referring
to in your unwritten dialogue?
MR. AUSTIN: There was a report submitted
that was an ARB staff report not directly related to
the adoption of a vehicle standard which, I think,
was dated January of 1977, which we did submit during
the waiver hearing on the .4 NOx standard for motor
vehicles. We did not include that staff report in
the package that we submitted on these standards
because we felt that the issue had already been decided
but since we know that the same issue -- that is, the
wisdom of controlling NOx in California -- is being
brought up again in this proceeding, we would want
the Administrator to be able to consider that previously
submitted staff report in his decision.
-------
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
23
MR. MACOMBER: Mr. Jackson, in addition to
the staff report, there were some other materials
that were identified in a previously-supplied evidential*
guide relating to the .4 NOx standard that was adopted
by California last yea5 and that is what we would
like to have you incorporate by reference intothese
proceedings.
Since we did not anticipate that this would be
a major issue today, we are asking that you do us that
f avor.
The material has been previously supplied
to EPA. It included a transcript of some Board
proceedings, I think some independent research done
for the Board, as well as a staff report and some other
materials that will be identified in the evidentiary
guide.
If you like, we can identify the material more
specifically before the record is closed stating
that in a letter.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think you should.
MR. MACOMBER: We will do that.
MR. AUSTIN: We may also want to submit
some additional information on this same subject.
We have been preparing a new report dealing with this
question of the desirability of NOx control in
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
24
California, which we've discussed with Assistant
Administrator Hawkins. He has been briefed on what
is going to be in this report. We may have it availably
by the close of the hearing record. If so, we will
submit that also,
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: One other point. In
your unwritten dialogue, you made a point which
raises a rather interesting question. You said that
this action that you are taking with regard to NOx
control was .intended to prevent an increase; i.e.,
that you are merely enforcing what you had anticipated
you were going to get by setting the original standard;
is that correct?
MR. AUSTIN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If that's the case, then,
as opposed to being a new standard, it becomes an
enforcement technique which is intended to enforce
a previously-waived standard,
There is a different series of considerations
that would be applicable there. Which is your position'
MR. AUSTIN: During our public hearing on
this item, several of the Board members expressed
their feeling that this in fact was not a new standard.
I think Kingsley will have to comment. Legally speakingj
it is a new standard.
-------
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
25
However, the approach could possibly have
been somewhat different in that we could have attempted
to cause the same degree of control through an advisory
circular-type of publication that would have merely
interpreted the intent of our previously-adopted
regulations so as to require that the systems on
vehicles continue to control NOx in an effective manner
during highway cycle operation as well as during
the Federal Test Procedure Operation.
We debated as to whether we should go ahead
and do that. We decided that if we did it there
would surely be a challenge to our authority to
implement such an enforcement mechanism without
being granted a waiver from EPA for this new enforce-
ment mechanism, since it does put a new requirement
on the manufacturers. It appeared to us as though
it was something that was going to be possible to
do if EPA and ARB did it jointly, but if EPA
was unwilling to go ahead with a new defeat device
definition which would have been consistent with
the defintion that we were developing, which would
have prevented certain systems from coming into
existence.
Then we thought probably the best approach would
be to go with a standard and to apply formally for
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
a waiver.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I am not suggesting that
you wouldn't apply for a waiver for an enforcement
technique of a pre-existing waived standard. I am
not suggesting that that would have been the approach
necessarily. I am just saying the considerations
would be different if you were approaching this
from the point of view which I thought you said you
were in your diaglogue> and that is: This is not
a new standard; it is a mechanism to enforce a pre-
existing standard. I am not on my part suggesting
that you didn't need a waiver for an enforcement
mechanism to determine its effect on the protective-
ness of a waived standard. But I hear you say now
that indeed this is a new standard, and it requires
a waiver.
MR. AUSTIN: Do you want to comment on it?
MR. MACOMBER: From a legal standpoint,
I agree with you, Mr. Jackson. I don't think it makes
too much difference, because this is being enforced
as a condition of registration of new vehicles in
California.
Beyond that, I don't see the real importance
of your question. Why would it make any difference
to consider this to this hearing?
-------
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
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You don't have to consider
the standard, other than the mechanism that's being
used to enforce the standard. That switches the
perspective. We are not talking about a standard
anymore. We are just talking a new enforcement mechan-
ism; vis-a-vis assembly-line test, for example, or
something like that, and does that add to the pro-
tectiveness or distract. And your findings are
different under those circumstances. That's why I
am trying to make clear exactly what your position is,
because it seemed to shift in your dialogue.
MR. MACOMBER: The only issue that I can
recall, which I think has been disposed of, at least
from the EPA standpoint, is whether or not we have
to show that enforcement procedures which, technically
speaking could be distinguished from standards, in
fact have to be more protective of the public health.
I think EPA has addressed this issue already
and concluded they should be treated the same as
standards on this issue.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm not going to agree
with you on that.
Why don't you proceed with your statement,
then, Mr. Austin.
MR. AUSTIN: Let me make one more point
-------
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
28
on the highway cycle before we leave it.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We plan to come back to
it.
MR. AUSTIN: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We plan to come back
to it.
MR. AUSTIN: Oh, you plan to come back to
it. Okay. Fine.
On assembly-line test procedures, when deciding
on a waiver for California test or enforcement proce-
dures which enforce already-waived standards, the
Administrator may only deny California a waiver if:
1. California's test or enforcement pro-
cedures cause its standards, in the aggregate, to
be less protective of public health and welfare than
applicable federal regulations; or
2. Inadequate lead time exists for
compliance, or California's test or enforcement
procedures are inconsistent with Section 202(a)of
the Clean Air Act.
Waivers have already been granted for the 1979
light-duty truck and medium-duty vehicle standards,
and we expect the 1979 passenger car standards to
be granted a waiver shortly, since both federal
and California 1979 passenger car standards are
-------
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
29
identical to the respective 1978 standards. The
assembly-line test procedures merely represent a
means of enforcing these standards. In our discussion,
we will assume that waivers will be granted for all
of the relevant standards.
The major changes to the 1979 assembly-line
test procedures were the deletion of the 90 percent
option and the retention of the averaging option.
Under the first option, a family or subgroup passes
if 90 percent of the vehicles quality audit tested
meet the applicable certification emission standards.
Under the second option, the average emissions of
each family or subgroup, with deterioration factors
applied, must meet the applicable emission standards.
Both options were retained for a two-year
experiment during which manufacturers could choose
to demonstrate compliance with either one. After
evaluating the results of this experiment, the ARB
decided that the average emissions option was the
most effective and should be retained as the only
option, with certain modifications.
This procedure now requires that no more than
one percent of the vehicles in an engine family
can have emissions which exceed the applicable
standards by 2.33 times the standard deviation of
-------
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
the results and that the engine family's average
emissions must be below the standard.
In the staff's original proposal, the emissions
of one percent of the vehicles in an engine family
would not have been permitted to exceed the standards
by one standard deviation. However, at the CARB
staff's November 3, 1977 workshop, manufacturers
objected that this requirement would force them to
recalibrate their systems so that the average emissions
would be significantly below the standard, even
assuming that the only source of emissions variability
was expected random test variability.
Manufacturers argued that the required design
and recalibration changes would be so extensive that
insufficient lead time existed for compliance by
the 1979 model year.
After evaluating manufacturers' comments,the
ARB concluded that 2.33 times the standard deviation
was a more appropriate figure at this time. This
number was derived from the fact that if an engine
family had emissions which were normally distributed
with average emissions precisely at the standard,
only one percent of the vehicles in the engine
family would be expected to have emissions greater than
2.33 sigmas above the standard.
-------
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
31
Under this requirement, a manufacturer would
only be forced to reduce its average emissions below
the standard if, for some reason, its emissions
distribution were not random due to some problem,
such as a non-complying subgroup or a significant
quality control problem.
The staff analyzed 1977 model quality audit
data from 65 engine families to see what percent
of the vehicles would comply with the new requirements
if they had been in effect in 1977. The results
of this analysis are shown in Table 1 attached to the
presentation.
We found that only 13 percent of the domestic
engine families would have complied throughout the
model year but that 8 1 percent of the foreign engine
families would have consistently met the requirement.
This supports the staff's contention that the new
requirements are feasible in the allotted lead time
but that some manufacturers, especially the domestics,
will have to improve their quality control measures
prior to the 1979 model year.
At the workshop, manufacturers argued that
the one percent, one sigma requirement, would result
in fuel economy penalties. However, the CARB staff
believes that the one percent, 2.33 sigma requirement,
-------
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
32
as actually adopted by the Board, will not result
in a fuel penalty. Manufacturers already maintain
average emissions well below those required by the
1979 assembly-line test procedures; further reductions
in average emissions are not required.
Some manufacturers may need to implement improved
quality control techniques, which have no effect on
fuel economy.
Only if a manufacturer chooses to reduce the
average emissions from an engine family instead of
implementing additional quality control measures
should any adverse effects related to the new require-
ment be incurred.
Since the kinds of problems likely to cause
a manufacturer to fail the one percent, 2.33 sigma
criteria are different from those likely to cause
failure of the average emissions requirement, the CARB
has implemented a separate enforcement procedure for
each .
If a manufacturer fails the one percent, 2.33
sigma requirement, he would have to notify the
Executive Officer and submit a report on the failure,
including an analysis by subgroup of the average
emissions and stadard deviations within the family.
An engineering evaluation must also be submitted of
-------
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
the cause of failure for each vehicle which exceeds
the standard by more than 2.33 sigma. The manufacturer!
may also express its opinion as to the cause of the
failure and may propose corrective action.
After reviewing the manufacturer's report, the
Executive Officer must decide whether or not it is
adequate to solve the problem and may direct the
manufacturer to implement the proposed corrective
action. If the Executive Officer finds the proposed
corrective action to be inadequate, he or she may
invoke Section 2109 or 2110 of the California Admini-
strative Code, as appropriate, and take enforcement
acti on.
Another important change to the test procedures
was the lowering of the maximum levels to which
the statistically derived control limits used in
the steady-state emissions test could be artificially
raised. The steady-state emissions test is an idle
emissions test similar to that which will be used
in the California Vehicle Inspection Program. Each
vehicle manufactured for sale in California must
pass the steady-state test on the assembly-line.
Like other short idle emissions test, this
test serves mainly as an inexpensive method of
detecting gross emitters and of catching problems
-------
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
34
such as maladjusted carburetors or chokes, loose
or defective wires or vacuum hoses, faulty air
injection systems, or gross catalyst defects.
The emission standards, for control limits,
used in the steady-state test represent the average
plus twice the standard deviation of the idle emissions
measured from the first 100 cars in an engine family
or subgroup produced during a quarter.
Temporary control limits are used until 100
cars have been tested.
Since hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions
from new catalyst vehicles can be extremely low,
manufacturers are permitted to add a constant amount
to the statistically derived control limits, provided
that they remain below specified levels.
This insures that properly adjusted and operating
vehicles with relatively high emissions do not
fail the steady-state test; only those vehicles with
emission-related defects should fail.
The revised maximum control limits are repre-
sented in the following table, which we request
be entered into the record of this hearing. The
table appears in the written statement I have provided
The new control limits do not impose a further
or more stringent requirement on manufacturers but
-------
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
35
are intended to prevent manufacturers from raising
control limits to the point where they are ineffective
in detecting gross emitters.
A third change is the requirement that quality
audit vehicles be tested with their evaporative
emission control systems connected. Evaporative
control system disconnection was originally allowed
as a testing convenience at a time when the ARB con-
sidered the interaction between the exhaust and evapora-
tive emission control systems to be insignificant.
However, the new, more sophisiticated evaporative
vapor storage and purging systems used in California,
as well as the low California exhaust hydrocarbon
standards, has led the staff to conclude that this
interaction is no longer insignificant.
At the workshop, manufacturers suggested that
they should be allowed to install a fresh cannister
on test vehicles prior to the start of the precondition-
ing sequence. Manufacturers also requested, that they
be permitted to conduct the preconditioning sequence
on a street or a test track. The ARB staff agreed
to these changes, provided that the manufacturer
supplied evidence that the alternate preconditioning
procedure would load the cannister to the same extent
that the dynamometer procedure would.
-------
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
Other less significant changes to the test
procedure include a change in the reporting date
for quarterly assembly-line test reports, which
now must be submitted within 45 days after the end
of each production 'quarter, and of each production
year.
In addition, a standardized procedure for
rounding quality audit emissions data has been speci-
fied and additional information concerning quality
audit test vehicles must be submitted, including
inertia weight, test horsepower, carbon dioxide
data, and engine code or calibration number. Numerous
minor organizational changes were made to the procedure;?
to make them more clearly understandable.
These requirements are not expected to cause
manufacturers any significant difficulty or expense.
Since the 1979 assembly-line procedures may
cause some manufacturers to institute additional
quality control precautions, an emissions benefit
should be realized over the 1978 assembly-line
regulations for those manufacturers which do not
already comply.
The Administrator's decision to grant a waiver
of Federal preemption for our 1978 assembly-line
procedures indicates his concurrence that California's
-------
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
37
deterinination that its basic assembly-line program
is at least as protective of public health as applicable
Federal regulations is not arbitrary and capricious.
California's assembly-line test procedures
have never been considered by the Administrator to
be inconsistent with Federal regulations, and as
discussed above, we do not believe that a lead time
problem exists. We therefore believe that the 1979
California assembly-line test procedures meet all
the criteria required for a waiver of federal pre-
emption and that the Administrator has no reason to
deny such a waiver.
Would you like me to pause here for any ques-
tions before moving on to the label?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No.
MR. AUSTIN: Okay. On to the tune-up label
regulations.
In December of 1977, the ARB heard testimony
regarding its proposed mot'or vehicle tune-up label
regulations. At the end of the meeting, the Board
delegated to the Executive Officer the authority
to make changes in and to adopt the proposed regula-
tions. The Executive Officer provided a comment
period for manufacturers and afterwards issued a set
of regulations which address most of the manufacturers
-------
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
38
major concerns.
The Board's tune-up regulations now include
the following requirements:
1. The label must be permanently affixed
to a readily visible part of the engine compartment;, r.and,
for light and medium-duty vehicles including motor-
cycles, the label shall not be affixed to any equipment
which is easily detached from the vehicle.
2. Specific tune-up information must be
included on the label, including a hose routing diagram,
which may be separate. Other required information
includes engine family, engine displacement, emission
control system type, ignition dwell and timing, idle
air/fuel ratio setting procedure, high idle speed,
et cetera. An unconditional statement of compliance
with California Emission Control Regulations must
also be included. At the manufacturers' suggestion,
we also included a provision which allows the
addition of a statement that the vehicle conforms
with Federal emission control regulations. Any
other information which the manufacturer deems
necessary may also be included.
3. The label must either be readable to
the average person from a distance of eighteen inches
without any obstruction from vehicle or engine
-------
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
39
parts except for flexible parts, or the label must
be printed in eight point type size or larger, pro-
vided no vehicle or engine parts except flexible
parts obstruct the label. This latter alternative
was added .at the request of the manufacturers, who
claimed that the first requirement was too vague.
4. The label and any adhesives used to
attach it must be designed to withstand typical engine
compartment conditions for the vehicle or engine's
total expected life. These conditions include exposure
to coolant, oil, gasoline, solvents, steam cleaming,
and so forth.
Manufacturers must submit a statement
that their labels are in compliance with this require-
ment. The ARB staff's original proposal required
manufacturers to state that the label would comply
with these conditions for the vehicle's total
expected life. However, the ARB basically intended
this to be a design requirement, not a test requirement
so the Executive Officer changed the original language
to reflect this intent.
5. The manufacturer must obtain approval
of the label format from the Executive Officer prior
to use. Specific tune-up settings need not be
approved during this process, but the format for all
-------
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
40
settings and tolerances must be reviewed. If the
Executive Officer judges that the label is vague
and/or subject to misinterpretations, or that it
does not comply with the other specifications, he or
she may require modification of the label or its
location to correct the deficiency.
6. Samples of all labels must be submitted
to the Executive Officer within 30 days after the
start of production.
7. In response to manufacturers1 comments,
the ARB added a provision which allows the Executive
Officer to waive or modify any of the tune-up
label requirements for the 1979 model year if a
vehicle or engine manufacturer has insufficient
lead time to comply. Alternate locations may be
approved by the Executive Officer, and he or she
may, upon request, modify or waive any of the content
requirements, provided that the intent of the speci-
fications are met.
8. If the Executive Officer finds any
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine with labels
which differ from those which were approved, or which
do not substantially comply with the readability or
durability requirements, he or she may invoke Section
2109 of Title 13, California Administrative Code,
-------
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
and take appropriate enforcement action.
Most of the manufacturers' major concerns were
addressed in the revised regulations. Those sections
with which manufacturers had the most problems
have been reworded to make them flexible and, in
many cases, to give the manufacturer the option of
appealing to the Executive Officer for an exemption.
The manufacturers' lead time concerns have been
adequately addressed by allowing the Executive Officer
to waive all or part of the requirements for any
manufacturer which cannot fully comply by the 1979
model year.
