Lincoln Plaza
Auditorium, First Floor
400 "P" Street
Sacramento, CA

September 8, 1988
10:00 a.m.



88-12-1 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to 001
Regulations Regarding Emission-Related Failure
Reporting; In-Use Vehicle Recall; In-Use Vehicle
Enforcement Testing; and Certification Test
Procedures Applicable to Passenger Cars, Light-
Duty Trucks, Medium-Duty Vehicles, Heavy-Duty
Vehicles, Motorcycles and Modifier-Certified
New Motor Vehicles.

88-12-2 Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of 128
Adjudicatory Hearing Procedures.

88-12-3 Review of the Report to the Governor and the 159
Legislature on the Health and Welfare Effects of
Acid Deposition in California.

September 9, 1988
8:30 a.m.

88-13-1 Public Meeting to Consider the Potential of Various
Alternative Fuels for Improving Air Quality.

ITEM #88-12-1

Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Regulations Regarding
Emission-Related Failure Reporting; In-Use Vehicle Recall; In-Use
Vehicle Enforcement Testing; and Certification Test Procedures
Applicable to Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, Medium-Duty
Vehicles, Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Motorcycles and Modifier-Certified
New Motor Vehicles.


The staff recommends that the Board amend the California
regulations which govern procedures for emission-related failure
reporting, in-use vehicle recall, in-use enforcement testing and
new vehicle certification. The proposed amendments will improve
the effectiveness of the in-use recall program, thereby resulting
in greater emission reductions. These emission reductions will
contribute to achieving the Board's goal, set forth in its
Post-1987 Motor Vehicle Plan, of eliminating excess emissions.


In December, 1982, the Board adopted regulations which
established the in-use vehicle recall program. The regulations
were intended to reduce manufacturer-related excess emissions by
(1) ensuring that noncomplying vehicles are identified, recalled
and repaired to meet the applicable emission standards and test
procedures in use; and (2) inducing manufacturers to improve
emission control designs in order to avoid the expense and
adverse publicity of a recall. The program provides for ARB
testing of emissions from properly maintained in-use vehicles to
determine whether they comply with emission standards during the
useful life period. Once a noncompliance is identified in a
substantial number of vehicles or engines, a manufacturer may
perform a voluntarily recall. If a manufacturer is unwilling to
implement a voluntary recall, the ARB can order the manufacturer
to recall the noncomplying vehicles. Under the recall program,
manufacturers are also required to report to the ARB known
emission-related failures and what is being done to remedy them.

The current recall program lacks an efficient mechanism for the
early detection and repair of emission components in the field.
Many engine families with failed components, although known to
the vehicle manufacturer, go unreported and unrepaired. Delays
have also been encountered in implementing recalls due to the
time spent by manufacturers and the ARB in discussing the
validity of the noncompliance decision, the analysis of the
falling test vehicles and extensive delays by manufacturers to
propose appropriate remedial action. Finally, over the past five
years, the recall program has elicited a low response from the
owners of recalled vehicles ("capture rate"). At present, only
50 percent of the affected vehicles get repaired under the

In view of these inadequacies, the staff is proposing amendments
to the in-use recall regulations. The proposed amendments would
improve the recall implementation process and facilitate early
identification of failing emission-related components, as well as
ensure efficient initiation of recalls and timely completion of
repairs. These provisions are expected to improve the
effectiveness and emission reduction benefits of the recall
program. The proposed amendments are outlined below.

(1) Reclassify recalls to three categories - voluntary,
influenced and ordered-to enable the ARB to respond to various
recall situations with appropriate approval procedures and
implementation requirements for each category. This amendment
would also require manufacturers, under an influenced or ordered
recall situation, to compensate for the low capture rates either
by increasing the effectiveness of recall repairs or increasing
the number of vehicles captured for repair, possibly through
incentives. This amendment is also structured to encourage
manufacturers to initiate voluntary recalls.

(2) Establish provisions necessary to support the eventual
adoption and implementation of a recall enforcement program by
the DMV or another state agency which requires proof of
correction of a recalled vehicle prior to receiving renewal of
registration, a smog certificate, or other entitlement to use.
The provisions would require manufacturers to submit
identification numbers of vehicles/engines that need to be
recalled, to require service facilities to provide proof that
repairs had been performed, and to provide information to vehicle
owners regarding the recall enforcement requirements. These
provisions are triggered only when such a recall enforcement
program is adopted. (DMV currently has a pilot program.)

(3) Specify additional requirements to be included in the recall
plan in order to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed recall.

(4) Align the statements to be included in the owner notification
letter as well as the information to be included in the
recordkeeping for the three recall categories. This includes a
requirement in the owner notification letter that a
manufacturer's telephone number be provided for owner complaints.

(5) Clarify the minimum vehicle sample size for in-use
enforcement testing to avoid lengthy discussions regarding the
validity of test samples.

