Approval Details

Valid E.O.

Validity

This Executive Order approved the specified parts on on August 15, 1979.
As of Sunday, October 20th, 2019 this Executive Order has not been overturned or superceeded.

Approved Parts

Models
1979 and older model year gasoline powered motor vehicles using conventional or variable venturi carburetors and mechanical or electrical fuel pumps with and without recirculation systems.

This Executive Order may be listed as:
  • C.A.R.B.E.O. D-75-2
  • Executive Order 75-2 / D75-2
  • ARB # D-75-2
  • Executive Order No: D-75-2
  • C.A.R.B. No. D-75-2
  • Resolution D-75-2
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-75-2 PDF

D-75-2 Document:



                                                (Page 1 of 2)


                          State of California
                          AIR RESOURCES BOARD

                        EXECUTIVE ORDER D—75—2
              Relating to Exemptions under Section 27156
                          of the Vehicle Code


                           CAGLE CORPORATION
             "CAGLE MARK II AUTOMATIC FUEL CONTROL" DEVICE

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Section
27156 of the Vehicle Code; 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 RESQLVED: That the installation of the "Cagle Mark II
Automatic Fuel Control" device manufactured by Cagle Corporation,
2667 E. 28th St, Long Beach, CA 90806 has been found to not reduce the
effectiveness of required motor vehicle pollution control devices and,
therefore, is exempt from the prohibitions of Section 27156 of the
Vehicle Code for 1979 and older model year gasoline powered motor
vehicles using conventional or variable venturi carburetors and
mechanical or electric fue!l pumps with and without recirculation
systems .

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

Changes made to the design or operating conditions of the device, as
exempted by the Air Resources Board, that adversely affect the per—
formance of a vehicle‘s pollution control system shall invalidate
this Executive Order.

Marketing of this device using an identification other than that shown
in this Executive Order or marketing of this device for an application
other than those Tisted in this Executive Order shall be prohibited unless
prior approval is obtained from the Air Resources Board.

This Executive Order 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.

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 "CAGLE MARK II AUTOMATIC FUEL CONTROL" DEVICE.

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


CAGLE CORPORATION                                       EXECUTIVE ORDER D—75—2
.                   j                                         (Page 2 of 2)


Section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code makes untrue or mis—
leading 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
     poilution 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 the Attorney General of California for such action as he
deems advisable.

Executive Orders D—75, dated June 13, 1977 and D—75—1, dated September 21,
1977 are superseded and of no further force and effect.
                                                  /th
Executed at El Monte, California, this       /5    day of A        , 1979.



                                         D. Drachand, XAtttmg—Shief —
                                   Mobile Source Control Division


                              State of California
                              AIR RESOURCES BOARD

                               August 3, 1979

                          Addendum to Staff Report
                           Dated September 15, 1977

                     Evaluation of the Cagle Corporation
                           Mark II Automatic Fuel
                      Contro1" Device for Compliance
                      with the requirements of Section
                        27156 of the Vehicle Code.


      Introduction

      The Cagle Corporation by letter dated November 7, 1978, (Exhibit A)

      has requested an update of their Executive Order D—75—1 to include

      the 1979 and older model year vehicles.       A description of the de—

      vice, its operation, previous test data, and a discussion of the
      theory will be found in the attached Staff report dated September

      15, 1977.


II.   Air Resources Board LaboratoryTests

      Since the late model vehicles tend to run on leaner air—fuel

      ratios, and the emission control systems are more complex,

      the staff thought it advisable to perform tests on 1979

      vehicles.


      The following tests were run.

      Vehicle #1.

      This was a 1979 Ford LTD Landau with .a 302 CID engine and a

      variable venturi carburetor.    Two devices were run on this

      vehicle since there was a stalling problem at idle during

      the cold start tests after the devices were installed.      Two

      starts were required.


The results were as follows:

Device #1

                                 hC          co        NOx        mpa
     Baseline                    0.313        0. 34     1.59      13.0

     Device                      0.283        1.52      1.55      13.0

     % Change                   —9.6         +347.1    —2.5        0.0

The increase in CO was attributed to the stalling problem and

therefore the tests were repeated using a second device.