No technological feasibility problems exist,
since several manufacturers stated their belief that
their labels already complied with the design require-
ments. In addition, manufacturers may, in a case
of technological infeasibility, request an exemption
from the Executive Officer, provided the intent of
the specifications is preserved.
Federal tune-up label regulations currently
require manufacturers to submit their tune-up labels
to EPA, but the labels are not approved or disapproved
by EPA. Therefore, ARB's regulations, which include
review requirement, should make the labels, on the
whole, more accurate and more durable than Federal
-------
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
42
labels. This will result in more mechanics having
the correct tune-up procedure before them, and
therefore, in more correctly performed tune-ups.
This could cause California tune-up label regulations
to have a slight emissions benefit over comparable
Federal regulations. Even if this is not the case,
however, no provision of these regulations makes the
standards which they enforce less stringent than
Federal regulations. For these reasons, the Board's
finding that its tune-up regulations are at least
as protective of public health and welfare as applicabl
federal regulations cannot be deemed arbitrary and
capri cious.
That completes our prepared statement. We
would be happy to respond to any questions.
Kathy Kahn, however, would like to give you
the evidentiary record for the hearing that we would
1 ike to submit.
MS. KAHN: Okay. I believe Mr. Macomber
has already given you copies of an evidentiary guide
and assorted documents together with that.
The evidentiary guide is a list of all the
documents we have submitted to date in connection
with this hearing. Some of them, Mr. Jackson,
I think you read into the record in your statement,
-------
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
43
our letters and the regulations. The documents today
include primarily transcripts of the Board hearings
and written testimony that was received from the manu-
facturers in connection with those hearings.
So I would like to request at this point that
that guide and the documents listed in it, most
of which are attached to it today, be entered into
the record of this hearing.
MR. WAGNER: Excuse me, but I think you
turned the mike off.
MS. KAHN: Do I have to repeat all that?
MR. WAGNER: No.
MS. KAHN: In addition, the staff may
wish to present oral testimony on some of the items
under consideration, since many of them were delegated
by the Board to the Executive Officer and decided
on the basis of the staff research information.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We will enter into the
record whatever you give us.
MR. GRAY: I have one rather general question
which relates to a pretty strong statement made
in the early part of your testimony with respect to
the highway NOx standard, a statement which relates
to the position that the Environmental Protection
Agency has taken with respectto what is generally
-------
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
44
referred to as non-FTP emissions.
Is this statement a statement of impression
or a statement that you would contend is fact?
In particular, the statement on Page 5 of your
written testimony, "System programming which reduces
the effectiveness of emission control systems has
been considered acceptable to EPA as long as they
are programmed to decrease effectiveness on FTP as
well as on the highway cycle."
MR. AUSTIN: That's my impression based upon
discussions I have had with certain EPA employees
who are responsible for making these determinations
and also upon my reading of correspondence on this
issue which I received from the former Deputy Assist-
ant Administrator for Mobile Sources
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You can use names if
you want to.
MR. AUSTIN: which indicated to me that
the policy at the EPA essentially was to allow
systems which substantially reduced the effectiveness
of emission controls off the FTP as long as they
reduced the effectiveness of emission controls on
the FTP to some extent; although that extent might
be insignificant.
MR. GRAY: I think the key word here is
-------
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
"substantially" used on the FTP, and it appears that
the potential flexibility in the definition of that
term has at least communicated to you an impression
as to how that word might be interpreted.
The question is pretty straightforward. Do
these statements reflect your impression of current
policy as opposed to your reading of constraints
that are upon the Environmental Protection Agency?
MR. AUSTIN: It's my impression.
MR. GRAY: In discussing the standards
for the highway fuel economy cycle for passenger cars
and for the light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles,
you speak of an appropriate ceiling that these standards!
reflect. Do you mean an appropriate ceiling from
the context of easily achievable or an appropriate
ceiling with respect to controlling those emissions
to protect the public health in California?
MR. AUSTIN: Appropriate in that it doesn't
require more control on the highway driving cycle than
would be controlled on the Federal Test Procedure
in order to comply with the NOx standards.
MR. GRAY: So it does not represent a finding
by the CARB that that level is sufficient in terms
of the needed reduction in oxides of nitrogen?
MR, AUSTIN: The level that's suff-icient
-------
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
46
in terms of the needed reduction is zero. The factor
of two is the factor which we believe will insure
that no manufacturer has to control NOx more stringentlj
on the highway cycle than on the Federal Test Procedure
It's the factor that gives us assurance that the
vehicles will have approximately the same degree of
NOx control on both the highway and the LA-4 cycles.
MR. GRAY: And that is the basic objective
of these standards?
MR. AUSTIN: Yes.
MR. LOW: I've got a question.
On Page 7 of your prepared statement, Mr.
Austin, where you are addressing manufacturers concerns
and you adopted a provision for manufacturers to
submit evidence as to why the NOx standard isn't being
met.
Could you explain that just a bit more? What
does that entail?
MR. AUSTIN: One of the major concerns
we heard at the Board meeting on this regulation
was that there would be a substantial increase in
the testing requirements associated with the adoption
of a standard for highway cycle NOx emissions,
even though the standard was set at a level that should
not present any particular problems for a manufacturer
-------
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
47
who has designed a system to control NOx under
virtually all driving conditions.
The argument here was that there is some risk
associated with going through the EPA certification
process, even though your vehicle has been designed
to emit at a level significantly under the standard.
There's test variability, the vehicles themselves
are variable, and for that reason you can't be
100 percent confident that your vehicle is actually
going to pass when tested by EPA. The addition of
an additional standard, an additional procedure, would
increase the risk and, therefore, would put a burden
on the manufacturers, potentially requiring more
retests than are now the case.
In order to minimize the possibility that
there would be delays associated with this new
standard, we inserted this language, which would essen-
tially allow a manufacturer who might have just failed
to meet the 1.33 criteria on the highway cycle to
submit evidence to us showing that under other tests
run on this same vehicle at his lab or at a lab other
than EPA's lab, that the vehicle was in fact under
the 1.33 level.
If we were convinced that there were data
available on that particular vehicle that made us
-------
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
48
confident that its NOx emissions would not be on the
average over the 1.33 cut point, then we could
accept that without requiring the manufacturer to
go back and make changes to the vehicle and run it
through the entire EPA process again.
MR. LOW: I think that's a different way
of measuring the compliance with the standards than
we are normally used to seeing.
Again, it seems to be more of a way for you
to determine whether there is a defeat device in
a vehicle than to measure compliance with a highway
fuel economy standard, NOx standard. I think Ben's
question before is still relevant. Do you consider
this to be a standard or an enforcement procedure?
It appears to me that you could, I suppose,
determine whether or not a vehicle had a defeat
device by using the currently employed EPA advisory
circular process without establishing this particular
test cycle or test standard. I am wondering why
you haven't chosen to adopt that particular type of
procedure.
ME. AUSTIN: I wish I knew what the real
significant of the distinction was. Frankly, I
don't care whether you grant us a waiver for this
as an enforcement procedure or as a new standard. We
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
49
will accept it however you want to word it.
Conceptually, it's an enforcement procedure.
Our concern is that from a strictly legal standpoint
it's a new standard. I don't really think there
is any practical significance to the distinction.
MR. LOW: If a manufacturer doesn't meet
the standard, though, he still can show you through
other means that he has met the standard or he has
not had -- really what he is showing he doesn't have
defeat devices on his vehicle because the mechanism
you have inserted --
MR, AUSTIN: Okay. The other mechanism is
only to deal with the possibility that a vehicle
which in fact would comply when tested -- in fact
would comply most of the time when tested by EPA,
may not comply during the single test that the
vehicle is given during the official fuel economy
testing that EPA does. This provides an alternative
means of convincing the Air Resources Board that
the vehicle does not emit more than 1.33 times the
Federal Test Procedure Standard without having to
go back through the entire EPA process again.
I think we could use this same approach, on
the standards that apply in the Federal Test Procedure
if we chose to, as long as the vehicle met the
-------
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
50
federal standards when tested by EPA. We could
accept the vehicle for sale in California if it
was shown to comply with California standards through
tests run by the manufacturers, through tests run
by the Air Resources Board, or thorugh tests run
by some third party.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: To follow up on that,
Mr. Austin, do you have any plans to do any other
testing of the production units or in-use units using
the highway cycle for NOx?
MR. AUSTIN: We intend to test some of
the vehicles which are submitted for our Title 13
testing program that's conducted at the Air Resources
Board using the highway cycle, and we'll look to see
how well the manufacturers are complying. However,
we have not adopted changes to our Title 13 testing
procedures which we feel would be necessary prior
to doing the testing on an official basis.
We do not intend to take enforcement action
against manufacturers who fail to meet the 1.33
criteria during Title 13 testing. If we determine
that there is a need for an official enforcement
program, we'll make the necessary changes to Title
13 and will submit those to EPA for a waiver.
At this time, we'll give the manufacturers the
-------
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
51
benefit of the doubt. We'll assume that the vehicles
are designed properly. We'll do some spot-checking.
Unless we find a problem, we may very well stick
with just the Federal Test Procedure as our only real
test used outside the certification process.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So for purposes of
evaluating the impact here, the manufacturers need
not worry about conducting this type of testing on
an assembly line or in response to any kind of testing
that you may have to do, defensive testing of any
other nature.
MR. AUSTIN: That's correct. There is no
assembly-line testing requirement. We do not intend
to adopt an assembly-line testing requirement, and
until we find that there are problems in customer
service in production with a substantial number of
vehicles we will probably refrain from doing any
official compliance testing on the highway cycle
at all.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I had one other question
on a different subject.
Did you do a computation of what the difference
in the NOx ambient emissions would be given the
existing type of controls versus what it will be
with the standard on the highway cycle?
-------
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
52
MR. AUSTIN: We did some computations along
that line, but the difference is going to be a
function of how many manufacturers would have used
systems which increase NOx emissions during highway
driving substantially above the levels you would
expect based upon the Federal Test Procedure results.
There was a system being developed by Ford
Motor Company which would have done that which we
understand Ford would have used on most of their
product line. It wasn't clear to us how many other
manufacturers might use such a system. If all
manufacturers eventually used such a system, then
the difference in the NOx emissions from the passenger
cars would have been almost 50 percent greater than
with the cars complying with the highway cycle
requirements. That assumed roughly a 50-50 split of
highway-to-city cycle driving within the South Coast
Air Basin and assumed that the increase in NOx
emissions on the highway cycle due to the use of
defeat devices of the type Ford was considering would
be in the range of three-to-one highway cycle emissions
to city cycle emissions.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Mr. Jackson, there was
also an analysis of some alternate scenarios that
were also done, and that's shown on Page 24 of our
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
53
staff report on the subject.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: The staff report?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Right, that's previously
been submitted.
MR. GRAY: The current California regulations
in this area do include a definition of a defeat
device and do prohibit the use of a defeat device;
is that correct?
MR. AUSTIN: I think we have adopted the
Federal definition.
MR. GRAY: The Federal definition and you
do prohibit?
MR. AUSTIN: Yes.
MR. GRAY: As I understand the comments
that you made earlier, you feel that you could have
achieved this same objective under those requirements
but that achieving that objective might have been
more administratively difficult and might have been
more subject to confusion and to objection, possibly
challenge, by the manufacturers; so as a convenience,
a more efficient manner of enforcing that requirement,
you adopted that standard; is that correct?
MR. AUSTIN: Well, if we attempt to do it
administratively', the manufacturers, I believe, would
clearly have demanded that we apply for a waiver
-------
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
54
from EPA for this change in our administrative pro-
cedures. Since we've never really had an administra-
tive procedure, something that's not been formally
adopted into the code go before EPA for waiver
decision, we preferred to go forward with a procedure
which was more consistent with the type that we've
brought before- the agency in the past.
MR. GRAY: But you do have functioning
regulations that would prevent the use of defeat
devices as defined in the California Regulations;
is that not correct?
MR. AUSTIN: That's correct.
MR. GRAY: So do you feel that you could
still take action against defeat devices provided
they meet the definition in the regulations over
different types of driving schedules, say?
MR. AUSTIN: You can make that argument.
However, there is another argument to be made,
and that I believe the manufacturers surely would
have made, and we didn't see any point in putting
ourselves in a precarious legal posture; and so,
we decided to go ahead with notification of EPA
of this change and to get a waiver for it to preclude
any opposition that the manufacturers may have,
that they may try to follow up on with a court chal-
lenge .
-------
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
55
MR. GRAY: Okay. So it is primarily to
preclude the possible challenge of such action
under existing regulations that you adopted the
NOx standard for the highway cycle?
MR. AUSTIN: Yes, I think that's essentially
correct,
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I had one question on
your statement relating to the assembly-line test
procedure.
You showed some data -- actually, it's not
data; it's just summary analysis of performance on
assembly line of manufacturers, foreigners versus
U.S.
MR. AUSTIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: There's a remarkable
dicotomy of performance there.
MR. AUSTIN: Isn't there?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Can you offer any reason
for that difference?
MR. AUSTIN: I think Gary should correct
me if he disagrees.
I think one of the significant factors here
is that the foreign manufacturers don't have as
many subgroups as the domestics. We had.: evidence
in the past that there are certain subgroups within
-------
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
56
domestic engine families that have average emissions
substantially different from other subgroups within
the family, and those subgroups are not treated
as distinct entities in the assembly line evaluation
procedures, and they can result in a distribution of
emissions which is not at all normal but has some
outlyers causing a number of vehicles to be sub-
stantially above the standards.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: If I can add to that just
a bit.
That may be a factor in some cases. We did,
however, look at several engine families from import
manufacturers and domestic manufacturers where we
were looking at the same size of vehicle, same
general weight class, same general number of sub-
groups; i.e., different inertia weights, transmissions,
et cetera; and the imports tended to more often than
not comply whereas the domestics didn't.
Generally, it appears to be a combination of
the fact that the imports have both lower means
and significantly lower standard deviations on their
production vehicles, even with this subgroup issue
isolated and taken out.
One of the reasons might be, you know, the kind
of thing that Toyota does, where they have apparently
-------
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
57
developed and reported in an SAE paper a short cycle
emissions test that they believe is fairly correlatable
to the CVS cycle, and this short test is performed
on 100 percent of their production prior to its
quality audit testing for California. And that gives
them, obviously, on a quality audit testing a much
lower standard deviation and a much smaller chance
of an outlyer coming through. I think it's additional
techniques like that that may be responsible for
the difference in performance.
MR. AUSTIN: If you are not familiar with
that test that Toyota uses: For each individual
vehicle -- and they will break it down and have
several different standares within an engine family
if they have to they have an estimate of what the
NOx emissions, for example, should be during a
certain accel (sic) that's typical of an accel (sic)
on the LA-4, and they'll take every vehicle and run
it over this very short transient test and measure
its NOx emissions as it's going through this accel (sic
If, for example, the EGR valve was installed improperly
or something is disconnected, that shows up very
clearly because they expect a certain level of
NOx concentration. If the EGR valve, for example,
is not working, that level will go up by a factor of
-------
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
58
two or three easily, and they can detect things
like that with a relatively rapid test.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But I would also
submit regarding your analysis here that with subgroups
you can also attribute different design characteristics
to a subgroup as opposed to just quality control.
In other words,they can all get the same level
6f quality control, but because of the subgroups you
can: get different designs within them causing this
aberation that we see contributing to the difference
in performance here.
MR. AUSTIN: Yes.
MR. SILVERSTEIN: I'd like to turn for a
second to the tune-up label specification.
In particular, as part of the information you
submitted along with the statement I think it's
part of Exhibit 3C -- there is one document entitled
"California Motor Vehicle Tune Up Label Specifications,
another which is the "Exhaust Emission Standards
and Test Procedures."
I am particularly interested in what affect
not providing this label would have on granting a
certificate to a manufacturer, or what penalties
would accrue if the label were not provided?
In particular, on Page 6 of the Tune-Up Label
-------
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
59
Specifications, you mention that "If the Executive
Officer finds some deficiency, you can invoke Section
2109."
Can you briefly tell me what Section 2109 is?
MR. AUSTIN:. Well, that's a separate question
from your first one, I think, Kingsley can correct
me if I am wrong,
Basically, the penalty for failing to comply
with these requirements is that the vehicle is not
certified because the requirements are a condition of
certification,' and if the manufacturer does not
submit an acceptable label then we don't consider he's
fulfilled all the requirements for receiving his
certificate.
MR, SILVERSTEIN: He wouldn't get;-a certificate ,
then, if he didn't provide the proper information; is
that true?
MR. MACOMBER: Right. Essentially what we
get prior to certification is the label format.
You'll see that described on Page 19 of the written
statement.
On the basis of that, I think we conclude
whether or not the vehicle is certifiable in terms
of this condition. Later on, I think within 30 or
45 days, we actually get a copy of the label and we
-------
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
60
review those. If it turns out that the production
vehicles or the production labels do not meet our
requirements, then we can invoke these sections
you were inquiring about. These sections, 2109 and
2110, are the section? which authorize us to require
the manufacturers to take corrective action. They
also make reference to fines and penalties that might
apply under California law,
MR, SILVERSTEIN: There could be a monetary
penalty if you learned after the fact in production
that a certain manufacturer was not providing
a label as he said he would, for example?
