State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Jack Tar Hotel
Van Ness and Geary Streets
El Dorado Room*
San Francisco, CA
December 19, 1977
9:30 a.m.
AGENDA
Page
77-26-1 Public Hearing to Consider Proposed 1979 Assembly-Line 1
Test Procedures.
77-26-2 Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Motorcycle 55
Evaporative Emission Standards and Test procedures
Beginning with the 1982 Model Year and
to Clarify Evaporative Emission Test Procedures for
other Gasoline-Powered Motor Vehicles.
77-26-3 Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Changes to Motor 94
Vehicle Tune-up Label Regulations.
77-26-4 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulations 123
Establishing Procedures for Board Meetings, Adjudicatory
Hearings, and Appeals from Action or Inaction of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District.
77-26-5 Other Business -
a. Executive Session - Personnel & Litigation
b. Research Proposals
*Note: Room changed subsequent to notices being sent out.
ITEM NO.: 77-26-1
Public Hearing to Consider Proposed 1979 Assembly-Line Test
Procedures.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 77-60.
SUMMARY
The staff is proposing several changes to its assembly-line test
procedures for the 1979 model year. These changes are based on
manufacturers' comments and on the staff's own analysis of
several deficiencies in the present procedure. The important
changes are as follows:
1. The maximum levels to which statistically derived control
limits could be artificially raised are lowered.
2. The reporting date for quarterly assembly-line test reports
is changed from 30 or 60 days after the end of production to
45 days after the end of each production quarter and after
the end of each production year.
3. Quality audit vehicles would have to be tested with their
evaporative emission control systems connected.
Manufacturers may, however, install a fresh carbon canister
on test vehicles prior to the start of the preconditioning
sequence, and may conduct the preconditioning sequence on a
street or test track, rather than on a dynamometer. The
manufacturer must demonstrate that this alternate procedure
will load the canister to the same extent as the dynamometer
procedure would.
4. Additional information is required to be submitted regarding
the quality audit test vehicles. This information includes
inertia weight, test horsepower, and engine code or
calibration number.
5. A procedure is specified to standardize rounding conventions
for quality audit emissions data.
6. The 90% option for evaluation of quality audit data is
deleted, after a one year experiment during which time
manufacturers could choose to demonstrate compliance under
either the 90% compliance or average emissions schemes.
7. The averaging option is retained and changed to require that
no more than 1% of the vehicles in an engine family can have
emissions which exceed the applicable standards by more than
2.33 standard deviations (sigmas).
8. Numerous organizational changes are made to make the test
procedures more understandable.
The staff believes that these changes will induce manufacturers
to improve their quality control measures, and therefore will
have an emissions benefit.
No adverse environmental impact will be experienced as a result
of these regulations; no fuel penalty should result unless
manufacturers choose to decrease average emissions rather than to
increase quality control. Manufacturers may experience an
unquantified cost increase due to their need to adopt more
stringent quality control procedures.
Since no applicable comparable federal regulations exist, the
staff believes that the Board can make the finding that its
assembly-line test procedures and its related inspection and
compliance test procedures (to which no changes are proposed),
are at least as protective of the public health and welfare as
applicable federal regulations.
ITEM NO.: 77-26-2
Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Motorcycle Evaporative
Emission Standard and Test Procedures.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 77-59 which establishes a 2.0 gram per test
motorcycle evaporative emission standard and accompanying test
procedures beginning with the 1982 model-year.
SUMMARY
At the March 24, 1977 meeting, the Board instructed the staff to
investigate the feasibility of establishing evaporative emission
standards and test procedures for motorcycles.
In order to determine whether motorcycle evaporative emission
control is feasible, the staff installed automotive evaporative
control parts such as charcoal canisters, liquid-vapor
separators, and non-venting gas caps on five motorcycles. The
average evaporative emissions of these five modified motorcycles
was 1.06 grams per test, which represented a 95% reduction from
the average uncontrolled emissions. The staff has concluded that
passenger car type evaporative control systems are clearly
available for motorcycles so long as lead time is provided to
incorporate the additional components on the motorcycle. After
studying manufacturers' comments submitted at a March 21, 1977
workshop, the staff has concluded that four years of lead time is
adequate for compliance. The staff is therefore proposing a 2.0
gram per test motorcycle evaporative emission standard beginning
with the 1982 model-year.
