Approval Details

Valid E.O.

Validity

This Executive Order approved the specified parts on on March 10, 1986.
As of Wednesday, October 16th, 2019 this Executive Order has not been overturned or superceeded.

Approved Parts

Part NumberModelsModification
No. 6.9F1983-1986 model-year Ford Motor Company heavy-duty vehicles powered by a 6.9 liter International Harvester heavy-duty diesel engine.Modifications to the OEM emission-related parts due to the installation of the turbocharger kit include an air cleaner assembly, a new 3" low restriction muffler and 3" diameter exhaust pipe.

This Executive Order may be listed as:
  • C.A.R.B.E.O. D-161
  • Executive Order 161 / D161
  • ARB # D-161
  • Executive Order No: D-161
  • C.A.R.B. No. D-161
  • Resolution D-161
For Free CARB Executive Order Status verification, email an image of the device Executive Order label as well as the Year/Make/Model and Test Group # of the vehicle to [email protected]

Download: Executive Order D-161 PDF

D-161 Document:



                                                                      {Page 1 of 2)

                                  State of California
                                  AIR RESOURCES BOARD

                                 EXECUTIVE ORDER D—161
                      Relating to Exemptions under Section 27156
                                  of the Vehicle Code

                        .       GALE BANKS ENGINEERING .
             TURBOCHARGER KIT MODEL NO. 6.9F FOR FORD HEAVY—DUTY VEHICLES
                    POWERED BY A 6.9 LITER INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
                               HEAVY—DUTY DIESEL ENGINE

    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Section 27156
    of the Vehicle Coge; and

    ‘Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Sections 39515 and
    39516 of the Health and Safety Code and Executive Order G—45—5;

    IT IS ORDERED AND RESOLYED: That the installation of the add—on turbocharger
    kit Mede} No. 6.9F manufactured by Gale Sanks Engineering, 546 Duggan Avenue,
    Azusa, California 91702, usfng a Rotomaster turbocharger Model No. TO4B with
    an A/R ratio of 1.0 has been found not to reduce the effectiveness of required
    motor vehicle pollution control devices and, therefore, is exempt from the
    prohtbitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code for 1983 through 1986
    mode?—year Ford Motor Company heavy—duty vehicles powered by a 6.9 liter
    International Harvester heavy—duty diesel engine.
t




    Modifications to the OEM emission—related parts due to the installation of the
    turbocharger kit include an air cleaner assembly, a new 3" low—restriction
    muffier and 3" diameter exhaust pige.

    This Executive Order is valid provided that installation instructions for this
    device will not recommend tufring the vehicle to specifications different from
    those submitted by the device manufacturer.

    Changes made to the design or operating conditions of the device, as exsmpted
    by the Air Resources Board, that adversely affect the performance of a
    vehicle‘s pollution control system shall invalidate this Exgcutive Order.

    Marketing of this device using an fdentification other than that shown in this
    Executive Order or marketing of this device for an application other than
    those listed in this Exsecutive Order shall be prohibited unless prior approval
    is obtained from the Air Resources Board. Exemption of a kit shall not be
    construed as an exemption to sell, offer for sale, or advertise any componant
    of a kit as an individual device.

    This Executive QOrder does not constitute any opinion as to the effect that the
    use of this device may have on any warranty either expressed or implied by the
    vehicle manufacturer.


GALE BANKS ENGINEERING                                    EXECUTIVE ORDER D—161
                                       j                  (Page 2 of 2)



THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CERTIFICATION, ACCREDITATION,
APPROVAL, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENDORSEMENT BY THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD OF ANY
CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT CONCERNING ANTI—POLLUTION BENEFITS OR ANY ALLEGED
BENEFITS OF THE GALE BANKS ENGINEERING TURBOCHARGER KIT FOR INSTALLATION ON
FORD MOTOR COMPANY VEHICLES POHERED BY A 6.9 LITER INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
HEAVY—DUTY DIESEL ENGINE.

No claim of any kind, such as "Approved by Air Resources Soard" may be made
with respect to the action taken herein in any advertising or other oral or
written communication.

Section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code makes untrue or misleading
advertising unlawful, and Section 17534 makes violation punishable as a
misdemeanor.

Section 43644 of the Health and Safety Code provides as follows:

    "43644.   (a)   No person shall install, sell, offer for sale, or advertise,
    or, except in an application to the state board for certification of a
    device, represent, any device as a motor vehicle pollution control device
    for use on any used motor vehicle unless that device has been certified by
    the state board. No person shall sell, offer for sale, advertise, or
    represent any motor vehicle pollution control device as a certified device
    which, in fact, is not a certified device,. Any violation of this
    subdivision is a misdemeanor."

Any apparent violation of the conditions of this Executive Order will be
submitted to Lhe Attorney General of California for such action as he deems
advisable.