MR. MACOMBER: It could be. I would
imagine, based on our current policy, that would
be invoked only in extreme cases. Ordinarily, we would
just want some corrective action.
MR. SILVERSTEIN: Is it true that the
primary method you'd use to enforce this kind of
a provision would be through the certification provisio
themselves?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: The label content format
requirements?
MR. SILVERSTEIN: That's right.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Yes.
MR. MACOMBER: Right.
-------
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
61
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I have a question here
submitted by Mr. Rosenberg.
It says: "If the non-conformities that we
were talking about on Table 1 in your statment con-
nected with the assembly-line test requirement are
a function
-------
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
62
There are other approaches that also could be used.
Since we are talking about a procedure which
will affect vehicles for 1979, there is time available
to do more than just simply change the initial spark
advance, for example. It may be possible to modify
the carburetor calibration in a manner which will
bring the vehicle into compliance without reducing
its fuel economy at all. It may be possible to change
some other component on the vehicle in a manner that
will enhance the emission control without adversely
affecting the fuel econony.
There's a variety of options available to
a manufacturer. Clearly, one option may be in some
cases to recalibrate a vehicle in a manner which
would reduce emissions and fuel economy. That's only
one possibility.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Or drop those configura-
tions ?
MR. AUSTIN: Or drop them.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: One thing I'd like to
point out, though, is the way the assembly-line
requirement is written. A subgroup would have to
have its average emissions exceeding the standard
in order for it >>to cause, on a statistical basis,
that engine family to fail. So if we have an engine
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
63
family which has several subgroups, all of whose
average emissions are below the standard, then you
would not expect to find any vehicles, any more than
the one percent, exceeding the 2.33 sigma requirement
So the only case that we are really talking
about where there is even a potential for fuel
economy penalty would be if there is a subgroup
whose average emissions are already exceeding the
standard. Under the compliance test procedures that
have already been waived by EPA, we already have
the authority to take enforcement action against such
subgroups.
So we are not talking about any real change
in th&.t philosophy here.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Austin.
I presume that you will have someone or yourself
here for the balance of the hearing?
MR, AUSTIN: Yes, and we appreciate the
opportunity to be able to rebut any testimony which
you will receive from the manufacturers on this today.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
Next will be Chrysler.
MR. WAGNER: Good morning. My name is
Robert Wagner. I work for the Chrysler Corporation,
and on my right is Michael Grice from our Legal
-------
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
Department.
Chrysler Corporation again welcomes the opportuni ;;
to speak on the important subject of vehicle emission
control for California. We would like to emphasize,
as we have at previous Air Resources Board Meetings
and EPA hearings, that Chrysler and the State of
California have the same basic objective, which is
to attain clean air goals as rapidly as possible
by eliminating automotive emissions as a contributing
source. We believe our efforts to this end have been
substantial, and we maintain a strong interest in
this continuous and sometimes frustrating struggle.
Regarding the necessity for more control, Chrysle:'
agrees that Southern California in particular contin-
ues to have an extraordinary air pollution problem
despite the billions of dollars and man hours expended
during the last two decades. This fact alone should
cause us to seriously question each new step that
is taken to be sure that a recognizable benefit
will result.
In this regard, we refer again to the conference
held in Los Angeles a year ago in January 1977 of the
most prominent experts ia the field of air quality.
By invitation of the California Air Resources Board,
they gathered together to pool their knowledge and
-------
65
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
hopefully establish direction for future improvements.
Disappointingly, the reports presented were not
conclusive, and no positive direction could be
established except to observe that additional study
was required. In fact, there was substantial dis-
agreement, and it is not at all clear, for instance,
what the effect of an NOx change would be downstream
of the emission source.
Certainly some of the experts felt that the
overall effect on oxidants depended on the amount of
hydrocarbons in the air, and it was more important
to control hydrocarbons than NOx. The experts did
agree on one thing, however: They agreed there is
a need for a comprehensive coordinated program to
better define ambient air conditions and the changes
that occur. They also recognized a need for better
control and coordination of the data gathering
activity.
Chrysler concluded, after listening to the
recommendations of the experts, that it would be
premature and irresponsible to insist that further
reductions of NOx emissions would result in measurable
improvements in air quality. We have strongly recom-
mended to the Air Resources Board that no additional
changes be made in the regulations until new information
-------
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
66
is available which clearly indicates the direction
to move and the gains to be realized.
The new highway cycle NOx standard regulations
were proposed and adopted with very little prepara-
tion, or even conversation, with the industry. At
the ARB hearing, universal concern was expressed about
this method to achieve air quality improvement.
Questions were raised about the effect of the regula-
tions on other pollutants and the possible adverse
effect on air quality.
Chrysler stated at the ARB hearing, when the
highway cycle NOx standard was proposed, that the
ARB objective of reducing NOx emissions during highway
driving could be accomplished with the Highway Fuel
Economy Test Cycle and that Chrysler would be able
to meet those standards with recalibration and
additional development of our advanced electronic
control systems.
Nonetheless, we believe the outcome of this
hearing should be decided on whether there will be
a measurable effect on air quality of an additional
control put on highway NOx emissions. Despite the
obviously contrived extrapolations of 1978 vehicle
certification data, Chrysler does not believe that
the ARB has presented data which convincingly
-------
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
67
demonstrate that improvements will be attained as
a result of the regulations. In fact, if we
extrapolate data using the new three-way catalyst
systems, it appears we will get a substantial reduction
in highway NOx emissions whether we need it or not
or whether we have a new regulation or not.
The point is that Chrysler does not believe the
ARB has presented adequate information to conclude
that California needs a new highway NOx control in
order "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
We believe existing vehicle regulations
are more than adequate to accomplish that objective.
Another questionable area which needs con-
sideration in this hearing is the area of technical
feasibility. We remind you of our previous statements
regarding achieving the more stringent California
standards for 1980 and beyond. Even though a
confusing number of options may be available, the
fact remains that ,41 hydrocarbons, 7.0 carbon
monoxide, and .4 NOx will have to be achieved in
the near future to maintain our presence in the
California market. We still have not been successful
in attaining those levels with sufficient confidence
to be able to meet quality audit and fuel economy
requirements also by 1982. The addition of highway
-------
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
68
NOx control regulations does nothing to improve our
chances of meeting all the other requirements; there-
fore the technological feasibility requirement
within existing lead time is not met.
In conclusion, Chrysler believes that ARB has
arbitrarily decided that highway NOx controls will
improve California air quality, Until there is
scientific evidence to support ARB's position,
their request for waiver should be denied.
MR. GRICE: I have a couple of points I
would like to make here.
Mr. Wagner has provided you with our general
comments on California's request for a waiver in
this matter. I would like to address one aspect of
this request which I find troublesome.
As we all recognize, technological feasibility
and lead time must be established before a waiver
is proper. In this case, EPA is considering a waiver
request on a standard proposed and promulgated by
California about six months before the start of
certification of vehicles subject to the standard.
While Mr. Wagner has testified that we are con-
fident we will be able to comply in 1980 model vehicles,
it is readily apparent that this proposal will
increase both the complexity of the 1980 model
-------
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
69
certification we are now starting and the risks of
unanticipated failure. This means further dealy in
an already cumbersome process, making certification
that much more difficult to obtain.
The addition of. a second standard to the cer-
tification process, compounded by that delay, will
undoubtedly increase the number of last-minute changes
to correct unanticipated failures every manufacturer
experiences. This, iin turn, will increase the likeli-
hood of deteriorating fuel economy, driveability or
even in-use emission control caused by the last-
minute changes.
The simple fact is that adequate lead time
would minimize these risks. The lead time permitted
by California in promulgating this standard is vir-
tually non-existent. As such, the California standard
would maximize the likelihood that we will experience
problems of the type I have mentioned.
I submit to you that California has not pro-
vided adequate lead time in this case as a matter of
law, even though compliance is likely. Accordingly,
California's request for a waiver should be denied.
I also would like to take one exception to
one point in Mr. Austin's statement this morning,
although it isn't totally / relevant to the issues we
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
70
have raised.
He made a statement that fuel economy and
consideration of fuel economy is not relevant to
the question of feasibility. This is something I
could not disagree with more.
It is our position, and I think we have stated
it in the past, that fuel economy is a very relevant
consideration in determining the feasibility of
any standard, whether it is EPA promulgating a standard
or whether it is EPA acting on a waiver request of
California.
Quite simply, we believe that if a standard
results in or aggravates civil penalties under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, then as a matter
of the law it is not a feasible standard.
Either Mr. Wagner or I will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
MR. GRAY: Does Chrysler plan to use
three-way catalyst systems in 1980 in California?
MR. WAGNER: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: With any exceptions?
MR. WAGNER: No.
MR. GRAY: You made the statement in your
testimony that with the use of such systems you expect
a substantial reduction of highway NOx emissions,
-------
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
71
even apparently below what the California standard
would constrain the emissions to be.
In looking at the data submitted by the
ARB in their waiver request, the staff report that
supported the request, it appears that the data
seemed to indicate a very substantial control of
NOx over the highway cycle with three-way catalyst
systems. So is it fair to assume that the Chrysler
system will be substantially below that highway
fuel economy test NOx standard in 1980?
MR. WAGNER: Our present information is NOx
emissions under highway conditions are substantially
below Federal Test Procedure.
Now it is possible -- and we haven*t worked
out all of the requirements yet, and we obviously
aren't there yet. But in the interest of maximizing
fuel economy, we may be able to increase the NOx
levels under highway conditions above those that
we are presently experiencing. We should, even under
those conditions, be considerably below the standards
proposed today or adopted by California for a waiver.
MR. GRAY: Right. With that
MR. WAGNER: .But we are still -- all I
am trying to say there is we are still in the process
of calibrating the system. Obviously, we have
-------
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
72
driveability and fuel economy and emissions to consider
and the whole thing is a trade-off.
MR. GRAY: Realizing that, then, I am
confused with your statement that the condition of
NOx control regulations over the highway cycle does
nothing to improve your chances of meeting the other
requirements; therefore, the technological feasibility
requirement within existing lead time is not met.
Even if you do increase emissions somewhat
because of other trade-offs, you are still substantiall
below the standard.
MR. WAGNER: No. No. You are only talking
about highway standards there.
MR. GRAY: Right.
MR. WAGNER: In that statement that I made,
I am primarily concerned about point 4 NOx on FTP.
This new regulation doesn't help me a bit, and I
still donftt know how I am going to meet .4 NOx on
FTP and still meet quality audit requirements for
California. We still don't know how to do that.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
MR. WAGNER: Because that's not feasible,
then this thing which adds to it is not feasible.
MR. GRAY: But this addition does not make
more difficult the difficult problem of Achieving
-------
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
73
.4 on the Federal Test Procedure; right?
MR. WAGNER: Theoretically, this does. We
are still so far away from actually meeting .4 with
all the other requirements that it's hard to evaluate
this additional one in terms of how much more difficult
is it. It is more difficult per se.
MR. GRAY: It's another requirement, but
one with the systems you expect to use in 1980 --
MR. WAGNER: 1980 is a 1.0 NOx requirement.
MR. GRAY: I am talking about the highway
fuel economy test NOx standard.
MR. WAGNER: Okay.
MR. GRAY: The levels of those systems
for that requirement are so much below it that I guess
I am confused as to how that requirement which you
don't see any problem in meeting will make it more
difficult in meeting the FTP .4 gram per mile NOx
standard. I don't understand the interaction there.
MR. WAGNER: Okay. Let's see if I can
explain it a little better.
In 1980, we are talking about 1.0 FTP NOx
requirement. Okay?
MR. GRAY: Yes.
MR. WAGNER: So the highway NOx requirement
is 1.33 grams per mile. We have stated, I guess
-------
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
quite awhile ago, that we are pretty confident about
meeting all the requirements at the 1.0 NOx level
with three-way catalyst systems. Level of confidence/
pretty high.
Therefore, our level of confidence about meet-
ing a 1.33 under highway conditions is likewise
pretty high.
When we are talking about .4 NOx FTP, we
are talking about a different ballgame. Even with
three-way catalyst systems, we are in extreme diffi-
culty getting down to those additional levels.
An additional requirement sure doesn't help us
get there.
MR. GRAY: Right. I guess we can fully
appreciate that it may not help you get there, but
the problem is, since it's not really a technological
constraint because it's easy to meet the highway fuel
economy NOx standard with this kind of technology,
how does it --
MR. WAGNER: How is it an additional require-
ment?
MR. GRAY: Yes.
MR. WAGNER: It may not be an additional
requirement. Okay?
I cannot tell you in any absolute terms whether
-------
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
it's a pliiis or a minus. It's just from an intellectual
standpoint it sure doesn't subtract from any of the
job. What is not feasible to start with is still not
feasible.
MR. GRICE: It's a further complicating facto
and when you start about meeting .4 it is a substantial
complicating factor.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You changed it just
a little bit. I understood it to be an uncertainty
as to which direction it would go regarding the
complication. That was the uncertainty.
In other words, you don't know that it would
be more difficult nor less difficult because you
are not there and you just don't know. And that's
different from saying it is indeed going to be more
diffi cult.
MR, GRICE: It is, indeed. I think on
the basis of what Mr. Wagner has indicated it is
indeed going to be more difficult.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, no,
MR. GRICE: Your question, Ben, directs
itself to you don't know whether it's going to
make it easier. Well, I can tell you as a lawyer
it isn't going to make it any easier. It can't
make it any easier in making .4.
-------
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
76
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let's put it on a
technological basis, though.
Mr. Wagner has stated that he can meet the
1.0 NOx and 1.33. He knows that. He can do that,
the argument being that it doesn't make it any more
difficult to meet the 1.33 if he can meet the 1.0.
Now with regard to meeting .4 in the highway
cycle standard, you just don't kinow whether or not
you can meet .4 and you don't know if you meet .4
whether you can concurrently meet or far exceed the
highway cycle NOx standard. And that's the message
that I was getting, as opposed to saying you knew
that when you got down to meeting .4 on the FTP
it was going to be damn difficult to meet the highway
cycle standard with the same technology.
MR, GRICE: And that, I submit to you, is
a substantially complicating factor.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Complicated and uncertain?
MR. GRICE: And uncertain.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right.
MR. LOW: Mr. Grice, with regard to the
lead time problems that you seem to be referring
to, is it because your testing programs aren't
up to speed enough to handle this additional requiremen
and you are afraid that in certain instances you
-------
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
77
might exceed the standard by some minimal amount,
or are you talking ab.out your ability to design
vehicles to meet the requirements of this new
regulation?
MR. GRICE: This is going primarily to
the question of uncertainty, You have a standard
that is promulgated immediately prior to the begin-
ning of the certification process. You think that
in fact you have the technology that will enable you
to comply. However, that additional requirement is
going to further aggravate the certification process.
It is likely to cause further problems, further
changes of a laat-minute variety which are not going
to be easy to solve
MR, LOW: Excuse me. Are these design
changes that you are talking about as opposed to just
quality control problems?
MR. GRICE: Anytime you fail a certification
test in an unanticipated manner, you are going to
have to change your design.
MR. LOW: California does have a provision
whereby if you do exceed the highway cycle test
you can submit other data to demonstrate that it's
not a design problem but perhaps a test variability
problem. Does that help you out on your lead time
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
78
problem?
MR. GRICE: I don't think it does. I
just am submitting to you that the promulgation of
a standard, an additional te&t requirement and a
standard a few months before the beginning of a
certification process just fails to provide adequate
lead time.
MR. LOW: But you have stated previously
that you can meet the requirements or the standard?
MR. GRICE: We have confidence that we
will be able to meet them. I don't think anyone at
this point in time can flatly say, "Well, we will
meet that standard."
MR. LOW: Thank you.
MR. GRAY: While it's pretty well understood
that Chrysler may disagree with the California Air
Resources Board with respect to the need for additional]
NOx control in Southern California, it appears that
you did not address whether or not the operation
over the highway cycle is representative of the
operation in Southern California or not.
In particular, the California Air Resources
Board in their request for the waiver and in the
statements they made today have really made the
point, as stated in their formal request, that
-------
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
compliance with this standard will be based on emis-
sions measured during the highway fuel economy test
which the Board has found to represent typical driving
patterns in many urban areas of California.
Would you disagree with that conclusion by
the California Air Resources Board as well?
MR. WAGNER: I have no basis to disagree
with it. At the same time, I don't really have
much of a basis to agree with it. I just don't have
any supporting information for their statement.
MR. GRAY: Well, they did provide an analysis
in their staff report upon which they based that
judgment. Do you take issue with that analysis
and feel it's invalid?
MR. WAGNER: I don't know that it is invalid.
I think it's based on a pretty small sample of the
entire freeway ' driving conditions in the Los
Angeles Basin. I think that I could perhaps pick
some other segments of Los Angeles freeways and
develop a plausible argument that the opposite might
be true.
MR. GRAY: Well, certainly there would be
driving conditions which this cycle would not repre-
sent, but the only contention that the ARB has made
is that there is a substantial amount of urban
-------
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
80
operation that is represented by this cycle. And
that's the question I am posing to you. Do you
disagree with --
MR. WAGNER: I have no -- I have no informa-
tion that we have developed that would support or
refute such a statement. We feel that it puts
together a plausible argument, and that's about
the most you can say for it,
MR. GRAY: So you are at least not today
taking issue with that part of California's determina-
tion; is that fair to say?
