p. 1



# OAR Box 1190 Prepped by Candice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 34 ) IV-A- 5

Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:50 AM

Sheet 34 of 106P. 2

. . SB\t.BY:AAMA; 10-26-9 5 ; 8 = 57A M ; AAMA- < 20 2 23 3 9596; # 2 / 3 

### i..- V

Testimon y o f th e America n Automobil e Manufacturer s Associatio n Regardin g th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y

Publi c Hearin g o n "Californi a Moto rVehicle s Pollutio n Contro l Standards " (On-Boar d Diagnostic s I I Regulations ) 6 0 Fed . Reg . 4106 6 (Augus t11,1995 ) M y Nam e i s Barbar

a Wendling . T m wit h th e American Automobil e Manufacturers Association . W e appreciat e thi s opportunit y t o testif y befor e th e U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agenc y concernin g th e Californi a Ai rResource s Board' s petitio n fo ra waive ro f federa l preemptio n fo r th e On-Boar d Diagnostic s II-OB D II-requirements . AAM A membe r companie s and CAR B staf f member s hav e worke d diligentl y togethe ri n a n effor tt o implemen tth e OB D I I regulations . In apparentacknowledgmen to f thi s diligen t effort , CAR B ha s mad e numerou s modification s t o thei rOB D II regulations sinc e the y wer e firs t propose d i n 1987 . AAM A appreciate s th e leve l o f cooperatio n extende d b y CAR B staf f thu s far, an d w e sincerel y hop e tha tsuc h cooperatio n wil l continu e i n th e future . CAR B i s no w seekin g a waive ro f federal preemptio n fo rthes e evolvin g regulations . A s a result , w e ar e compelle d t o expres s ou rcontinuin g concern s ove rth e feasibilit y o f implementin g certai n monitorin g provision s i n th e timefram e require d b y th e curren tregulations . Specifically , AAM A continue s t o questio n th e feasibilit y o f implementin g th e enhance d misfire , LE V catalyst , and th e 0.020 " orific e evaporativ e syste m lea k detection , monitorin g requirements . Thes e requirements begi n t o phas e i n with th e 1997,1998 , an d 200 0 mode l years , respectively . Th e amounto f

leadtim e availabl e i s a n integral facto ri n determinin g th e feasibility ofth e standard s fo rwhic h a waive r i s sought . Th e leadtim e availabl e fo rth e thre e requirements mentione d abov e range s from les s than on e yea rt o jus tove rthre e years . A s ha s becom e evident , th e actual implementatio n schedule s fo rth e technologie s contemplate d b y thes e requirements ha s no tkep tpac e wit h expectations . A s a result , manufacturers may fac e excessiv e complianc e costs , whic h coul d hav e sever e competitiv e impacts . Th e possibility o f subsequen tCAR B modification s t o thes e requirements doe s no tbea r o n EPA' s responsibility wit h respec tt o it s waive r determination , whic h mus tb e mad e o n th e basi s ofth e requirements befor e i ttoday . Enhance d misfire monitorin g requirements necessitat e th e developmen to f extremel y complicate d algorithm s t o sortrea l fro m fals e misfire , a s wel l a s t o detec tdifferenttype s and location s o f

misfire . Whil e AAM A membe rcompanie s believ e the y hav e succeede d i n developin g monitorin g system s fo r som e o f thei rless-complicate d powertrains , complet e compliance , a s require d b y th e currentregulations , remain s a majo rconcern . Th e difficult y o f complianc e increase s a s manufacturers attemp tt o develo p reliabl e algorithm s fo rmor e comple x powertrains . Thi s challeng e i s therefor e greate r for larger , fall-line manufacturers than fo rmanufacturers with a limite d produc tline . Som e manufacturers are havin g difficult y meetin g th e 199 7 mode l yea r requiremen tand ma

y b e force d t o limi tmode l availabilit y i n a tleas tCalifornia . Thi s i s likel y t oP. 3 