Executed at E1 Monte, California, this       1%9   day of March, 1986.




                                           AManiz~
                                           K. D. Drachand, Chief
                                           Mobile Source Division


                     State of California
                     AIR RESOURCES BOARD




EVALUATION OF GALE BANKS ENGINEERING‘S ADD—ON TURBOCHARGER KIT
     MODEL NO. 6.9F FOR INSTALLATION IN FORD MOTOR COMPANY
           HEAVY—DUTY VEHICLES POWERED BY A 6.9 LITER
        INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER HEAVY—DOUTY DIESEL ENGINE




                       February, 1986


                                                           February, 1986




        EVALUATION OF GALE BANKS ENGINEERING‘S ADD—ON TVRBOCHARGER KIT
             MODEL NO. 6.9F FOR INSTALLATION IN FORD MOTOR COMPANY
                   HEAVY—DUTY VEHICLES POWERED BY A 6.9 LITER
                INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER HEAVY—DUTY DIESEL ENGINE




                                      by
                            Mobile Source Division

                             State of California
                             AIR RESOURCES BOARD
                             9528 Telstar Avenue
                             E1 Monte, CA 91731


(This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources
Board and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources
Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.)


                                   SUMMARY



      Gale Banks Engineering (Banks) has applied for exemption from the

prohibitions in Vehicle Code Section 27156 for their add—on turbocharger kit

Mode! No. 6.9F designed for 1983—1986 Ford Motor Company heavy—duty vehicles

which are powered by the International Harvester 6.9 liter heavy—duty diesel

engine.

      Banks has submitted a completed application and all the required

information as well as comparative exhaust emissions data which shows that

their kit does not have an adverse effect on the emissions from the vehicles

described in the application.

      The staff recommends that Banks be granted an exemption for their add—on

turbocharger kit and that Executive Order D—161 be issued.


                                     © contents

                                                    Page Number



SUMMARY

CONTENTS                                                i1

I.     INTRODUCTION

II.    CONCLUSION

III.   RECOMMENDATIONS

IV.    TURBOCHARGER KIT DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION

V.     TURBOCHARGER KIT EVALUATION

v1i.      DISCUSSION




                                         1i


         EVALUATION OF GALE BANKS ENGINEERING‘S ADD—ON TURBOCHARGER KIT
              MODEL NO. 6.9F FOR INSTALLATION IN FORD MOTOR COMPANY
                    HEAVY—DUTY VEHICLES POWERED BY A 6.9 LITER
                 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER HEAVY—DUTY DIESEL ENGINE

I.     INTRODUCTION

       Gale Banks Engineering (Banks) of 546 Duggan Avenue, Azusa, California

91702, has applied for exemption from the prohibitions of Vehicle Code Section

27156 for their add—on turbocharger kit Model No. 6.9F for 1983—1986 Ford

Motor Company heavy—duty vehicles fiowered by the 6.9 liter International

Harvester heavy—duty diesel engine.

       Banks has submitted a completed application, all the necessary

information and comparative exhaust emissions data.

II.    CONCLUSION

       Based on the submitted information and the comparative exhaust emissions

tests performed on a 1985 Ford F—250 heavy—duty diesel truck, the staff

concludes that the installation of the Banks turbocharger kit Model No. 6.9F

will not adversely affect exhaust emissions from the vehicles for which the

exemption has been requested.

III.    RECOMMENDATIONS
       The staff recommends that Banks be granted an exemption for this

turbocharger kit for use on 1983—1986 Ford Motor Company heavy—duty vehicles

powered by the 6.9 liter International Harvester heavy—duty diesel engine and

that Executive Order D—161 be issued.

IV.    TURBOCHARGER KIT DESCRIPTION

       The purpose of the Banks turbocharger system is to increase the power

output of the engine by increasing the volumetric efficiency of it by

compressing the intake charge to pressures above that of the atmosphere.    This


  increased pressure allows a greater charge density to enter the combustion

  chamber providing more oxygen for combustion.      The maximum fuel delivery is

  slightly increased in order to maintain proper air—fuel ratios with the

  increased air flow from the turbocharger when it is providing positive

  manifold pressure (boost).

         The major components of the system include a 1.0 A/R ratio Rotomaster

  Model No. TO4B turbocharger, custom intake and exhaust tubing, air cleaner

  assembly, bréckets, hoses and the hardware necessary to complete the

  installation.

         Maximum positive manifold pressure is limited to 7 psig by the size of

  the turbine and the compressor.       The maximum engine speed is regulated by the

}IOEM fuel injection governor which is not modified by the installation of the

  kit.   Therefore, by controlling maximum engine speed, maximum turbine speed

  and corresponding boost pressures are also controlled.

         No OEM emission controls are removed or disconnected when the

  turbocharger kit is installed.