(6) Establish a tracking mechanism based upon emission warranty
claim records to trigger the filing of a warranty information
report with the ARB. (A manufacturer may use other types of
failure data if these data will result in a better tracking
mechanism than warranty claim records). The provision would
promote the early identification of failing emission-related
components and of engine families that are likely to fail
emission standards. The proposed amendment would require
manufacturers to file a report with specified information when
specific emission warranty claims represent at least one percent
or 25 vehicles or engines (whichever is greater) in an engine

(7) Establish a provision where vehicles or engines are subject
to recall on the basis of warranty claims information or other
component failure data for failures resulting in excess
emissions. The provision would link failures of emission-related
components to violations of the new-vehicle or engine
certification procedures so that when a specific emission-related
failure exceeds 2 percent or 50 vehicles or engines (whichever is
greater) in an engine family, a manufacturer will be deemed in
violation of the certification test procedures and subject to
recall the vehicles or engines. For failures detected during
enforcement testing, three or more component failures out of 10
vehicles tested would also trigger this requirement.

(8) Require the submission of an emission-related component
failure information report when a manufacturer does not believe a
voluntary recall is warranted in the situations set forth in
paragraph (7). The requirement would provide a mechanism to
clarify the in-use emission problems and to assess the need for
further investigation or recall.

(9) Specify the required information in the emission-related
failure report to ensure that the full impact of the failure is

(10) Make the procedures applicable to certain federal vehicles
which are certified for sale in California (AB965 vehicles).

(11) Provide authority for the Executive Officer to waive some
requirements for good cause.

(12) Make nonsubstantive formatting and grammatical changes and
correct typographical errors.


The staff estimates that the proposed amendments will increase
the emission benefits achieved from recalls. In 2000 compared to
the current program, hydrocarbon benefits will increase by 3 tons
per day (from 9 to 12 tons per day), carbon monoxide benefits
will increase by 18 tons per day (from 177 to 195 tons per day),
and oxides of nitrogen benefits will increase by 13 tons per day
(from 13 to 26 tons per day).

The above statewide emission benefits are based on the additional
emission reductions derived from the earlier detection of a
noncompliance, the prompt initiation of a recall, and an
increased emission reduction per vehicle from repairs when
adjusted by the capture rate or an increased owner response rate
when a statewide recall enforcement program based on proof of
correction prior to renewal of registration is adopted and

The emission impact presented only reflects the direct benefits
derived from manufacturer recalls. These estimates do not
account for the long-term impact of the program, which should
induce manufactures to develop more durable emission control
designs and improved quality control. Such long-term emission
impacts from recall enforcement and other manufacturer-related
emission reduction programs could virtually eliminate all
manufacturer-related excess emissions; for the year 2000, these
are projected to be 70 tons per day hydrocarbons, 301 tons per
day carbon monoxide, and 101 tons per day oxides of nitrogen.

ITEM #88-12-2

Postponed to 11/18/88 Board Meeting. (See Board Book).

ITEM #88-12-3

"The Health and Welfare Effects of Acid Deposition in California:
An Assessment".


We recommend that the Board approve the draft assessment report
and submit it to the Governor and Legislature.



The legislature adopted the Kapiloff Acid Deposition Act in 1982.
The Act requires the Board to establish a comprehensive research
and monitoring program to investigate acid deposition in
California. The Act expires at the end of 1988. This report is
an assessment of what we have learned from our research.


The most important findings from our research are:

1. Levels of atmospheric acidity in Los Angeles are among the
highest in the world, and maximum acidity readings coincide
with maximum levels of ozone and other harmful pollutants.
Laboratory studies show that acidic air pollution
exacerbates the harmful effects of ozone. People who suffer
from asthma may be particularly sensitive to polluted
atmospheres that contain acids. Based on all of these
findings, we believe that additional investigation is
warranted to determine how widespread these effects are and
whether there are long-term health consequences if this
situation continues.

2. California's lakes, as surveyed over the last several years,
are not chronically acidified as a re some lakes in the
eastern US and Canada. However, many lakes of the Sierra
Nevada are both geologically young and located in granitic
bedrock. These factors and others mean many Sierra lakes
have little capacity to neutralize incoming acids. We have
observed periods of temporary acidification during our
investigation, with apparent recovery occurring over a
period of days or weeks. We conclude that these lakes
should be monitored closely until we have a fuller
understanding of the long-term consequences of continued
acid deposition.

Consistent with these findings, the Board staff has, with the
advice and unanimous approval of the Scientific Advisory
Committee on Acid Deposition, recommended a five-year, $25
million dollar (total) program to: expand and improve acid
deposition monitoring, conduct health studies to investigate the
relationship between nitric acid measurements and lung damage,
establish a monitoring program for sensitive lakes and streams of
the Sierra Nevada; begin a comprehensive field study and develop
models to assess damage to forests from acidic air pollutants;
extend current materials damage exposure studies to assess
economic losses due to acid deposition; use models to relate the
sources of emissions to areas receiving acid deposition and
devise strategies to minimize damage by acids to health and
resources at risk in California.

If approved by the Board following a public hearing, this report
will be forwarded to the Governor and the Legislature as the
final report and recommendations called for by the Kapiloff Acid
Deposition Act. A supplemental technical addendum will be
completed in mid-1989 incorporating final technical data on
monitoring and other studies that are still under way.