## ( F < NT>BY:AAM A ; 10-26-9 5 ; 8 = 58AM ; AAMA- * 20 2 23 3 9596; #3 / 3 AAM A Testimon y 2 Octobe r17,199 5

hav e negativ e competitiv e impact s o n Californi a dealers—an d possibl y o n dealer s i n othe rstates especiall y thos e locate d nea rdi e Californi a border . LE V catalys tmonitorin g requirements a t1. 5 time s th e LE V standard require manufacturer s t o monito rver y small catalys tvolume s a tth e fron; o f th e exhaus tsyste m an d t o extrapolat e tha tdeterioratio n rat e t o th e res tofth e catalys tvolum e i n th e system . Whil e thi s may b e theoreticall y possible , a tleas tfo rLEVs , ther e i s grea tuncertaint y whethe rthi s approach wil l wor k fo rULEVs . Also , much remain s t o b e understoo d abou tth e prope rmonitorin g volume , relativ e t o tota l volume , whic h i s a critica l determinanti n th e reliabilit y o f th e monitor . Mor e importantly , t o th e exten tthatne w exhaus tconfiguration s wil l b e require d t o accommodat e acceptably-performin g designs , additional leadtim e fo rcomplianc e wil l likel y b e necessar y t o allo w hard-toolin g change s t o b e made . Th e cos to f implementin g thes e change s ou to f ste p wh h a planne d produc tcycl e i s enormous . Becaus e produc tcycle s var y fro m manufacturer-to manufacturer , thi s cos twil l arbitraril y b e greate rfo rsom e manufacturers , whil e costin g other s fa r less . Greate rleadtim e and/o rlonge rphase-i n period s fo rimplementatio n greatl y reduc e thi s anti competitiv e effect . Detectio n o f

evaporativ e syste m leak s dow n t o 0.020 " orific e may als o b e theoreticall y possible , bu twil l likel y require majo rsyste m modifications , includin g new , more-costl y monitorin g hardware , fo rsom e products , whic h canno treasonabl y b e accommodate d i n th e leadtim e allowed . AAM A als o continue s t o questio n th e cost-effectivenes s o f suc h a requirement , gjve n tha tth e ai rqualit

y benefi tassociate d wit h i ti s negligibl e fo rcurrentan d foreseeabl e non pressurize d enhance d evaporativ e syste m designs . Her e again , th e requiremen tha s arbitrar y competitiv e effects , becaus e thos e manufacturers wh o happene d t o hav e designe d a pressure base d monitor , a s oppose d t o a vacuum-base d monitor , wil l b e spare d tb e nee d foradditional , expensiv e hardware , whil e thos e manufacturers wh o happene d t o hav e designe d a vacuum-base d monito rare face d with addin g expensiv e hardware . Thi s i s especiall y difficul tt o accept , becaus e th e expens e canno tb e justifie d i n term s o f th e ai rqualit

y benefi tassodate d wit h th e requirement , sinc e ther e i s virtuall y non e fornon-pressurize d evaporativ e systems , a s ar e commonl y use d i n th e industry . AAM A understand s thatCAR B plan s t o hol d a worksho p and a hearin g nex tyea rt o revie w manufacturers ' progres s i n meetin g thes e requirements i n th e timefram e prescribe d b y th e curren tregulations . AAM A membe rcompanie s wil l cooperat e wit h CAR B staf f durin g thi s revie w process , and w e trus ttha tCAR B wi U adop tnecessai y change s t o th e curren tregulations . However , give n ou rconcern s wit h th e current199 7 an d late rmode l yea rrequirements in particular , whic h wil l b e discusse d i n greate rdetai l i n ou rwritte n comments , AAM A believe s that EPA' s authority unde rSectio n 20 9 ofth e Clea n Ai rAc tca n suppor tapproval o f CARB' s OB D I I waive rreques tatmos tthroug h th e 199 6 mode l year . B y doin g so , EP A wil l hel p t o ensur e that , a s require d b y Sectio n 20 9 (b) , waive ri s grante d onl y t o thos e regulation s tha tare consisten t with Sectio n 20 2 (a) .