  V.     TURBOCHARGER KIT, EVALUATION
         Evaluation of the Banks turbocharger kit included analysis of all

  submitted information to confirm that it meets the requirements for the

  exemption as well as a comparison of the submitted exhaust emissions data.

         The test vehicle was a 1985 Ford F—250 pick—up with an automatic

  transmission.   Banks had requested in writing that the 1986 Ford heavy—duty

  diesel vehicles be included in the exemption.      The certification documents

  show no difference between the 1985 and 1986 vehicles.      For this reason the

  1985 Ford truck was an acceptable test vehicle.


       Banks performed baseline (unmodified) exhaust emissions tests at QOlson

 Engineering using the "Test Program for Add—On Turbocharger Kits for

 Heavy—Duty Engines".     Olson compiled the results of the steady—state tests in

 grams/mile (g/mi) rather than concentrations in parts/million (ppm) as

 specified in the "Test Program".     Realizing the discrepancy, the staff

 determined that if the device test results were compiled in the same manner,

» the comparative value of the results would be retained.

       After confirmatory baseline tests had been performed at the Haagen—Smit

 Laboratory, the vehicle was returned to Banks for turbocharger installation.

 The Olson device test results as compiled and submitted from Banks showed

 passing results.     The results of the ARB confirmatory tests, however, showed

 failure.     At this point a re—evaluation of the submitted device test data was

 performed and it was found that this data showed failure also.     There was no

 correlation between the Olson g/mi data and the ARB ppm data so the vehicle

 was returned to Banks with notice of failure.

       Upon further evaluation of all the test data, Banks determined that the

 inconsistencies in the test results could have been caused by a malfunctioning

 fuel injection pump.     Therefore, Banks had the fuel injection pump inspected

 and calibrated at a qualified facility.     Banks then performed additional

 device testing at a different independent laboratory, FCI International

 Testing, Inc.     The test results were consistent so Banks performed post

 baseline tests.    Upon analysis of the new test data, Banks determined that the

 back—pressure in the exhaust system was too great to allow the turbocharger to

 supply enough air to the engine to achieve optimum combustion with respect to

 emissions.


         To solve the back—pressure problem, Banks designed a 3—inch diameter

exhaust system to replace the OEM 2.5 inch diameter system.           The new system

includes all the tubing and a new 3—inch low—restriction muffier which are

included in the kit.

         After this modification, device tests were performed at FCI and showed

passing results.     Confirmatory testing was again scheduled and the test

vehicle was delivered to the ARB laboratory.        At this time, the ARB laboratory

was experiencing difficulties with its new diesel exhaust gas analytical

train.     The vehicle was retained at the laboratory for 10 days, at which time

it was determined that several weeks would be required to repair the

laboratory‘s diesel train.

         Because of this, the confirmatory testing was cancel%d and the FCI test

data was the only comparative emissions test data used for the evaluation.

The data are shown in the following table.



                           FCI Steady—State Test Results

                                       Exhaust Emissions (ppm)
            Mode                  HC              CO           NOx

     Baseline Idle               11.8            20.0         123.0
     Turbo Idle                  13.3 ;37        20.0         107.0

     Baseline 20 mph             14.8            20.0          95.0
     Turbo 20 mph                16.3            23.3          83.3

     Baseline 30 mph             17.7           31.5          101.0
     Turbo 30 mph                19.2           36.6           81.0

    Baseline 40 mph             20.7            56.7          127.0
    Turbo 40 mph                20.0            61.5          122.0

    Baseline 50mph              28.2            73.3          191.0
    Turbo 50 mph                26.7            80.0          173.0

     BaseJine 55 mph            37.1            86.7          226.0
    Turbo 55 mph                38.6            93.3          199.0


VI.   DISCUSSION

      The FCI steady—state test indicates that HC and CO emissions at some

test points were slightly increased, however, the increases are only a few ppm

which are well within the sensitivity limits of the instruments.   The NOx

emissions were decreased at every test point.

      The initial tests showed failure of the turbocharger kit, however, Banks

determined the cause of the failure and corrected it.   The new data generated

at FCI demonstrates compliance with the requirements for the exemption.


                                                                           cce
    .&\fio sr.,%’
2                   D
g      w74          5      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
%\M3‘                                    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
    1"( pko‘(f—(“




                                              MAY    6 1586
                                                                                oFFICE OF
                                                                           AIR AND RADIATION




         Mr. Jack Schwendener
         Gale Banks Engineering
         546 Duggan Avenue
         Azusa, California  91702

         Dbear Mr.      Schwendener:

              Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1986 concerning
         the installation of your aftermarket turbocharging system on
         Ford heavy—duty vehicles.        You enclosed a copy of the California
         Air Resources Board (CARB) Executive Order D—16l1 which applies
         to 1983—1986 model year Ford heavy—duty vehicles powered by a
         6.9 liter International Harvester heavy—duty diesel engine.

              Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act (Act), as
         amended, prohibits any person from removing or rendering
         inoperative any emission control device or element of design
         installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine
         prior to its sale and delivery to an ultimate purchaser, and
         prohibits a dealer or manufacturer from knowingly removing or
         rendering inoperative any such device or element of design
         after such sale and delivery and the causing thereof.  The
         maximum civil penalty for a violation of this section is
         $10,000.

              Section 203(a){(3)(B) of the Act prohibits fleet operators
         and persons engaged in the business of servicing, repairing,
         selling, leasing, or trading motor vehicles or motor vehicle
         engines from knowingly removing or rendering inoperative any
         emission control device or element of design installed on or
         in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine after its sale
         and delivery to the ultimate purchaser and the causing thereof.
         The maximum civil penalty for a violation of this section
         is $2,500. °



                                                                     CALF nany«®
                                                                   may 09 1986
                                                                     ENGINEERING


                               ~2—



     Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No.         IA (copy
enclosed)   sets out the policy of EPA with regard to enforce—
ment of the tampering prohibition in pertinent part as
follows:

     "1.  Unless and until otherwise stated, the Environmental
Protection Agency will not regard the following acts, when
performed by a dealer, to constitute violations of section
203(a)(3) of the Act:
                        %        #           *

     (b)    Use of a nonoriginal equipment aftermarket part
            or system as an add—on, auxiliary, augmenting,
            or secondary part or system, if the dealer has a
            reasonable basis for knowing that such use does
            not adversely affect emissions performance;

                        *        *            *


       3.   For purpose of clauses   (1b)   and   ({lc),   a reasonable
basis for knowing that a given act will not adversely affect
emissions performance exists if:

     (a)    the dealer knows of emissions tests which have
            been performed according to testing procedures
            prescribed in 40 CFR 85 [now 40 CFR 86] showing
            that the act does not cause similar vehicles
            or engines to fail to meet applicable emission
            standards for their useful lives (5 years or
            50,000 miles in the case of light—duty vehicles});
            or

    _ (b)   the part or system manufacturer represents in
            writing that tests as described in (a) have
            been performed with similar results; or

      (c)   a Federal, State or local environmental control
            agency expressly represents that a reasonable
            basis exists.   (This provision is limited to
            the geographic area over which the State or
            local agency has jurisdiction.)"

     The term "dealer" in Memorandum lA applies to new car
dealers, fleet operators, and persons engaged in the business
of servicing, repairing, selling, leasing, or trading motor
vehicles or motor vehicle engines.


                                  —3—

       CARB determined that a reasonable basis exists that the
  installation of Gale Banks Engineering turbocharging kit
  No. 6.9F on Ford heavy—duty vehicles powered by a 6.9 liter
  International Harvester heavy—duty diesel engine does not
  adversely affect emissions performance, and has issued Executive
  Order D—l6l to that effect.     ~EPA—accepts—the»determination—of—
  CARB as satisfying=the reasonable~basis"C@riteria.of.Mobile
  Source Enforcement—Memorandum .No. lA regardingthe.use—of.Gale
 ..Banks» Engineering—turbocharging.kit. No,,,.6.4F—.0n.1983=—1986
  model, year—Eord »heavy—duty vehlcles po         _bya6,.9..liter
  International—Harvester.heavx-duty‘aresel~—engine...Acceptance
  of the —CARBdetermination—is‘extended to the use of.these
  systems,inflgnymofifithgystgfiesvfifidwi&énggmiimitedwtOwCfiLifignnlév
        This determination does not constitute a certification,
  accreditation, approval, or any other type of endorsement by
  the EPA of any claims concerning pollution control or any
  other alleged benefits of the turbocharging kits.  No claim
  of any kind, such as "Approved [or certified] by Environmental
  Protection Agency", may be made with respect to the action
  taken herein in any advertising or other oral or written
  communication.  Furthermore, this determination is subject to
  all the limitations set out in California Executive Order
  D—161.

.       EPA has expressly reserved in 4(b) of the memorandum the
"®Wright to proscribe, in the future, an act such as the instal—
   lation of certain devices, as prohibited by the Federal
  tampering prohibition.     Such proscription, if appropriately
  published, would be deemed conclusive that such an act will
  adversely affect emissions performance and the use of the
  affected device would, therefore, constitute a violation of
  section 203(a)(3) of the Act.

       I hope this sufficiently responds to your request.   If
  not, please contact Mr. Robert Greco of my staff at (202)
  475—8838 .

                                    Sincerely—yours,



                                   ichard G. KozlowgKi
                                        Director
                       Field Operations and Support Division

  Enclosure



Document Created: 2005-09-01 12:44:26
Document Modified: 2005-09-01 12:44:26

| Previous E.O. D-160 | Next E.O. D-161-1 | Next E.O. D-162