The staff estimates that the proposed 2.0 gram per test
evaporative emission standard will result in a greater than 90%
reduction in motorcycle evaporative emissions by 1995. This is
equivalent to reducing the total hydrocarbon inventory of the
South Coast Air Basin by approximately 9 tons per day.
Based on manufacturers' information and our own analyses, the
staff estimated the incremental cost per motorcycle of this
standard would be about $25 for research and development (R&D)
costs if amortized over five years of California production. If
all motorcycles sold in the U.S. were equipped with evaporative
control systems, the incremental R&D cost per motorcycle would be
approximately $2.50. The hardware cost per motorcycle was
estimated to be approximately $25.00 per motorcycle; thus, the
total cost per motorcycle for a 2.0 gram standard would be $50.00
if R&D costs were amortized over California production, and
$27.50 if amortized over total U.S. production. Therefore the
cost/effectiveness of a California program would be about $0.85
per pound of hydrocarbon reduction, whereas the
cost/effectiveness of a national program would be about $0.47 per
pound of hydrocarbon reduction. The California
cost/effectiveness values are comparable to other ARB vehicular
hydrocarbon control programs, such as the motorcycle exhaust
emission standards.
On a separate issue, the staff is also proposing a change to the
Board's evaporative emission test procedures for all motor
vehicles to clarify that the background allowance adopted last
November applies only to 1980 and later models.
ITEM NO.: 77-26-3
Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Changes to Motor Vehicle
Tune-up Label Regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 77-61.
SUMMARY
The staff is proposing changes to the Board's tune-up label
regulations, as set forth in Sections 1965-1967, Title 13,
California Administrative Code. These changes establish
durability, performance, content, type size, and legibility
requirements which should ensure that vehicle owners and
mechanics will have correct and clear information necessary to
perform a tune-up, and that this information will be in a readily
accessible and visible location. These more durable labels
should remain on vehicles for their total expected lives, and
will, in the staff's opinion, cause an emissions benefit, both by
providing correct information and by facilitating proper repairs
and tune-ups under the California Vehicle Inspection Program.
Many of the manufacturers' concerns were addressed in the
proposed regulations. No manufacturer expressed problems with
lead time provided the regulations were adopted in a timely
manner, and only one may have feasibility problems.
Prior to label finalization, manufacturers are required to submit
copies of labels for the Executive Officer's review, and to
specify where the labels will be placed. The Executive Officer
may request that the label or its location be changed.
The Executive Officer will also be empowered to take enforcement
action against a vehicle or engine manufacturer which uses non-complying
labels. This should ensure compliance of all vehicles
and engines with these regulations and further guarantee that all
tune-up labels will be reasonably consistent in content and
format.
These regulations, which include a required unconditional
statement of compliance with applicable California vehicle or
engine emission control regulations, including assembly-line
requirements, if any, should facilitate ARB and BAR enforcement
actions in tampering and illegal vehicle importation cases by
providing accurate information about the vehicle's emission
control system, and also by clearly stating which regulations the
vehicle complies with.
The staff believes that these regulations are more stringent than
comparable federal regulations and may cause a further emissions
benefit. Therefore, the Board can make the finding that its
tune-up label regulations are at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable federal regulations.
ITEM NO.: 77-26-4
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulations in Title 17 of
the California Administrative Code Regarding Procedures for Board
Meetings and Administrative Hearings.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution 77-14.
SUMMARY
Various provisions in the Board's regulations and in the Health
and Safety Code and Vehicle Code require or allow the board to
hold public hearings but do not specify specific procedures to
govern how such hearings are to be conducted. Accordingly, it is
appropriate that specific procedures be adopted to protect the
rights of parties and interested persons.
The staff is proposing regulations governing the following kinds
of public hearing activities of the Board.
1. Regular or Special Board Meetings, where legislative or
informational items are heard (including emergency
meetings);
2. Adjudicatory Hearings, where the Board must make decisions
about specific or individual rights (for example: vehicle
recalls or permit/certification revocation); and
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District Appeals, where
the Board is petitioned to review an action or inaction by
the SCAQMD Board.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Staff Report No. 77-26-4, with proposed regulatory
amendments attached.
Public Hearing Notice