MR. WAGNER: Will you sjiy that again, Chuck?
MR. GRAY: I said
MR. WAGNER: Mr. Gray?
MR. GRAY: I'm trying to get a feel for
whether or not, since it wasn't specifically
mentioned in your statement, you would also take
issue with that part of California's determination
with respect to the need, separating the need with
respect to whether or not you need more NOx control
in Southern California as opposed to whether or
not this cycle even is representative of any operation
in Southern California,
Clearly if it's not representative of a sig-
nificant amount of operation in the urban area of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
81
Southern California, then control of this cycle
wouldn't be very meaningful; and, therefore, there
would be some question about the need. So there
are two issues relative to need.
I am asking do you take issue with California's
determination simply that there is a substantial
amount of operation in California that is represented
by the highway test?
MR. WAGNER: There must be.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
MR. WAGNER: And I say that primarily because
there is so much freeway driving in Los Angeles
you ought to be able to pick out just about any kind
of cycle that would be representative of something.
Now whether or not the highway cycle as defined
represents a substantial or even a significant portion
of freeway driving in California, I guess I am not
in a position to judge.
MR. GRAY: I can't recall the exact location
of the statement, but as 1 recall the California
analysis at least implied it could be as high as
40 percent or more of the operation. If so. even if
they were optimistic by a -factor of two it would b»
substantial, I guess, then, and you wouldn't take issue
MR. WAGNER: But if they were optimistic
-------
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
82
by a factor of 50, it would be a different story.
I don't know - asc to what degree they are being
optimistic, if they are.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Wagner, on Page 2
of your statement, you said, "Despite the obviously
contrived extrapolations of 1978 vehicle, certification
data, Chrysler does not believe that the ARB has
presented data which convincingly demonstrate that
improvements will be attained as a result of the
regulat ions."
I'm not sure what's behind your use of the
word "contrived."
Could you explain that a little bit?
MR, WAGNER: Well, perhaps that's a Robert
Wagner judgment Chrysler Corporation judgment
even -- but my feeling is that 1978 certification data
is not going to be representative of what California
will be experiencing in 1980. From what I have been
able to learn about notuonly Chrysler's projected
systems but our competitors': projected systems
for 1980, why the great majority of the new vehicles
will have three-way catalyst systems. So basing
your judgments on 1978 systems and extrapolating
from that base, to me, is a contrived way of justifying
-------
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 I don't believe is necessary,
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: One question we had
about your concern about meeting the fuel economy
standard by virtue of the implications of the
highway cycle NOx standard,
Is your inability to meet the fuel econony
standard based upon your intention to have cut loose
NOx control on the highway cycle as a means of
meeting your fuel economy standards in the future,
or is it just that you think that the standard on
the highway cycle will require you to put on more
control than you would have had to put on to meet
the .4 on the FTP?
MR, GRICE : X am a little confused by your
question. Let me explain a couple of things. I
think your question is directed about some of my
remarks. Am I correct, Ben?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes.
MR, GRICE: Okay, I t&lhk I made essentially
two points: Number one, the type of last-minute
change that this hastily promulgated standard is
likely to lead to can adversely impact fuel economy
on an individual vehicle.
The second portion of my comment, I was simply
disagreeing on the record with the statement by Mr.
-------
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
84
Austin that fuel econony is irrelevant to the question
of feasibility. And I prefaced those remarks
with the indication that I didn't think it was
relevant to any of the issues that we were raising
here.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I'm not really
trying to get on to the second point that you made.
The first point, which more or less deals with
technology, is the one that I am concerned about.
I am saying is the problem going to result from
the fact that you had planned on cutting loose NOx
control on the highway cycle as a means of improving
fuel economy at some point in the future, or is it
a problem with meeting a more stringent requirement
on the highway cycle than you would have to meet
meeting the .4 on the FTP?
MR. GRICE: It's really neither. It's
simply the fact that anytime you have to make a
change in the certification process immediately
prior to production it can and sometimes does result
in adverse impacts on the vehicle, whether it be
driveability, whether it be fuel economy.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are talking
about the 1980 --
MR, GRICE: I am talking about the practical
-------
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
85
impact of what happens when you make a last-minute
change. Sometimes they are good; sometimes they are
bad. That's all I am saying.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I see. But you are
answering in the negative to my question, that your
plans had originally contemplated cutting loose NOx
control?
MR. WAGNER: What do you mean "cutting
loose"?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Not controlling to the
same extent as you would on the FTP.
MR. WAGNER No. Our intent was not to
play games with highway NOx.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: In other words, the
penalty that you see is not because you had anticipated
reducing control of NOx on the highway cycle?
MR. GRICE: It's a penalty which is inherent
anytime California or the Environmental Protection
Agency at the very last minute changes the rules
of the game and this causes a complication in the
certification process, an unanticipated complication
in the certification process, and you run into,
as a result of those complications, problems in
the certification process.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So the answer to my
-------
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
86
question, then, would be no?
MR. GRICE: I think it probably would be,
I'm not totally certain I comprehend your question.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I am trying
to get at whether or not your concern about the
fuel economy impact was just totally because of the
fostering on of the new requirement and certification
and all the uncertainties attendent thereto, or whether
it was because you had anticipated in your plans
of meeting the fuel economy standard to reduce
control of the highway cycle and this new requirement
prevents you from doing that and that's going to
cost fuel economy?
MR. WAGNER: Let me answer that, Mike.
MR. GRICE: Okay.
MR. WAGNER: To answer your question
directly, Ben: No, we did not intend to juggle around
the highway NOx with the intent of improving fuel
economy. I think that it is only honest to tell
you that because we have fuel economy, driveability
and emissions to consider we will calibrate our
system to give us the best compromise involving all
three of those.
In fact, we expect to bring our highway NOx
levels to lower levels even in *79, particularly
as a result of this activity, our conversations with
-------
87
EPA. associated with electronic controls. We recogniz
the concern that the regulatory bodies have in using
those controls. We expect that any system that we
come up with will be fully acceptable, not only
to EPA but also to California. It's obv&ous that
we will not be able to market our cars unless you
people approve of our systems.
Does that answer your question?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Grice.
Why don't we take a lunch break and come back
about 1:10 and start with General Motors and then
Ford.
(Luncheon Recess)
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We are ready, Mr.
Schwochert.
MR. CALHOUN: Mr, Jackson, other members
of the Panel, my name is Joe Calhoun. I am Assistant
Director of the Automotive Emission Control Office
for General Motors Corporation.
With me today is Mr. Harry Schwochert, who is
a staff engineer in the same department.
We have comments we'd like to make concerning
each of the three items being considered here today.
Mr. Schwochert will briefly summarize our statement
-------
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
88
concerning the highway NOx standards. I will present
the statement concerning the assembly-line test pro-
cedures and the tune-up lable. At the end'of our
statement, we will be happy to answer any questions
regarding any of these three items that you care
to ask.
Harry?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: General Motors concurs
with the intent of this proposed requirement that
exhaust emissions should be controlled under modes
of vehicle operation which measurably contribute
to air pollution. We want to help solve automotive
related air pollution problems, including the
particular air pollution problem in Southern California,
and believe that emission control program driving
schedules should reflect vehicle operation in the
area where emissions must be controlled.
Emission control requirements impose constraints
on the design and calibration of an automobile.
Control of NOx emissions require trade-off considera-
tions, among the more important of whi'ch.iafe.-fuel economy
and vehicle driveability.
Furthermore, if NOx emissions are actually
reduced by this proposal, the characteristics
of the complex photochemical smog process arfe such1
-------
89
that this proposal may in fact result in an increase
of undesirable oxidants.
This proposed change in the emissions driving
schedule reflects a new constraint with yet unknown
effects on vehicle operating characteristics and
air quality benefits. General Motors recommended
to the California Air Resources Board that emission
performance under conditions other than those encoun-
tered in the Certification Test Procedure be given
more study prior to regulatory action.
The basis for this recommendation was fourfold.
First, the proposal addresses only one of the three
exhaust pollutants for which standards have been
established on the Certification Test Procedure.
Although, emission of some pollutants may be more
important under certain driving conditions, this
proposal does not recognize that the hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide emissions on the Highway Fuel Economy
Test are very low for most catalytic converter equipped
vehicles,
Second, the proposal does not appear to be
directly relatable to projected air quality benefits.
For years, the need for improved air quality has
been measured in terms of the Certification Test
Procedure. The introduction of-a second test procedure
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
90
appears to reflect a dissatisfaction with the repre-
sentivity of the Certification Test Procedure,
rather than to represent a well-considered solution
to any possible air-quality need. Under the ARB
proposal, compliance would be based upon two separate
test schedules, the Certification Test Procedure and
the Highway Fuel Economy Test, without any assignment
of relative importance to each schedule. In other
words, failure to meet the NOx standards for either
test schedule would constitute vehicle failure without
regard for NOx emissions on the other test schedule.
Third, on an overall basis, the information
contained in the ARB report prepared for the January
25, 1978 meeting did not clearly demonstrate a
need for an NOx standard based on the Highway Fuel
Economy Test.
The data presented on Page 19 of the ARB report
referenced above showed that the average ratio of
NOx emissions on the Highway Fuel Economy Test to
NOx emissions on the Certification Test Procedure
was about the same for 1978 California models compared
to vehicles manufactured prior to exhaust emission
control requirements. The actual data in the report
show a ratio of 1.15 for pre-control cars and
a ratio of 1.14 for 1978 California models, These
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
91
data would suggest that air quality has not been
depreciated and that on the average vehicles are
not being designed to operate differently under
highway driving conditions.
Fourth, the proposal places an additional
constraint on vehicle calibration and design with yet
undefined air quality benefits and fuel economy and
vehicle driveability effects. National energy concerns
suggest that the need be well defined for any regula-
tions which may adversely impact fuel economy.
The ARB proposal is, of course, intended to
discourage the use of emission control devices which
are designed to relax emission control during
vehicle conditions other than those encountered on
the Certification Test Procedure. These devices are
sometimes referred to as "defeat devices." We believe
that any attempt to eliminate the use of such
defeat devices should be a joint effort of the EPA,
ARB, General Motors and any other interested parties
to develop appropriate performance criteria. This is
particularly important in view of the possible
inconsistency between EPA and ARB certification
requirements which could arise regarding defeat
devices. To avoid the many difficulties caused by such
inconsistencies, EPA should withhold a waiver decision
-------
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
92
until EPA and ARB are prepared, based upon further
study, to use uniform evaluation criteria for
eliminating the use of defeat devices.
MR. CALHOUN: The thrust of that statement
is, in essence, to say that we'd like to have some
uniform criteria, whatever it is.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are you suggesting
that the criteria that CARB would use as proposed
here is different than what you perceived as being
used by EPA?
MR, CALHOUN: We don't know what the criteria
is that EPA is considering. The only concern that
we do have is that the method adopted by the California
Air Resources Board is composed of one restraint, and
it's conceivable that EPA could adopt something al-
together different.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Until they do, then you
don't have a problem?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Well, I think there could
be a problem, because ARB, by their analysis and
their staff report, indicated there were some vehicles
that had defeat devices this year. None of them
were General Motors vehicles, but that would suggest
that the evaluation criteria are not consistent.
Some vehicles in California in 1978 would
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
93
fail the California requirement and should have
failed the defeat device evaluation. So I think
there could be an inconsistency. ARB listed, I
think, about five or six vehicles of 1978 vintage
that were certified that had defeat devices and
would have failed the performance criteria. So
there could be that inconsistency by their demonstra-
tion in their staff report.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, but if they meet
the California requirement would they fail the
Federal requirement, whatever it might be that you
perceive that it might be?
MR. CALHOUN: We don't know that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you don't know that
there is an inconsistency?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: That's right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So it's not like you
are saying there is something in place where there
is a known inconsistency, you just fear that there
is an inconsistency?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: There's a possibility.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'd like to ask the
same question that I asked of Chrysler.
Does this proposal make any changes with regard
to your intent to decontrol NOx during the highway
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
94
cycle?
MR. CALHOUN: I think the point that Mr.
Wagner brought out in his testimony with Chrysler,
in that meeting the emission control requirement
along with fuel economy and driveability are certainly
a trade-off, and we try to optimize the system to
do that. So I don't envision us having to make many
changes, but certainly some of the systems that
we would probably consider in the future may have
been affected by this particular regulation.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: In that you had planned
to achieve less control during the highway cycle?
MR. CALHOUN: No, I didn't mean to imply
that.
I am saying that we try to optimize our controls
primarily for the purpose of maximizing the emission
control simultaneously with maximizing fuel economy
and driveability. But certainly it wasn't the
intent to decrease the control of NOx on any other
particular driving schedule.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you could argue
to say that the answer is no?
MR. CALHOUN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And that this wouldn't
change any of your plans as it related to the intensity
-------
95
of control of NOx in the highway cycle?
MR. CALHOUN: I would have to say this:
That we look at a lot of different ways of complying
with these regulations, and I don't know what we
would have finally adopted in the future. But certainly
our intent was not to adopt any kind of defeat device.
MR. SCHWOCHERT: It would have been an
imposition as far as it's another constraint.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask the question
here: If indeed the regulation will not result in
a reduction as based upon demonstrated performance,
do you theorize that it could have prevented increases
in NOx that would have resulted if you did have
plans to decontrol NOx to some extent on the highway
cycle?
MR. CALHOUN: I don't know if we had any
particular plans to decontrol NOx on the highway
cycle. But certainly if a manufacturer had intended
to do that, this would be affected by this particular
regulation.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you agree, then,
that it has the potential of preventing an increase
in NOx emissions that could have occurred if it
was not for this regulation?
MR. CALHOUNC! ; Yes, I think we have to
-------
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
agree with that,
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If it's reasonable to
assume that it could have occurred?
MR. CALHOUN: Yes.
MR. SCHWOCHERT; If that device would have
been allowed to be produced under the Federal regula-
tion which prohibits the use of defeat devices.
If it had slipped through that crack, so to speak,
I suppose it could have occurred.
MR. CALHOUN: Let me point out one other
thing, something that Mr. Gray brought up this morning.
You do have at the current time, and the ARB
does also, a requirement that's aimed at defeat devices.
If that's the intent, then your regulation already
in existence may satisfy the requirement. I'm not
sure that it is, but it is something that could be
taken into consideration.
MR. GRAY: I guess I am not really sure
where General Motors comes out on this. By beginning
your statement with "General Motors concurs with
the intent of this proposed requirement that exhaust
emissions should be controlled under modes of vehicle
operation which measurably contribute to air pollution,
then with the recommendations that follow, are those
meant to take away from the original concurrence
-------
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
with the approach, or are they just to encourage
consistency between Federal and California-State
acti on?
MR. CALHOUN: Our primary purpose is to focus
on consistency. We would not like to see EPA come
along next month or next year, for example, and
adopt something altogether different that may be
a different constraint which also could have some
adverse effect on our ability to optimize the system.
MR. GRAY: Would you go so far as to
encourage the EPA to adopt a very objective criteria
like this which would reflect
MR. CALHOUN: We are certainly not suggesting
that you adopt the ARB method of a portion of whatever
this particular problem is. We are suggesting that
perhaps this is something that the vehicle manufacturers
EPA, and the ARB should take a very critical look at.
MR. SCHWOCHERT: I think we do, in general,
support objective -- I think your reference was to
performance criteria in contrast to design criteria,
I guess. If you will, to some extent, you might
interpret the advisory circular to be aimed at
more of a design evaluation in reference to a
performance criteria.
We do in general, of course, support that
concept because it allows us, then, to know how you
-------
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
98
expect the vehicles to perform, and then we can
design the vehicle to meet those performance
constraints.
MR. GRAY: I think that California's
discussion of why they felt this requirement was
needed really gets to the heart of the problem here.
The current requirement that the California Air
Resources Board and the Environmental Protection
Agency has to try to deal with this problem requires
a subjective determination.
Subjective determinations work, but they are
more open to disagreement, disputes. The ideal is
to have an objective criteria that can fairly
evaluate, across different manufacturers in this
case, whether or not a system meets the requirement.
This move by California is to try to define, if you
will, the defeat device problem from the objective
criteria standpoint, and in fact I would ask: Doesn't
that approach really fall pretty much in line with
your basic suggestion that exhaust emission should
be controlled under modes of operation which contribute
to air pollution?
Their whole intent, it seems, as I understand
their background material, -was "to establish a level
that reflected similar reductions as their FTP
-------
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
standards reflect.
MR. CALHOUN: I think you brought up some-
thing this morning that bears on your particular
point, and that is: Is it an enforcement tool, or
is it a new standard? I see both things being con-
sidered here today.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What do you think it is?
MR. CALHOUN: Well, it's kind of difficult
to say. It seems to me that if you were in Mr.
Austin's shoes you would probably say it's a new
standard. If it's aimed primarily at defeat devices,
then it could be considered an enforcement tool.
You've looked at this and wrestled with this trying
to decide what is it.
I think in response to your comment, Mr. Gray,
we have already had a meeting with some members
of the EPA staff, and I believe that you were there,
primarily for the purpose of discussing defeat devices.
