p.1 

OAR Box 1190 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

34) IV-A-5 

Docket Number: 

A-90-28 

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:50 AM Sheet 34 of 106 
P.2 

.. SB\t.BY:AAMA ; 10-26-95 ; 8 = 57AM ; AAMA-< 202 233 9596;# 2/ 3 

i..- V 

Testimony of the 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association Regarding 

the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Public Hearing on 

"California Motor Vehicles 

Pollution Control Standards" 

(On-Board Diagnostics II Regulations) 

60 Fed. Reg. 41066 (August 11,1995) 

My Name is Barbara Wendling. Tm with the American Automobile Manufacturers 

Association. We appreciate this opportunity to testify before the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency concerning the California Air Resources Board's petition for a waiver of federal 

preemption for the On-Board Diagnostics II-OBD II-requirements. 

AAMA member companies and CARB staff members have worked diligently together in 

an effort to implement the OBD II regulations. In apparent acknowledgment of this diligent 

effort, CARB has made numerous modifications to their OBD II regulations since they were first 

proposed in 1987. AAMA appreciates the level of cooperation extended by CARB staff thus far, 

and we sincerely hope that such cooperation will continue in the future. 

CARB is now seeking a waiver of federal preemption for these evolving regulations. As a 

result, we are compelled to express our continuing concerns over the feasibility of implementing 

certain monitoring provisions in the timeframe required by the current regulations. Specifically, 

AAMA continues to question the feasibility of implementing the enhanced misfire, LEV catalyst, 

and the 0.020" orifice evaporative system leak detection, monitoring requirements. These 

requirements begin to phase in with the 1997,1998, and 2000 model years, respectively. 

The amount of leadtime available is an integral factor in determining the feasibility ofthe 

standards for which a waiver is sought. The leadtime available for the three requirements 

mentioned above ranges from less than one year to just over three years. As has become evident, 

the actual implementation schedules for the technologies contemplated by these requirements has 

not kept pace with expectations. As a result, manufacturers may face excessive compliance costs, 

which could have severe competitive impacts. The possibility of subsequent CARB modifications 

to these requirements does not bear on EPA's responsibility with respect to its waiver 

determination, which must be made on the basis ofthe requirements before it today. 

Enhanced misfire monitoring requirements necessitate the development of extremely 

complicated algorithms to sort real from false misfire, as well as to detect different types and 

locations of misfire. While AAMA member companies believe they have succeeded in developing 

monitoring systems for some of their less-complicated powertrains, complete compliance, as 

required by the current regulations, remains a major concern. The difficulty of compliance 

increases as manufacturers attempt to develop reliable algorithms for more complex powertrains. 

This challenge is therefore greater for larger, fall-line manufacturers than for manufacturers with a 

limited product line. Some manufacturers are having difficulty meeting the 1997 model year 

requirement and may be forced to limit model availability in at least California. This is likely to 
P.3 

(F<NT>BY:AAMA ; 10-26-9 5 ; 8 = 58AM ; AAMA-* 202 233 9596;# 3/ 3 

AAMA Testimony 2 October 17,1995 

have negative competitive impacts on California dealers—and possibly on dealers in other statesespecially those located near die California border. 

LEV catalyst monitoring requirements at 1.5 times the LEV standard require 

manufacturers to monitor very small catalyst volumes at the fron; of the exhaust system and to 

extrapolate that deterioration rate to the rest ofthe catalyst volume in the system. While this may 

be theoretically possible, at least for LEVs, there is great uncertainty whether this approach will 

work for ULEVs. Also, much remains to be understood about the proper monitoring volume, 

relative to total volume, which is a critical determinant in the reliability of the monitor. More 

importantly, to the extent that new exhaust configurations will be required to accommodate 

acceptably-performing designs, additional leadtime for compliance will likely be necessary to 

allow hard-tooling changes to be made. The cost of implementing these changes out of step whh 

a planned product cycle is enormous. Because product cycles vary from manufacturer-tomanufacturer, this cost will arbitrarily be greater for some manufacturers, while costing others far 

less. Greater leadtime and/or longer phase-in periods for implementation greatly reduce this anticompetitive effect. 

Detection of evaporative system leaks down to 0.020" orifice may also be theoretically 

possible, but will likely require major system modifications, including new, more-costly 

monitoring hardware, for some products, which cannot reasonably be accommodated in the 

leadtime allowed. AAMA also continues to question the cost-effectiveness of such a requirement, 

gjven that the air quality benefit associated with it is negligible for current and foreseeable nonpressurized enhanced evaporative system designs. Here again, the requirement has arbitrary 

competitive effects, because those manufacturers who happened to have designed a pressurebased monitor, as opposed to a vacuum-based monitor, will be spared tbe need for additional, 

expensive hardware, while those manufacturers who happened to have designed a vacuum-based 

monitor are faced with adding expensive hardware. This is especially difficult to accept, because 

the expense cannot be justified in terms of the air quality benefit assodated with the requirement, 

since there is virtually none for non-pressurized evaporative systems, as are commonly used in the 

industry. 

AAMA understands that CARB plans to hold a workshop and a hearing next year to 

review manufacturers' progress in meeting these requirements in the timeframe prescribed by the 

current regulations. AAMA member companies will cooperate with CARB staff during this 

review process, and we trust that CARB wiU adopt necessaiy changes to the current regulations. 

However, given our concerns with the current 1997 and later model year requirements in 

particular, which will be discussed in greater detail in our written comments, AAMA believes that 

EPA's authority under Section 209 ofthe Clean Air Act can support approval of CARB's OBD 

II waiver request at most through the 1996 model year. By doing so, EPA will help to ensure 

that, as required by Section 209 (b), waiver is granted only to those regulations that are consistent 

with Section 202 (a).