This is something that I think should be pursued.
MR. GRAY: Do you think that a reasonable
and fair way of handling this would be to try to
establish objective criteria that would in fact have
as the objective to insure that urban emissions
are reduced to the assumed proportion that the
FTP numbers reflect? In other words, not constrained
-------
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
by the fact that you just happen to have picked this
particular type of driving. We have had previous
people say that there are a variety of types of
driving that occur in the urban area. Would you go
so far as to say that an objective of trying to
strive for a portion of reduction in urban emissions
is a correct objective?
MR. CALHOUN: I don't know if it's correct
or not. I can say this: That certainly something
that's done to resolve the air pollution problem
in Los Angeles or San Francisco would be desirable.
But the difficulty that we would have with this is
that we already have one set of standards that
we are required to meet, and they are the standards
as determined from the FTP.
So now we are imposing something else, and
which is the one that's important?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me follow up on that,
if you don't mind, just one moment.
I've heard you say that you don't think that
you would change your plans with regard to decontrol-
ling NOx in the highway cycle, saying that was not
a part of the corporate approach to this emission
control in the future as far as General Motors was
concerned. So that's not an issue.
-------
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
101
Do you agree that if you can meet the FTP
NOx number that the systems will also meet the
highway NOx number, given that you have no intention
to decontrol NOx on the highway:cycle?
MR. CALHOUN: I don't know what the future
will hold, but you would certainly think that would
be the case based on what we see today.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now is that true for
both the 1980 system and systems in the future?
MR. CALHOUN: I don't know. I can't specu-
late as to whether that would be true or not.
MR. SCHWOCHERT: I think we really may
be trying to oversimply emission control a little
bit by talking about decontrolling on the highway
test, because the vehicle really is the total system
and there are lots of components on the vehicle
that contribute to emissions. It's not something
that you just turn on or off.
I have control or don't have control. So I
think maybe that's an oversimplification.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It may be, but everybody
understands it.
But I'd like to pursue this just a little bit
more, because I think it's very important.
The issue is the ratio of the levels of
-------
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
control between the FTP and the highway cycle. Do
you have a basis for saying that you know that if
you meet the FTP NOx number you will not meet the
highway cycle NOx number, given the ratio that's
been established by the CARB?
MR. CALHOUN: We don't have any basis for
making that kind of statement at this time.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And you are also aware
of the fact that the CARB has adopted a procedure
10 || whereby that if you failed the NOx number on the
I' highway cycle in certification you still have the
12 || opportunity to come back and demonstrate that it
13 wasn't necessarily the fault of the design of the car
14 || but may be attributable to variability in the test
15 II procedure or variability in the car itself?
16 MR. CALHOUN: Yes, we are aware of that.
17 II CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So those two things
18 || together add up, at least in my mind, to saying that
19 you are not telling me that you have a real problem
20 with this in terms of your ability to meet the
21 || NOx standard on the highway cycle.
22 || MR. CALHOUN: That's correct. Based on
23 ||the data that we've looked at and I think the
24 ||ARB staff published this in their report. I think
25 Uthat most of our vehicles were already in compliance
-------
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
most if not all, I believe, were in compliance with
the standard.
I'd like to reiterate one point that we made
earlier. That is, that if this is aimed at defeat
devices, and we know that this is a concern of EPA,
then we would like to see whatever the procedure
that is going to be used that the criteria be uniform.
That's, in essence, the thrust of our statement.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That, of course, is
something to the future, and rest assured that your
hypothetical of the EPA coming out with somethings
in a month isnvt going to happen. Maybe two months
(laughter).
MR. GRAY: I was really probing, because
I was quite honestly impressed with that initial
statement. It's a problem that I think we all
recognize that needs to be approached, and we have
had objections to the old approach of handling the
problem; today we are hearing objections to the new
approach. General Motors, at least, has been willing
to go far enough to say that they concur with the
intent.
Is there any way you can be a little more
specific in terms of what that means in terms of
an objective guideline or requirement that could
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
104
really be implemented in an equitable manner.
MR. CALHOUN: Let me say this: That all
of these regulations are aimed at controlling emissions
from the automobile, and if there is an air pollution
problem, and certainly there is in certain parts of
California, then any procedure that's aimed at
that, provided it isn't irrational or an extreme,
is one that General Motors would support.
We are interested in solving this air pollution
problem also.
MR. GRAY: Do you think that California's
proposal is reasonable and a fair way of attacking
that objective?
MR. CALHOUN: I don't know, frankly.
I am worried about what's going to happen a year
from now or two years from now about any constraint
that you, EPA, will come along with.
MR. GRAY: If the EPA requirement is
consistent with this requirement that California has
adopted, would it then be, in your opinion,, a fair
approach to try to solve this problem?
MR. CALHOUN: I don't know if it's fair
or not, but we can live with it.
MR. GRAY: Okay. I'd like to go to the
second part of that statement. There's a lot said
-------
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
105
in that one sentence.
Under modes of operation which measurably
contribute to air pollution, would you take issue
with the Board's finding that the highway cycle
does represent typical driving patterns in many
urban areas in California to a significant extent?
Would you concur with that finding or take issue
with it?
MR. CALHOUN: I think they based that
on data they got from Caltrans, and we don't have
any data to the contrary.
MR. GRAY: Does it seem reasonable based
upon their analysis? Would you take issue with
their determination?
MR. CALHOUN: We have not looked at any
data at all, so I can't say that it's unreasonable
or that it's reasonable. But I do know there is
a lot of high-speed driving in the urban areas,
MR. GRAY: So you wouldn't, in effect,
argue that the highway cycle is not representative
of urban freeway driving on the other side?
I mean either it's representative of urban
freeway driving to some extent, and California offered
its representative to a very significant extent,
or it's not.
-------
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
106
Do you feel, based upon your expertise, and
certaily General Motors has been perhaps more in
the area of characterizing vehicle operation than
perhaps anyone, that that's a reasonable determination?
MR. CALHOUN: I think, as I said earlier,
looking at the Caltrans data, and I do know they
make all kinds of measurements all over the State of
California, and if they provided the ARB with data
to support the speed they specified in the staff
report we don't have any data to the contrary.
So we cannot say that it's wrong.
MR. GRAY: Okay. I guess in particular I
am thinking of the G.M. Chase Car Program that covered
at least the Los Angeles Area.
Have you had an opportunity to consider the
results of that study relative to California's
determination?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: We have not tried to
assess the weighting of various types of driving,
trying to characterize driving into a certain number
of different types and then try to weight that.
But neither has, really, the ARB report done that.
It just says that it represents significant amounts
of driving in California, and you can take almost
any schedule, I think, and show there was a fair
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
107
amount of driving in California, since California is
a pretty big area and a lot of freeways and a lot
of surface streets. We have not tried to determine
what fraction of the time is spent under highway
driving modes and compared to the California study.
MR. GRAY: Well, then, it seems like on
the surface you would think that it's a reasonable
determination if you haven't, based on the data base
you have, tried to show that it's not. It seems
like a pretty simple question. There's not intended
to be any hidden meaning.
MR. SCHWOCHERT: What do you mean by "sig-
nificant," if you think it's a simple question?. If
you were to weight the two schedules we are talking
about, how would you weight them for driving purposes?
From a fuel economy standpoint, a determination
has been made that it's 55/45 type of weighting.
How would you weight them, I guess, from an emissions
standpoint in Southern California?
MR. GRAY: I think that's a question I
am really posing to you.
MR. CALHOUN : We can't give you --
MR. GRAY: I mean just in the broad
context
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It's a draw (laughter).
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
108
MR. GRAY: -- of whether or not you disagree
with the determination that that represents operation
which measurably contributes to air pollution. I
mean you use general words like that, too.
Would it classify in that category of operation
that you have referred to in your statement?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: I think so.
MR. GRAY: That's a fair statement. Thank
you.
MR. LOW: Let me ask a question.
You made a statement on Page 2, the second
paragraph, that if NOx emissions are actually reduced
that this proposal may result in an increase in
oxidants.
My question to you is do you foresee an
actual decrease in NOx emissions from General Motors'
systems as a result of this proposal?
MR. CALHOUN: As of now, I would say no.
MR. LOW; You have no intent to make any
changes that would reduce NOx emissions?
MR.CALHOUN: No.
MR. LOW: So you recognize a need for
this as perhaps a protection against a defeat device,
but you don't see it as decreasing NOx emissions
in California?
-------
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
109
MB, CALHOUN: No.
MR. LOW: Okay. Thank you.
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Except if a different
relationship between highway NOx and FTP NOx occurs
as a result of the use of different control systems,
for example, and different technology.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Based on your knowledge
now, though, you could, by virtue of the manipulation
of the electronic controls, affect an increase of
NOx emissions on the highway cycle, but that's in-
consistent with your plans?
MR. CALHOUN: Yes.
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I had one other question.
You make a point on your first page that "First,
the proposal addresses only one of the three exhaust
pollutants for which standards have been established
on the Certification Test Procedure."
I'm not sure what your point there is. Should
they have standards for HC and CO also on the highway
cycle?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: The staff in their report
addressed hydrocarbons and CO and said there is
no need for a standard on the highway test because
CO and hydrocarbons are very low under warmed-up
-------
110
driving conditions with catalytic-converter equipped
cars. We agree with that statement, and we are
not saying that there ought to be a relaxation of
hydrocarbon standard as a result of this.
But perhaps one ought to think about the CO
standard. I guess you ought to think about all
pollutants. If now this new schedule represents a
significant amount of driving, we ought to look at
all pollutants and maybe consider the requirements
for other pollutants, for example.
If you are going to place a performance require-
ment on two tests, you could consider weighing the
importance of the two tests and then look at the
pollutants. That's the point we are making.
Maybe you ought to consider this. If EPA and
the industry and the ARB got together and talked,
that's one of the things you might talk about, per-
formance criteria on everything.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't we talk about
your statement on the assembly-line test procedures.
MR. CALHOUN: On December 19, 1977, the
California Air Resources Board adopted new Assembly-
Line Test Procedures for 1979 model year Passenger
Cars, Light-Duty trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles.
These new procedures are similar to those in effect
-------
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
111
for the 1978 model year, except that one of the
options for compliance, Option I, has been deleted
and a revised Option II, which is averaging, is
now required. Option II was changed to require that
not more than one percent of the sample can exceed
the exhaust emission standard plus 2.33 standard
deviations.
General Motors submits the following comments
for consideration by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Let's take a look at the tail of the distribution
curve. I'd like to very briefly comment on that.
General Motors supports the goal of the
Air Resources Board in continuing to reduce air
pollution. We also agree with the Air Resources
Board's Assembly-Line Test Procedure which bases compli
ance upon the average emission levels of an engine
family. End of line test data from past model years
show that the average emissions from General Motors
vehicles are well below the California Emission
Standards.
Nevertheless, General Motors fundamentally
disagrees with this proposed regulation because it
places a performance requirement on the extreme
tail of the emissions distribution curve. We do not
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
112
believe that it is technically sound and fair to
consider any enforcement action based on the one
percent point of the distribution curve.
Present vehicle exhaust emission requirements
are generally based upon the important statistical
parameter, the sample mean. Certification procedures,
the procedures which have existed since the advent
of emission control requirements, have been based
upon the mean vehicle. One of the options of the
1978 California assembly line test procedure defines
the compliance requirements based upon the mean
emissions of a sample and a projection of this sample
statistic to the entire population. General Motors
agrees with this averaging principle.
Air quality is a function of the average emissions
of a population of vehicles and is not influenced to
any significant degree by one percent of the vehicle
population.
Therefore, the development of any statistical
plan, such as the proposed revision to quality
audit test, should recognize the statistical significan<
or confidence which can be associated with estimating
the emissions performance of the population from a
random sample. There must be a reasonable confidence
level for invoking these requirements which include
-------
113
1 possible sanctions. This confidence level should
2 take into account the fact that there are sampling
3 variations. The proposal is technically deficient
4 in this area.
5 A factor which adds to the concern expressed
6 above is the non-normality of emission distributions.
7 You heard some comment about that this morning from
8 Mr. Austin and, I think, Mr. Rubenstein, I think
9 Mr. Rubenstein in particular.
10 ARB determination of the cutoff point was based
11 on the assumption that if the emission from a populatio
12 of vehicles is normally distributed and the average
13 emissions are precisely at the standard, only one
14 percent of the vehicles would be expected to have
15 emissions greater than 2.33 standard deviations above
16 the standard.
17 However, the distribution of emissions of
18 General Motors engine families has never followed
19 the theoretical random variability pattern. As a
20 result of practical real-world conditions, the dis-
21 tribution of emissions of General Motors Vehicles
22 is skewed. The Air Resources Board proposal does
23 not take into consideration the skewness of exhaust
24 emission distributions and, thus, is improper.
25 The ARB Staff rejected the above arguments
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
114
oil the basis that quality control improvements were
the only changes necessary to meet the proposal.
You heard that again this morning. General Motors
has and will continue to make quality control improve-
ments regarding our products, and this will be done
as a matter of god.d business. We also continue to
review our vehicle designs in light of the emission
control requirements, the ability of our products
to be manufactured and assembled while high-quality
standards are maintained and many other requirements.
Special emphasis has and is being placed upon these
considerations as a result of the proposed assembly-
line test requirements.
Nevertheless, at the present time, we have
not been able to identify what is required to meet
this proposal.
Let's look at the effect of this proposed regu-
lation on the air quality improvement.
General Motors has always strived to meet or
perform better than the emission control regulations
as adopted by the EPA and the ARB, including the
Assembly-Line Test procedures. This is supported
with California Quality Audit Data for the 1977 model
year averaging 0.28 hydrocarbon, 3.6 CO, 1.25 NOx,
well below the standard. General Motors supports
-------
115
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
the goal of continuing to reduce pollution but does
not believe that our ability to produce and sell
automobiles should be placed in jeopardy and/or
dependent on passing this more stringent regulation
when we are now demonstrating that average emissions
are meeting or are lower than the standards, and this
is what really affects air quality.
The ARB Staff stated that they expect that
there will be no adverse impact on air quality as
a result of the regulation. They go further and
state that there will be an emissions benefit resulting
from the new regulation, . .although the (ARB) Staff
is unable to quantify definitely those benefits."
Although no data regarding possible air pollution
benefits have been presented, air quality is not
influenced to any significant degree by imposing
controls on the tail end of the distribution curve.
I'd like to also point out that this is another yard-
stick by which compliance is to be determined.
As the EPA is aware, the emission control
standards in California for the model year 1978 were
0.41 hydrocarbon, 9.0 CO, 1.5 NOx. These standards
are carryover from 1977 and for the 1979 model year.
However, the ARB Assembly-Line Test Procedures that
iwere also used to verify production compliance in
-------
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
116
1978 have now been changed by the ARB for 1979, for
which they are requesting a waiver. We believe that
the implementation of this Assembly-Line Test Procedure
change at this time is improper and should not apply
to any vehicles certified on carryover data.
We believe it is unfair that a manufacturer
who in good faith has complied with a set of certifica-
tion and compliance rules in 1978 should then be
evaluated by a different compliance measuring stick
in the subsequent model when when the certification
procedure and standards have not changed. In other
words, a carryover vehicle passing 1978 and 1979
certification requirements would now fail 1979 Assembly
Line Test Requirements the waiver is granted.
It's possible that that would happen. Inadequate
lead time, as it applies to these vehicles, suggests
that the applicability and effective date should be
a consideration in your decision.
In summary, we conclude that we must oppose
the waiver request for the following reasons:
1. An emission performance requirement
placed upon the extreme tail of the distribution curve
is fundamentally inappropriate and lacks technical
justification.
2. General Motors believes that the Air
-------
117
Quality is not influenced to any significant degree
by imposing controls on the tail of the distribution
curve. We are now demonstrating that average emissions|
are well below the standards. It is only this latter
statistic that really affects air quality.
3. The Assembly-Line Test Procedure should
not be changed in a year when the primary certifica-
tion procedure and standards are carryover. Inadequate
lead time, as it applies to these vehicles, suggests
that the applicability and effective date should be
a consideration in your decision.
Concerning the last item, I'd like to point
out that, in effect, this regulation would retroactively
apply to something that has already been certified
and approved in the last two model years.
We therefore recommend that this proposed
recommendation be returned to the Air Resources Board
for reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We've never been able
to do that.
MR. CALHOUN: To return it to them?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's right.
MR. CALHOUN: You have to make a decision
one way or the other is what you are suggesting.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: On Page 4, it says,
-------
118
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
"Special emphasis has and is being placed upon these
considerations as a result of the proposed Assembly-
Line Test requirements. Nevertheless, at the
present time, we have ndt been able to identify what
is required to meet this proposal."
Can you say, then, that you cannot meet the
proposal?
MR. CALHOUN: No, we can't say that .at
this time. What we^are suggesting is that it may
be necessary to lower the mean in order to bring
in this tail end of the distribution. That's one
possibility .
We have listened to the ARB Staff and suggested
that only quality control improvements were necessary
in order to satisfy that. We don't believe that.
Certainly, quality control has some bearing on it,
but we are not sure yet that just simply by using
the quality control techniques that we are going to
be able to comply with this particular regulation.
It may necessitate changing the calibration and moving
the mean.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON; Just for the purposes of
correcting the record, I believe in response to a
question that we asked the CARB did say that some
design changes, calibration changes for example,
-------
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
may have to be made in addition to quality control.
My question, though, gets more to the point
of do you know that you will not be able to meet these
requirements with the carryover certification for
the applicable model year?
MR. CALHOUN: We suspect that one of our
engine families will have some difficulty complying
with this particular requirement.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: One engine family?
MR. CALHOTJN: Is it more than one area?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: I think that you can say
one possibly will have more trouble than others, but
I don't think we can say with certainty that we
will not be able to meet the requirement. We just
really at this time haven't identified all that is
required to keep from producing an occasional vehicle
and that's really all it takes by this one percent
requirement -- to have emissions in excess of the
standard.
So at this time it's kind of iffy. We've
got families that are close to meeting the requirement
now; some aren't. Most of them that don't are based
on the data or analysis that was presented by the
ARB in their staff report.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is this a big engine
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
120
family, the one that you mentioned?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Volume-wise, it's not
one of the larger ones.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is it a specific configura|
tion within the engine family that causes the problem?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: No.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Just the entire family?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Volume-wise, it's not
a big volume family; is that correct?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: That's correct.
MR. CALHOUN: I think the ARB staff has
indicated that some of our engine families would not
comply, and this is what we are saying; and even with
the best quality control techniques, we aren't sure
that they will comply.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are you saying that
you know that you cannot do anything
and the application of this rule to see that that
engine family will meet this rule?
MR. CALHOUN: Well, we are working awfully
hard to try to see to it that they all meet the
requirement. But as of today we can say that they
are not all complying with the ARB regulation,
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But are you saying you
-------
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
121
can't make them meet that requirement?
MR. CALHOUN: No. No, I am not saying that.
I am saying we are working hard in trying to get
there, but I cannot assure anyone here that we will
in fact be there when production time comes.
MR. GRAY: Why do you think that the dis-
tribution for some of your groups ^is skewed toward
the high side? Have you investigated that problem?
I understood your answer to one of Mr. Jackson's
questions to be that you don't think it's some sub-
group of the engine family that's causing this problem,
that it's more of a random effect; is that correct?
Across the engine family, a random effect?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: It certainly is affected
by both, but it's not just subgroups that are a
concern to us. But the fact that emission characteris-
tics might be different for a subgroup of vehicles
increases the problem, but it's just not the fact
that you have subgroups that have a problem complying
with the one percent requirement.
The emissions to get back to your first
question, why do you think the emission distributions
are skewed, historically if you look at emissions
data, it's skewed. It's practically skewed, because
practically it's bounded on one side. It's not
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
122
normal because it's bounded on one side. It's just
that simple, really. I mean it's a practical thing.
MR. GRAY: But the variability, in effect,
increases the emissions. When you have that varia-
bility that exists, it tends to skew it toward higher
emissions due to what? And I assume the answer is
variability in production.
MR. SCHWOCHERT: 1 think it's variability
in production and variability in testing, both.
MR. GRAY: Variability in testing shouldn't
skew the distribution; should it?
MR. SCHWOCHERT: Well, of a big enough popu-
lation, it should tend to wash out. But you never
get any way out here on the negative side, and you
might occasionally get one way out on the positive
side. I don't know how practical that Is, but
certainly test variability might have some tendency
to occasionally generate a very high emission number.
It can never generate one that's offsetting on
the other side.
MR. GRAY: Sure, It could be normal
distribution, and that would be the purpose of the
one percent grouping of vehicles.
Another cause could be the subgroup issue.
If it was, say, the major cause of the problem, then
-------
123
1 an across-the-board calibration change might pull
2 II you under the requirement. So I am a little bit
3 confused as to why you haven't perhaps tried to
4 identify what's really causing that.
5 MR. CALHOUN: We are working on those things.
6 MR. SCHWOCHERT: If we look at historical
7 data, we find non-compliance with this one percent
8 requirement and probably for every engine family
9 for every quarter that we look at we don't find
10 non-compliance just because it's one subgroup that
11 has all of its vehicles in excess of this standard.
12 There are .vehicles from all of the subgroups or from
13 many of the subgroups within that family that have
14 one vehicle, and when you add up one vehicle from
15 three or four subgroups, unless you have an extremely
16 large sample size, you have now exceeded one percent
17 requirement.
18 So it isn't specifically a subgroup.
19 MR. GRAY: If that's the case in production
20 variability, then maybe CARB's comment that you alluded|
21 to earlier, which was the way you solved that
22 problem is to improve your quality control -- I mean
23 if it's production variability, perhaps quality control
24 improvement can help. If it's a subgroup issue,
25 quality control improvement probably can't help you
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
124
because you may need a chance in calibration. That's
why I was trying to probe into this area as to which
is your problem.
MR. CALHOUN: I:think it's a combination of
those things.
MR. GRAY: So, then, part of California's
contention that you can improve your quality control
will probably take some burden off of it but not
enough; perhaps you have to go after the subgroup
issue as well.
MR. CALHOUN: I think we have to take
that into consideration, yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: The CARB, according to
your statement on Page 4, said there will be an
emissions benefit resulting from the new regulation.
Then you point out that they were unable to quantify
definitively those benefits.
If we looR^at'it in a different perspective
that is, the protectiveness of air quality of the
standard do you think that this proposal will
make that protectiveness any less protective?
MR. CALHOUN: No.
MR. JACKSON: You make a statement in
your conclusion about the inadequacy of lead time
to deal with this problem of making changes to classes
-------
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
125
of vehicles that have alredy been certified, and
you make a point about there's not enough lead time
to do that. I think that's the point you are making.
Is that indeed the case?
In other words,, you are not going- to be able
to sell this one configuration in California if
this rule is adopted?
MR. CALHOUN: No, I am not saying that.
What we are saying is that the standard that the ARB
is adopting is something that is retroactively being
applied to a family that is already approved for
sale in California. That to me just kind of funda-
mentally seems wrong, to retroactively adopt a
requirement that today is already in compliance
with the rules and regulations.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But other than, in your
words, it's fundamental inequity, it doesn't mean that
you can't do it?
MR. CALHOUN: That's right. We don't know
at this particular time whether we can do it,
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: The tune-up lable comments'
MR, CALHOUN: I won't bother to read our
comments concerning the tune-up label. The only
thing I would point dut here is that we have spent
some time working with the "staff. Most of the
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
126
problems we had with that requirement have been
worked out. So, we don' t see any basis for.denying
it.
I'd like to have that statement become a part
of the record.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON; Thank you, Mr. Calhoun,
Mr. S chwochert.
We are ready.
MR. JENSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am Donald A.
Jensen, Director of the Automotive Emissions.and
Fuel Economy Office of Ford Motor Company.
First, I will discuss the recommendation of
the highway NOx standards.
Before going into the specific reasons for
our recommendation concerning California's request
for a waiver of preemption on its highway NOx standards
let me briefly summarize our testimony before the
CARB and our concerns with the proposed standards.
In our testimony before the CARB, Ford recom-
mended against adopting what, in essence, would be
a highway NOx standard because of the absence of
an adequate data base which would show whether meeting
a .53 highway, as well as a .4 city, NOx standard
would be technologically feasible in 1982 and subse-
quent model years, and what the adverse effect of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
127
these standards would be on the control of other
pollutants and on fuel economy.
To deal with the question of the use of so-called|
defeat devices, we recommended that, rather than
imposing a new highway NOx standard, the manufacturer
be required to demonstrate, on the basis of a sound
engineering judgment, the. effective operation of
emission control devices during prolonged steady-state
operation.
Adoption of a new highway NOx standard raises
several major concerns, particularly with respect to
the 1982 and subsequent model years.
First, there are grave doubts as to the techno-
logical feasibility of meeting a .53 grams per mile
and .8 grams per mile highway NOx standard for
1982 and subsequent model year cars and trucks.
Ford does not have development experience or data
sufficient to reach a conclusion that these standards
can be met within that time frame.
In the absence of such experience and data,
any decision as to a waiver of preemption for such
a standard must be deferred.
Second, these standards should not be imposed
in the absence of data that would answer very
important questions relating to the net effects of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
?C
128
the highway NOx standards on air quality from
potential increases in HC/CO emissions and potential
reductions in fuel economy due to restricted operation
on some modes of both city and highway cycles.
We will skip the third point because the
Air Resources Board took care of that this morning.
If you would, Mr, Chairman, go over to the middle
of Page 3 of the statement, or the upper part where
it starts out "Our final concern . .
Our final concern is that adoption of a highway
NOx standard would substantially increase the total
amount of California development workload and facilitie
(estimated at 48 percent and 4 new dynamometers)
needed by us during the certification process,
Furthermore, we would be incapable of fully implementin
this development program until after 1981 4,000-mile
car development testing, which must be essentially
completed if we are to certify 1981 models on a
timely basis,
Before a waiver can be granted, we believe
the following changes to California's proposal must
be made: Then, Mr. Chairman, if we would, we can
go over to the top of Page 4 because, again, the
Air Resources Board this morning indicated that it
was not their intent to apply this to Title 13.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
129
Second -- which really becomes first on Page
4 --with respect to the 1982 and subsequent model
years, the waiver must be denied at this time,
since sufficient data do not now exist to enable
EPA to make a reasoned determination with regard
to the consistency of the California requirement with
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air act, as amended.
In this regard, EPA's .4 NOx program should
provide data which can be used for such a determination]
in time for the 1982 model year. EPA must make
the determination of availability of technology
and lead time based on an objective analysis of
available data. If the data are not available, or
as in the case of the recent truck waiver decision,
not relevant, then EPA must find that the requirements
for a waiver have not been met.
In summary, Ford continues to recommend that
the implementation of a specific highway NOx
standard be deferred until need, feasibility, and
trade-offs can be defined. The Ford statements
before CARB at the January 25, 1978 and the February
23, 1978 hearings are attached, and we request they
be made a part of the record of this hearing.
Mr. Saybolt of our Office of the General Counsel
would like to comment further on the 1982 and subsequeni
-------
i!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
130
mdoel year NOx standard, after which we would be
happy to answer any further questions that the panel
may have.
Tom?
MR. SAYBOLT: Mr. Chairman, other members
of the hearing panel, my name is Tom Saybolt, and
I am an attorney with Ford Motor Company.
Today I'd like to spend just a few minutes
very briefly touching on four items.
The first one is a practical item. That is,
it is our understanding that a transcript of today's
proceeding won't be available for roughly a week,
and we would request that the hearing record remain
open until June 19 to allow interested parties
time to evaluate -the transcript and file comments
with the EPA in connection with this proceeding.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Other than the fact
that the transcript won't be available for a week,
why do you need until the 19th for the record to
be open?
MR. SAYBOLT: It's going to take a certain
amount of time to review the transcript. Undoubtedly
it's going to be a lengthy one. We have a holiday
coming up next week. There's mail time to get the
transcript, and things like that. We feel that 30
-------
1 I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
131
days from this hearing would be a reasonable period
of time within which to file additional comments.
MR. LOW: Having the transcript, how do
you feel that will help you? You have been here
today. I guess we have some concerns about leaving
the hearing record open that long. It just delays
the decision process is really what it does, and
that seems to fly in the face of some of the lead-time
constraints you've discussed.
MR. SAYBOLT: But by the same token we
have to have an opportunity to be able to review
everything we said here with the words in front of
us. It's one thing to attend a hearing and take
notes and try to concentrate on what's being said
and what your reaction is, and it's a little different
when you have a transcript and you can sit down
and go through it point by point.
MS. PETRATJSKAS : We don * t want to make
an unnecessarily big deal out of it, but I saw
this morning, for example, that the Air Resources
Board submitted, I believe they referred to it as,
an evidentiary record. We want to have an opportunity
to study that as well as anything else that may
have been filed on the record.
I can't sit here and tell you today what it is
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
132
that I am going to want to file because I have to
look at the whole record in order to be able to
determine that. Thirty days seemed like a reasonable
request.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It's been my experience
that two weeks has never made a difference in terms
of our ability to deal with these matters, and if
it will help Ford get its business together, well,
then, I guess we will concede to Ford's wishes
and we will leave the record open until June 19.
MR. SAYBOLT: Fine. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
The second point I'd like to make is, in line
with the California Air Resources Board request
this morning to make their prior submissions with
respect to .4 NOx part of the record, we request
that our prior submissions with respect to that
point also be incorporated as part of the record
of these proceedings.
Specifically, the prior submissions that we
would want to have incorporated are, number one,
our November 3rd, 1976 submission to the CARB;
two, our December 14, 1976 submission to CARB;
third, our January 6, 1977 submission to CAiRB; four,
our June 22nd, 1977 submission to CARB; five, our
-------
133
September 9, 1977 submission to EPA in connection
with the August 3rd and 4th waiver hearing; and,
finally, our October 13, 1977 submission also to
EPA in connection with the waiver hearing that was
held last fall as well.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You are going to make
those documents available to us?
MR. SAYBOLT: We can make additional
copies of those documents available to you.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'd hate to make a
mistake trying to procure all of those from the
different sources and render the record inadequate
because of our indiligence.
MR. JENSEN: Be sure you say the lawyers
have to find them, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SAYBOLT: The third point that I'd
»
like to make this afternoon --
MR. LOW: We would like to have five
copies of those submissions if it wouldn't be
too difficult.
MR. SAYBOLT: Fine. That's acceptable,
MR. LOW: Thank you..
MR. SAYBOLT: The third point that I'd
like to make this afternoon involves the fact
that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
134
Agency recently reached a decision in a proceeding
under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act which we
believe has a direct bearing on California's request
for a waiver today.
Specifically in its April 7th, 1978 decision
granting California a waiver of preemption with
respect to emission standards for 1983 and subsequent
model year light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles,
the Administrator on the question of lead time and
technology stated that based on testimony of the
CARB and manufacturers he, and I quote, cannot concliid«
that the requisite technology cannot be developed and
applied within the available lead time in order
to achieve compliance with the California standards,
close quote.
Under Section 209, the Administrator is
required to make a number of very specific determina-
tions. One of these determinations is whether the
state requirements are consistent with Section 202(a)
of the Clean Air Act. In purporting to make his
determination of consistency on the basis that there
is no evidence that the requisite technology could
not be developed, the Administrator failed to make
an affirmative finding as mandated by Section 209
of the Clean Air Act in the court in International
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
135
Harvester v. Ruckelshaus that the requisite tech-
nology can be developed within the available lead
time. In doing so, the EPA Administrator, contrary
to the court's holding in International Harvester,
placed on the manufacturers the insurmountable
task of proving a negative requirement beyond a
reasonable doubt.
I think it becomes obvious that what the
Administrator did in the recent truck waiver decision
was identical to what was being done in the suspension
proceeding at issue in International Harvester,
particularly when you compare the language of Section
209(b) with that of the old Section 202(b)(5)(d).
That section provides, of course, that the Administra-
tor could grant a one-year suspension of the 1975
HC and CO standards if he made an affirmative
determination that, among other things, a manufacturer
had established that effective control technology
was not available or had not been available for
a sufficient period of time to achieve compliance
prior to the effective date of those standards.
Rather than making that affirmative determina-
tion, the Administrator concluded, in denying the
application for suspension, that based on the informa-
tion supplied by the manufacturers, and it was on
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
136
the record, that he was unable to make the necessary
determination with respect to technological feasibility
Judge Leventhal, you may recall, of course,
held that the Administrator was required not to make
that kind of negative finding but, rather, was to
make a very positive determination as to just what
was required. And that certainly is the rule that
should have been applied in the recent truck waiver
decision, and we trust that is the rule that will
be applied here.
Furthermore, as the Administrator correctly
recognized in his June 10, 1977 heavy-duty vehicle
waiver decision, the burden of establishing that
the requisite lead time exists rests on the CARB.
In reviewing the evidence offered by the manufacturers,
the Administrator must determine whether, based on
reliable, objective test data, a requisite technology
can be -- not can't be, can be developed within
the available lead time.
In the absence of such concrete data, the
Administrator must defer granting California's request
for a waiver.
I think the approach taken in the April 7 decisioi
makes meaningless the express provision for Federal
review of California requirements in the opportunity
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
137
for a full public hearing which must accompany this
review. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would
mean that a requirement with respect to which
there is absolutely no information is the one
most eligible for a waiver because it is the one
with respect to which it is the easiest to conclude
that no showing of infeasibility has been made.
This certainly Congress could not have intended,
and we don't believe that the law permits that.
The final point that I want to make is something
that was raised this morning by a California Air
Resources Board witness, and that involved a question
posed to the witness regarding the promulgation of
the highway cycle NOx standard.
We would fully agree with California's position
that this standard requires the promulgation of a
rule, and that to do otherwise simply would not
have, according to California law it's the
California EPA, like the Federal EPA, Section 307(d)
of the Clean Air Act requires that any kind of
new obligation that's going to be Imposed on a
manufacturer can only be done after the regulated
parties have had an opportunity for a hearing, that
there has been notice, and that there in fact has
been a rule promulgated.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
138
Those are all the comments that I have at this time.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: As to your last comment,
you are not suggesting that we are not doing this
improperly, this matter that's before us here?
Are you suggesting that we are doing something im-
proper?
MR. SAYBOLT: You mean in terms of holding
a waiver hearing with respect --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's correct.
MR. SAYBOLT: Absolutely not. I think
that a waiver is required.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Then do you also conclude
that it's a standard as opposed to an enforcement
procedure?
MR. SAYBOLT: Yes. Yes, and I think
California, at least based on our review of the
record, has also certainly treated that as a standard.
For instance --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I know that, I know
that. I am just asking what youT legal opinion of
the status of that is,
MR. SAYBOLT: I would regard it as a
standard, absolutely,
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Have you, by virtue
of your previous comment, given us notice that you
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
139
are going to petition fo review the Administrator's
truck decision?
MR. SAYBOLT: Well, Mr. Chairman, as
you know, of course, we have several remedies availabl|
to us under the Act in that regard. Conceivably
when the time comes, you yourself.may find that-you
have to withdraw the waiver that you granted to
California in this area.
For instance -- just bear with me a moment.
Representative Moss, for instance in 1967 when they
were considering the preemption provision noted,
and I quote, California is not, however, given a
blanket check by this amendment. Implicit in this
provision is the right of the Secretary to withdraw
a waiver at any time after notice and opportunity
for a public hearing if he finds that the State of
California no longer complies with the conditions of
the waiver.
What I am saying, in essence, is we have
several options available to us, as do you.
MR. GRAY: In the statement that you
presented, there was one reference that I recall
to the need, and that was in your closing remarks.
Do you take issue with California's contention
that there is a need to control NOx emissions during
-------
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
140
urban operation and, further, that their contention
that the highway cycle represents , to at least
some degree, urban operation?
MR. JENSEN: My feeling is that there is}
particularly with electronic controls coming into
widespread use, a need for the regulating agency,
whether it's California or EPA,to know how that
electronic engine control operates to assure the
regulator that there is not a deliberate attempt
to have a defeat device or to put emissions in the
air that would adversely affect air quality.
There's several ways to do this. EPA, at
least in their current operation, the way they are
going currently as I understand it from your budget
document, his an electronic expert in your shop,
Mr. Gray, and one also in the Certification Branch.
We are busy educating them almost on a daily basis
as to what's inside the"little black box at Ford.
There's a lot to be said for the California
Air Resources Board's simplicity in just saying 1.33,
I don't know which way is the best way to go, but
there certainly is a need to do something so that
you can be assured, whether it's EPA or whether it's
California, that there is no electronic device
controlling that engine that would negate the intent
-------
141
of controlling the emissions from the car.
MR. GRAY: Can you see another way that
you could objectively make such a determination other
than what California has asked for?
MR. JENSEN: I think the defeat device
provision in the EPA advisory circular is one way
to proceed, which is the way we are currently working
with EPA. I think that would have to be revised
as we get more into the electronic -- inside the
black box. As you probably realize, at Ford we
are now on the electronic engine controlled second
generation. I think we will end up with, and all
the other car companies will, ten or twelve genera-
tions, and god knows what's going to be in that littl
black box before we get through.
I feel we have a real responsibility to keep
the government informed, both California and EPA,
their technical people as to everything we know that
we are trying to do within that black box. Certainly
the simplicity of the California system has some
advantages. I don't know whether it's the best
way yet or not because I doii?;t know what's going
to be in the little black box at DEC-3.
MR. GRAY: That's sort of part of the
problem. The approach they have taken is an end of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
22
23
2i
2!
142
the line objective test of what's in the box, and
since what's in the box is continuously changing,
in effect across manufacturers and with time for
a given manufacturer, the question is simply put:
What other objective evaluation of performance of
what's in that box is there except for something
similar to what California has asked for? Certainly
the current procedure which is subjective is an
approach, but we often hear the plea for an objective
evaluat ion.
MB. JENSEN: I'm not arguing against
what California has done. I hope I didn't --
MR. GRAY:' Well, I guess I'm calling
for what --
MR. JENSEN: You've got a defeat device
advisory circular where it says you've got to operate
the system's got to operate so that it's not outside
the temperature ban and a whole series of criteria
in there. So that's another approach, and that's
the one we are currently following for the certifica-
tion with EPA in 1979. That's one approach.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But you agree that the
California approach will be in some ways more
restrictive than that EPA approach?
MR. JENSEN: For the particular system that
-------
143
we happen to have in place originally in the 1979
models, it was more restrictive than the EPA approach
We have what we call a lean combustion control system
an LCC, and which is part of our electronic engine
control and operates about 29 percent of the mile-
age within the CVS cycle and, I think, about 13
percent of the time of the CVS cycle as I recall.
Our initial data on that would indicate that
it would exceed the 1.33 NOx in the highway cycle.
We were going to use it in the 351W engine in the
1979 models at the request of the Chairman of the Air
Resources Board, even though there was not a regula-
tion in effect. He asked if in the interest of --
I've forgotten what phrase he used, but whatever
the interest was we took it off in California until
we can recalibrate it. So it met the EPA requirement
and did not meet the California requirements.
So there are things like that that are going
to come up. We thought the defeat device was the
living end, and so did EPA. Then we got some
electronic devices, and we find out it probably
isn't.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
ME. GRAY: As far as a measure, though,
of the need for such a regulation, we have to refer
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
144
to whether or not that test reflects the way the
vehicle operates in the urban area. Do you take
issue with CARB's determination that that test is
a reasonable measure of the vehicle's contribution
to the NOx in the urban area?
MR. JENSEN: Well, I have to answer it
two ways. I've got scientists back at Ford that
disagree with everything about the automobile putting
out NOx, and they can sit here and argue all day.
If you are talking about if that's the right
percentage -- and I think that's what your question
is of time, whether you drive in the city or
highway driving, we don't disagree with that.
You've listened to them, too, I'm sure,
and I think most scientists from anyplace will argue
about at what point the main problem with the NOx
is from automobiles or from stationary sources and
whether it's in the high up or ground level and
all kinds of things that you have heard about before.
I don't want to get into that, if I may.
If your question is: Is that about the right
proportion of highway versus city driving, we don't
have any data that conflicts with that. We are
not arguing that point.
MR. GRAY: In 1980, will Ford have
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
145
in California anything other than three-way catalyst
syst ems ?
MR. JENSEN: I'm not positive, and I'm
talking from memory. I can change it for the
record when I get back home and check. I think
on the smaller engines we may very well not have
three-way catalysts. They may not be required.
We may be able to meet the standard without the
three-way catalyst.
I'd appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if I could
answer that question for the record, because I
haven't got the information with me.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes.
MR. JENSEN: It won't take 30 days. As
soon as I get back.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You mean 30 more days
(laughter)?
MR. GRAY: For the other vehicles that
do have three-way catalyst systems -- and I guess
it would be safe to say that at least most of
Ford's production would have three-way catalyst
systems; is that correct?
MR. JENSEN: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: I think the staff report and
other data and testimony we have heard today indicate
that the three-way system, because of its inherent
-------
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
146
control characteristics, tends to porportionally
reduce NOx to a much greater extent than this pro-
portional reduction from the pre-controlled vehicles.
The 1.33 factor, highway-to-city on uncontrolled,
turns to, according to the CARB 1978 three-way
system data, I think .51 or something ratio. That
plus the other testimony would imply that those
systems just inherently give you a break with
respect to this 1.33 requirement.
First of all, do you disagree that the three-
way system has that kind of capability inherently;
and, secondly, if so, how could you argue a techno-
logical feasibility problem?
MR. JENSEN: On the one three-way system
that we had, I think that's accurate.
We have other three-way systems, and every
engine family has to be controlled because of
different combustion chamber design and all kinds
of things, We have to go through the trade-offs
in every single engine family. This LCC I mentioned,
the lean combustion control, was primarily a
fuel economy device. It's just like the carburetor
is rich when you start up and gets into the lean
operation for the cruise and all kinds of things.
It's a refinement~ of that kind of lean operation
-------
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
147
at higher speeds or cruise speeds with the LCC.
Some of the data that we have shows it saves about
seven percent in fuel economy.
Well, as you go into different trade-offs, the
LCC -- as electronic controls arfe applied to three-way
catalysts, this may very well not occur. So I
can't tell you how each calibration will work out.
I'm trying to give you the general principle. We
do like the LCC, primarily for fuel econony purposes,
not to generate or cut down on NOx one way or the
other.
MR. GRAY: You would think that that system
with the three-way catalyst system could still offer
substantial fuel economy benefits? Is that what
I am hearing, or that there is a possibility of that?
MR. JENSEN: Yes.
MR. GRAY: Do you have an estimate of what
that would be?
MR. JENSEN: Again, I'd like to supply
that for the record. We think there is about a
seven percent benefit, and I don't really know.
Maybe you know, Helen.
Excuse me just a minute. Let me ask my
lawyers if they remember. They went to more meetings
than I did, and they were here all morning. Excuse
-------
1
I
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
me just a second.
(Off-the-record discussion not reported.)
MS. PETRAUSKAS: I am not sure I understand
Mr. Gray's question. You are saying what is the
fuel economy benefit of using a system like the
LCC in conjunction with the three-way catalyst?
MR. GRAY: Isn't that what you were really
suggesting that you might want to do? If you just
had the three-way system which controlled th.e stoichi-
ometric , then the data available before us indicates
that the three-way system on the highway cycle control.
NOx to a very substantial degree, especially aa .rela-
tion to the California requirement. So in order for
that inherent control capability to be diminished,
you would have to override the functioning of the
three-way system like this system could do, for
example.
MR. JENSEN; Yes. Let me get some data on
what happens with the LCC with a three-way catalyst,
because apparently it hasn't come up in the discussion,
We must have some, because the LCC is a part of our
future control system.
Again, I'll supply that when we talk about
our 1980 models, and I'll send that in as soon as
I get back.
-------
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
MR, GRAY: Okay.
MR. JENSEN: I assume we've got it. We
must have it.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: I believe that the seven
percent figure that you referred to earlier reflects
the fuel econony detriment associated with having
to recalibrate the LCC system in order to meet a
1.33 ratio.
MR. GRAY: That's probably an oxidation
catalyst system.
MR. JENSEN: That's the oxidation system
for the 351W. We haven't got the three-way catalyst
data, and that's what you are asking for.
MR. GRAY: That's the trade-off of EGR
and NOx control in that context. But the three-way
system adds an additional complexity to the fuel
economy benefit of this LCC system?
MR. JENSEN: Yes.
MR. GRAY: If there's no argument with
respect to the technical feasibility of the three-
way system that's controlling to near stoichiometric
during the highway cycle, then the issue is are
there override systems that are necessary for
fuel economy or some other reasons that might not
only negate the advantage of the three-way system
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
150
but extend the emission levels beyond the 1.33
level.
MR. JENSEN: I understand the question.
I'll try to get some data. I hate to talk just in
general principles unless I have some data. I
better get some data for you and for me, too.
MR. GRAY: I guess, to make the question
a little more specific, the issue would be: With
the three-way system and its inherent control
capability, an override like the LCC would increase
NOx. If it increased it up to 1.3 times the applicable
standard, you certainly get some fuel econony benefit.
So that's the first part of the question.
The second would be: What incremental fuel
economy benefit would you gain from further increasing
NOx which would then put you in a non-compliance
situation in this situation? That's the real ques-
tion. How much additional --
MS. PETBAUSKAS: But in the second instance
you are assuming that whatever the system we are
talking about would be one that would meet the
present EPA defeat device requirements. I mean you
don't want us to speculate about a defeat device.
You want something that will satisfy the EPA defeat
device requirement and not satisfy the 1.33 and
-------
151
what's the increment between those two?
MR. GRAY: I guess the real question is
not whether or not it would satisfy the EPA plans
but whether or not the system that Ford currently
plans to use, how it. would perform with respect to
a three-way system. The issue with respect to
EPA down-the-road acceptance of this system is some-
thing that I think that is more appropriately left
out of the answer.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: Yes. But implicit in the
answer would be that any system we plan on using
would be a system that we believe would be
MR. GRAY: I understand that. That has
to be implicit, sure.
Maybe there is one part of this general area
that you can answer here. Do you have any indication
or evidence to indicate that a three-way system
without an override control logic would have any
problem complying with the California requirement?
MR. JENSEN: You mean
MR. GRAY: A three-way system with enclosed
loop control, near stoichiometric on the highway
cycle. Do you have any indication that that system
could not comply on any of your vehicles with the
California requirement?
-------
152
MR. JENSEN: I think from our data so
far we will have to recalibrate. The last I heard,
and I am talking again now from memory, we had
calibrations that were like at 1.5, and we have
to recalibrate the LCC to get down to the 1.33,
if that's your question.
MR. GRAY: As I understand it, you will
be answering that part of the question as a follow-up
But perhaps a more direct question that we passed
over was: Do you have any evidence that would indi-
cate that a three-way system without an override such
as the LCC in other wards, a three-way system
that's controlling to near stoichiometric oh the
highway cycle, do you have any evidence that that
system would not be able to comply with the Californi
requirement?
MR. JENSEN: No. Based on ther curreilt
three-way system we are using, it could meet the
California requirement quite handily. That's.the
data the California Air Resources Board quoted, and
we agree with that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you have to cut out
control?
MR. JENSEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You wouldn't have to cut
-------
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
153
out control, but you would cut out control to bust
that standard?
MR. JENSEN: We'd either recalibrate the
LCC or take it off. I assume we -- I wouldn't even
assume. We'd recalibrate. I'm using the word
"recalibrate" with "reprogramming," really.
MR. GRAY: Right.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Can we take about a
five-minute break?
MR. JENSEN: Okay.
(Short recess.)
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Jensen, do you want
to talk about assembly-line testing?
MR. JENSEN: Sure.
One of the new elements introduced by these
regulations is a requirement that a manufacturer
make reports to the California Air Resources Board
when it finds that more than one percent of the
vehicles tested under the quality audit requirements
for a particular engine family exceed an applicable
standard by more than 2,33 standard deviations.
As we understand it, the purpose of this
requirement, as described on Page 13 of Staff Report
77-26-1, which is to identify "quality-related
effects," within an otherwise conforming group of
-------
154
vehicles.
Further, it is our understanding that no
enforcement action would be taken unless the manu-
facturer's report indicates the existence of "quality
related defects," and the manufacturer fails to
set forth and implement an appropriate plan of
corrective action.
This element of the regulations is very
-important in that it makes workable a requirement
that could otherwise be very complex, vague, arid
potentially infeasible. For example, Ford is aware
of no data which would indicate that the one percent/
2.33 sigma criteria can accurately identify defective
subpopulations -- if no quality defect can be
identified, it is obviously difficult to propose
a fix.
We have only one concern with regard to
the feasibility of this requirement, and that is
the ten working day reporting requirement set forth
in Section 3 of the assembly-line test procedures
on Page 18, Ten working days is simply too short
a period in which to analyze and project the average
emissions for each engine code/transmission/inertia
weight combination and Ford presently has 114 such
combinations, excluding medium-duty trucks, tested
-------
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
155
for information only, and 225 such configurations
if these trucks are'included. That was one thing
you'd have to do during this ten days. The second
thing is to complete an engineering evaluation of
the cause of emission levels in excess of 2.33
sigma above the standard for each vehicle exhibiting
these levels; next determine "the nature of the
problem" -- presumably this means to determine
if there exists a commonality in the causes identified
and, if so, to explain why they occurred; and, finally
to propose corrective action.
Ford believes that, at the very least, a
waiver of preemption for this requirement should
only be granted on the condition that the regulations
are amended to permit the manufacturer to obtain
up to an additional 30 days to submit information
which is not available at the close of the ten-day
period. Set forth in the Attachment is suggested
language illustrating one way to^'implement this
recommendation.
In closing, I would simply add that in our
testimony before the Air Resources Board we supported
the averaging approach for quality audit evaluation
and again do so today. We did note that elimination
of the "90 percent" option will require manufacturers
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
156
to run additional 50,000 mile vehicles with attendant
increase in workload, facilities, and costs in those
cases where deterioration factors are obtained which
do not reflect the design capability accurately.
This was a particular concern for the 1979 model
year in the case of carryover vehicles. It was
because of this timing problem that we had recommended
that California retain the "90 percent" option for
at least the 1979 model year. This is the same point,
essentially, that General Motors was making.
In general, however, we support approval of
the waiver request, with the qualification noted
above -- that is, we think there ought to be some
permission for extending the ten-day period -- and
we will be happy to answer any questions that the
EPA panel might have.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: A little more about
this problem with the ten days versus the 30 days,
What would happen in the extra 20 days?
MR. JENSEN: I think the biggest problem
you got is trying to identify what the quality
problem is. There's lots of components that could
cause a quality problem; carburetor could be shipped -
they come in different periods of build, and to try
to identify that and then go back and see what
-------
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
corrective action you can take and whether it applies
to all that engine family or certain calibrations
within that engine family, just identifying it
and getting a report within ten days, we think is
it could be done in some instances where it was a
glaring quality problem. You know, gross emitter
of some kind. You could nail down the quality
problem and correct it in ten days. That's no problem
there.
But if you get into a complex situation you
would probably require more than that in certain
instances, and we think that there should be some
provision for that. Ten days is awful short to do
an engineering evaluation and find out what the
quality problem may be at the end of the line.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: Mr. Jackson, we are
not objecting to giving the ARB notice within the
ten-day period. That's perfectly appropriate that
we should notify the ARB that we find ourselves
in a potential non-compliance situation.
All we are saying is having given that notice,
give us up to an additional 30 days in which to
provide information, the gathering and compilation
of which takes more than ten working days.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Does the CARB have
-------
158
any reaction to the request by Ford for an extension
of the reporting time -- not the reporting time,
I guess, but the --
MR. JENSEN: Analysis.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: time for analysis
of a problem?
MR. AUSTIN: We may want to comment on
that later. We are talking it over right now.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I hate to put you out.
MR. AUSTIN: It would be a disappointment,
Mr. Jackson, if there wasn*t some significant change
in the regulations we make right here on the spot,
so we are looking for something.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't you go on
and talk about your label, and we will come back
when you get through.
MR. JENSEN; Pine, Mr. Chairman.
Ford Motor Company believes that, in general,
the regulations relating to the California tune-up
label, which are the subject of this waiver request,
are feasible. There are a number of issues which
are not expressly dealt with by the regulations.
Accordingly, Ford suggests that the following
clarifications of the manufacturers' obligations
should be added to the sections of this regulation
-------
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
noted below. We further request that California's
position on these issues be made a part of the record
of this hearing and serve as the basis for EPA's
final decision in this matter.
In Section 2, add the following text; "Man-
ufacturers of heavy-duty engines are deemed to comply
with these requirements upon delivery to the purchaser
of the engine of (a) an approved label and (b)
reasonable and necessary instructions for the mounting
of the label."
The reason is that it is not feasible for
heavy-duty engine manufacturers to supervise the
installation of labels by engine customers. There-
fore, responsibility for such installation should
not fall on the engine manufacturer.
Section 3a. Ford recommends that the require-
ment that the label not be affixed to any equipment
which is easily detached from the vehicle be deleted.
This requirement would preclude attachment of the
label to certain very visible surfaces, such as the
air cleaner housing or fresh air ducting; these
parts are not likely to be replaced during the
vehicle's useful life.
Furthermore, their absence is likely to be
noted during vehicle inspection.
-------
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
The reason is that this modification would,
in certain cases, permit a more visible, better
protected, and better mounting surface for label
installation.
Section 3(b)(ix). Ford recommends that a
separate label containing maximum curb weight and
frontal area be permitted.
The reason is that the integration of weight
and frontal area information with the remaining
label information will cause extreme and unnecessary
complexity in vehicle manufacturer's assembly plants.
Section 6. This section should be clarified
to state expressly that "bench-testing" shall be
used to determine compliance with the requirements
of this section.
The reason is that this modification acknowledges
the fact that bench-testing cannot possibly duplicate
with accuracy the environmental exposure of an engine
compartment label.
Ford recognizes that the changes that we
mentioned above could possibly be handled by the
Executive Officer under Section 9(b); however, our
experience is that both issues will relate to our
procedures in the assembly plants for insuring that
labels are correctly applied. Furthermore, these are
-------
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
161
the types of issues that should be encompassed in
the basic regulation, which is reviewed by EPA
during a waiver proceeding.
With the above clarifications, Ford supports
California's request for waiver of its tune-up
label specifications. Suggested language implementing
these suggestions is shown on the Attachment.
Again, we will be happy to answer any questions.
MR. SILVERSTEIN: I have one question on
the opening page of the tune-up label statement.
You say at the very bottom of one of your
recommendations, "It is not feasible for heavy duty
engine manufacturers to supervise the installation
of labels by engine customers."
I guess the two things I am concerned about is,
one, do you believe that that would have to be
done to comply with the California requirement;
and, two, when you say it is not feasible, are
you then saying that, therefore, this aspect of
the regulation is technologically infeasible or
in some other way infeasible for Ford to comply
with?
MR. JENSEN; They are really just clarifica-
tions. We sell an awful lot of incomplete vehicles.
When you get into the heavy-duty business, whoever
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
162
you sell it to goes off and puts a chassis on and
everything else and mounts the engine, and if you
give him all the labels and everything and tell him
to do it and give him instructions to do it -- we
do this in other areas- -- presumably they do it.
We can't follow the engine around and see that it's
put on properly and have us responsible.
I think that's the main issue.
Helen, why don't you talk about responsibility.
We are not talking feasibility. That's probably the
wrong semantic term. We are talking about responsi-
bility.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: That's right. It's feasi-
bility in the sense that there are requirements that
relate to the visibility of the label and the life.
When we sell the engine, of course, we don't know
what other structural things, whether it's hoses
and what-have-you, that the purchaser of that engine
may put around it. I think it's unrealistic to
expect us to assume the*responsibility for another
independent manufacturer, so we are {saying that a
way to clarify the regulation so as to avoid that
dilemma is simply to require us to provide an appro-
priate label and to provide instructions for the
installation of that label, but leave the
-------
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
responsibility for that installation with the
vehicle.
MR. SILVERSTEIN: Thank you.
MR. GRAY: Your Section 3a recommendation
which would be to, in effect, allow you to affix
a label to -- one of the examples you gave was
the air cleaner housing. If that recommendation
were adopted by the CARB, wouldn't that, in effect,
eliminate that Section 2 question, because then you
could affix the label to such components at that
time and there would no longer be a need to be
concerned about whether or not the final builder
of the vehicle really did install that label?
MR. JENSEN: In that case, it would.
These really, as we say in the conclusion
of this section, are clarifications that could be
handled by understanding, perhaps. We do support
the regulation, but we do think there are some of
these little clarifications we could get hung up on.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Austin, did you
have anything you watted to say about the reporting
requirement or the analysis for the assembly-line
problems?
MR. AUSTIN: Let me comment on this discuss!
we have just been having regarding the label.
-------
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
164
I think there may be some misunderstanding of
what's allowable under our regulations. It is
allowable under the regulations to put the label
on the air cleaner or on some other removable part
if it's a heavy-duty engine, and I think Ford's
principle concern is with heavy-duty engines and
not being confident that the label can go on the
engine or will be put on the engine by the vehicle
manufacturer in a location which is readily accessible
and visible to the owner.
However, if I heard correctly, the air cleaner
location would be considered a good location from
Ford's perspective because that very seldom would
ever be covered by any structural, non-flexible
structural component of the vehicle. We don't have
any problem with the label going on the air cleaner
as long as it's heavy-du£y.
MS: PETRAUSKAS: But you agree, Mr. Austin,
that the regulations don't expressly state that
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Yes, they do.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: ^s^tfc&y- a
-------
165
do not mention that one of the things you cannot do
with a heavy-duty is put the label on something like
the air cleaner or an easily-removable part.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: The language about the
easily removable parts is explicitly applicable to
motorcycles, passenger cars, and light-duty trucks.
That's listed out that way.
MS. PETRAUSKAS: And the regulations are
silent as to heavy-duty engines?
MR. RUBENSTEIN: Right. But the obvious
implication is that for heavy-duty vehicles you could
put it on removable parts. That was done intentionall
MR. AUSTIN: Regarding the other point
that was raised on the time available for reporting
requirements, in discussing that we can foresee
that there would be some circumstances when the ten-
day requirement would be extremely difficult for a
manufacturer to comply with. We would be willing
to modify the language in this section to provide
additioaal time for certain of the requirements,
such as "d. Any corrective action proposed by the
manufacturer,n in cases where, because of the nature
of the problem, it was not possible for the manufactur
to develop the corrective action in a period of ten
days. In some cases, that may require some CVS testing
-------
1'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
166
to determine what the exact corrective action should
be. That's a modification which we will be able
to incorporate without taking this back to the
Board. It's not something that we'd have trouble
getting a delegation for the Executive Officer to take|
care of by himself. It's only going to be in some
cases where it's a problem.
MR. JENSEN: That's '.all we are really
saying. We can do it in ten days for lots of
things, but when you have to trace it down and
it's carburetor problems or something of that
nature it just takes longer.
MR. AUSTIN: What I'd be happy to do, Mr.
Jackson, before the close of the record is to submit
some language to the manufacturers and for the
record indicating changes that we think would be
appropriate in this area. By the close of the record,
we will have obtained a delegation from the Board
to make these changes at the Executive Officer
level rather than a Board hearing. So we will be
able to guarantee what the final language will be
prior to the close of the record.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Fine.
Thank you, Jir. Jensen.
MR, SCHWENTKER: Can I have one minute to
-------
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
167
express one concern that I didn't hear expressed
today?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You may.
MR. SCHWENTKER: My name is Don Schwentker,
counsel to the Automobile Importers of America.
I think virtually all of the concerns that
we have have been expressed by others,and there
is no point in repeating them.
One concern that was not covered completely
concerned the attachment of the label. With respect
to motorcycles, I think it's impractical to expect
a label to be attached to something that's not readily
detachable because the whole motorcycle is readily
detachable from itself.
If it's okay on a heavy-duty vehicle to attach
a label to an air cleaner, I see no reason that
what's good for the goose shouldn't be good for
the gander. Why shouldn't that be suitable for
a light-duty vehicle as well, and particularly so
for a motorcycle?
Labels on motorcycles now are frequently
put in the most protective location they can find,
and that's usually underneath the seat so that when
you unhook the seat and hinge it up the label is
there for you to see. But it's usually on a piece
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
168
that's readily detachable,
I think the chassis is the only thing on a
motorcycle that would be considered non-detachable,
and even that's detachable from the rest of the
bike .
So I'd appreciate hearing some rationale for
why these labels can't be on something that's
readily detachable. It seems to me that having
a label that's easy to see is far more important.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I can't provide that
rationale, but the CARB may.
MR. AUSTIN: Mr. Jackson, if I could
respond to that.
Mr. Schwentker brings up a good point. However,
this exact question of where to put the label on a
motorcycle was discussed at the public hearing, after
which we adopted the procedures, and at the hearing
it was stated by the Board members on the record
that they had no problem with the Executive Officer
granting exemptions under the provisions of the
regulations for motorcycles if the label would be
put in a location where we wouldn't expect it to
be detached and where it would be protected, yet
still readily visible to the owner or to the mechanic
during maintenance on the vehicle. in particular,
-------
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
169
we discussed the top of the fender under the seat
as being a good location, and during the public
hearing we agreed that we would accept that location
for labels on motorcycles.
ME. SCHWENTKER: Well, I was at the public
hearing, too, Tom, and it was not all too clear to
many of us how this was going to be handled. Because
we got about two-thirds of the way through the
public hearing and the Board decided to delegate
the entire thing to the Executive Officer, and most
of us went out of the room with the understanding
that the Executive Officer would hold a hearing.
And the next thing I got was a copy of the final
rule.
So, there was no further hearing. The Executive
Officer went ahead and adopted it. I think it would
be nice to have it in the regulation.
MB. AUSTIN: At the public hearing, the
Board heard all the testimony, made all the decisions
on what aspects of the regulations should or should
not be modified by the Executive Officer, They gave
specific direction for certain types of modifications
in a few limited areas. There was no need for a
public hearing to be held, because the public hearing
had been held. All the testimony had been heard.
-------
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
170
We were only responding to directions to change
the regulations in a fairly specific manner from
the Board, and that's in fact what we have done.
One of the things that is possible under the regula-
tions which were finally adopted would be a provision
or an exemption for motorcycles, for example, to have
the labels located undef the seat on top of the
fender.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is there any need
for any more clarification on that point?
MR. SCHWENTKER: That just means that
each motorcycle manufacturer has to come in separately
and seek that alternative location; is that right?
MR. AUSTIN: As part of his certification
application, he can tell us where he proposes to
put it and we will approve tha.t part of the applica-
tion, along with all of the others, there is no
special procedure required.
MB. SCHWENTKER: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAAN JACKSON: Does that satisfy
your concern?
MR. SCHWENTKER: Well, it doesn't satisfy
my concern with respect to light-duty vehicles.
That was not addressed at all.
And, no, it doesn't satisfy my concern
-------
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
completely with respect to motorcycles. I think
it would be far easier to put it into the regulation.
MR. AUSTIN: I don't understand the
concern with light-duty vehicles.
MR. SCHWENTKER: Well, the concern is
we'd like to be able to put the label on the
air cleaner or parts that are not permanent parts.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: You can't do that under
federal regulations anyway.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Wait a minute. Either
you are on the record or you are n6t.
MR. SCHWENTKER: All right. I am finished.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I then must presume
that the parties are aware of the concerns, that
it's either acceptable or something's going to be
worked out.
Is there anyone else that has anything
to say before these proceedings?
Mr. Austin?
MR. AUSTIN: We have a couple final comments
we'd like to make.
Mr. Macomber has a few comments which he'd
like to make. Also, I'd like to indicate to you
that we are going to provide some supplemental
data regarding the capability of three-way catalyst
-------
172
cars to comply with the .53 gram per mile NOx emission
limitation that will apply on the highway cycle
when the .4 NOx limitation applies on the Federal
Test Procedure. We had some of that infomration in
our staff report which is already part of this
record.
Since the public hearing on this matter,
though, there have been some additional tests run
by the Air Resources Board providing further evidence
that three-way catalysts are able to comply with
a .53 gram per mile requirement on the highway
cycle. In fact, the data available indicate that
in general three-way catalyst cars will emit lower
levels of NOx emissions on the highway cycle than
they do on the Federal Test Procedure, and we've
had numerous tests of vehicles with highway cycle
NOx emission numbers less than half the .4 gram
per mile level that will be required in the Federal
Test Procedure. We will give you all the data
which is available at this time for highway cycle
NOx emissions from three-way catalyst cars that we
have,
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Austin, were these
cars that also met the .4 on the Federal Test
Procedure?
-------
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
MR. AUSTIN: Some were and some were not.
Some of the data come from the certification of
California cars; some come from the Volvo three-way
catalyst vehicles owned by the State. We had
vehicles which certified at one gram per mile which
had emissions of roughly .8,to .9 on the Federal
Test Procedure that were under the .8 to .9 level
on the highway cycle. We have other vehicles that
certified much closer to the .4 level, and they
were under .4 on the highway cycle.
The range of results on the highway cycle
for three-way catalyst cars we've tested so far,
I think, is from roughly .05 grams per mile to a
high of about 1.13. All of those cars had a highway
cycle NOx level that was less than 1.33 times the
standard that applied in the Federal Test Procedure,
and most of the data that we have indicates that
the cars are capable of getting below .53 on the
highway cycle much more easily than getting below
.4 on the Federal Test Procedure.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I presume you are
going to submit that data for the record?
MR. AUSTIN: We will.
MR. MACOMBER: There are a couple of loose
ends from the legal side that I'd like to address.
-------
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
174
First on the question of whether or not the
effect on fuel economy of vehicles is relevant
to these proceedings, I would just, without elabotat-
ing here, like to incorporate into the record my
letter addressed to Mr. Ben Jackson, the Hearing
Officer today, dated November 10, 1977, in the
context of our waiver request for the light-duty
truck standards in which we addressed this question
and provide some legal authority and some argument
in support of the position asserted by Mr. Austin
in his opening statement to the effect that the
Federal fuel economy standards are, in effect, not
relevant here because Congress has considered the
possible conflict between fuel economy and emissions
in the context of adopting the fuel economy standard
requirements for vehicles arid has concluded, we
think very clearly, that those standards are to
be made subordinate through various procedures
specified in the fuel economy legislation and also
the regulations subordinate to the emission control
standards. And there is a direct reference, specific
reference in fact, to the Calif:omiA emission
standards in this context.
So I'd like to incorporate that into the
record.
-------
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
175
Secondly, just a brief comment with respect to the
citation made by the Ford attorney to the International
Harvester case. We do intend to address this further
before the record closes, but we do disagree that
the analysis about technology forcing or feasibility
context of the suspension hearing is in any way
relevant to these proceedings.We think that these
are completely different proceedings, the legislative
history is different, and indeed the statutory require-
ments are different.
And, finally, we would like to take some addi-
tional time to anaJype the question of whether or
not the highway.cycle NOx standard is indeed an.
emission standard or an enforcement procedure further.
We have addressed this already today in Mr. Austin's
comments, but we would like to examine this a little
further. It was not an issue that we had anticipated
before this hearing, and we will provide the final
comment on our position on that question before the
record closes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you, gentlemen.
Is there any other matters of concern?
The record will remain open until June 19,
1978. With regard to the June 19 date, that would
be the date on which the comments should be received
-------
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
176
by my office.
This hearing is
(Whereupon,
o'clock p.m.)
adjourned.
the hearing adjourned at 3:40
oOo
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
177
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
o ss.
City and County of San Francisco )
I, JERRY R. SMYTHE, hereby certify that the
proceedings in the conference held pursuant to
Section 113(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act at the offices
of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco
California 94105, on May 18, 1978, were taken down
in shorthand by me, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
and a disinterested parson, at the time and place
therein stated, and that the proceedings were there-
after 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 WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and Affixed my seal of office this 21st day
of May,1978
J I 'J/
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for tfa*
County of Contra Costa,
State of Califronia
------- |