Device #2

                                 hC          co        NOx       MPe
     Baseline                    0.233        0.66      1.53      12.9

     Device                      0. 348      1.56       1.57      12.8

     % Change                  +49.4         +136.4    +2.6       —0.8

The increase in HC and CO was again attributed to the stalling

problem during the device test.        In order to eliminate any chance

that it might be the vehicle that was at fault, a second vehicle

was tested using the second device:


Vehicle #2 — 1979 Ford LTD, 302 CID engine with a variable

venturi carburetor, License #811 VPE.

The results were as follows:

                                hC           co        NOx       MPG
     Baseline #1                0.527        1.09      1.47       13.2

     Baseline #2                0.638        0.84      1.64      12.9

     Average                    0.582        0.97      1.55      13.1


                               hC         co           NOx      MP&
          Device               0.6504     1.45         1.54     13.2

          % Change            +3.9      +51.5          0.0      +0.8


     This vehicle also stalled during the cold start test with the

     device.   Three starts were required.


     Based on the above test results which showed increased emissions,

     the application was denied (Exhibit B)


III. Applicant‘s request for reconsideration

    The applicant requested reconsideration of its application and

    submitted the following test data in support of this request

     {Exhibit C)


    Laboratory — W. R. Grace, Garden Grove, CA

    Test Vehicles — 1979 Ford Granada 302 CID, Vehicle #172600

                       (variable venturi carburetor)
                     — 1979 Chevrolet E1 Camino 305 CID Vehicle # 410354

                               HC         co           NOx      mPa
          Ford Baseline       0. 230     0. 850        1.139    14. 367
          Device              0. 260     0. 900        1.219    14. 306
          % Change             +13.0      +5.9         +7.0     —.4

          Chevrolet Baseline 0.410        4. 320       1.269    14.534

          Device              0. 460      2.620        1. 252   14.285

          % Change             +12.2      —39.4        —1.3     —1.7


      No stalling problems were noted.    Emissions could be considered

      within acceptable testing variation lTimits.


IV.   Air Resources Board Confirmatory Tests

      In order to confirm the W. R. Grade data, the applicant was

      requested to submit the same Ford vehicle tested by W. R.

      Grace to this laboratory for confirmatory testing.     The

      results were as follows.

                                    hC          co         NOx       mP6
           Baseline                  0.259       1.69      1.18      14.2

           Device                   0. 255       1.43      1. 20     14.2
           % Change                —1.5        —15.4     +1.7         0.0


      No stalling problems and no increase in emissions were noted.


      Since both the vehicle and the device were submitted by the

      applicant, the staff felt that additional tests were needed.

      By adjusting the float in the carburetor fuel bow!, the results

      could be altered to favor the device.    The staff therefore chose

      the devices to be tested from the applicants inventory at the

      factory and the vehicles were rented from Hertz.


      The results of these tests were as follows:


      Vehicle #1 — 1979 Ford Fairmont, License No. 637 WCH,

      302 CID engine with a variable venturi carburetor.


                                 HC         CO            NOx             MPG

     BaseTine                    0. 492     3.37          2.46            15.2

     Device                      0.517      3.65          2. 48           15.2

     % Change                   +5.1       +8.3          +0.8              0.0


Vehicle #2 — 1979 Chevrolet Mailbu, License No. 604 WOF, 231

CID engine, 6 cyl.

                                hC          co           Nox              mpa
     BaseTine                    0. 440     9.43          0.89            15.2

     Device                      0.353      6.21          0.89            16.0

     % Change                  —19.8      —34.1           0.0             +5.3


In addition fuel pressure measurements were taken before and

after the regulator for various manifold vacuums.          The results

were as follows for the Chevrolet vehicle.

                         Normal             RegulTated            Change in
                         Fuel               Fuel                  Pressure
     Manifold            Pres§ure           Pres§ure
     Vacuum              #/in               #/in

     15                  4.2                2. 55                 1.65

     13                  4.2                2.50                  1.78

     11                  4.2                2.50                  1.70

      9                  4.2                3.05                  1.15

      7                  4.2               3.70                   0.50

      5                  4.2                3. 88                 0. 32

      3                  3.6                3.6                   0


      Discussion

      The staff is at a loss to explain the stalling problem in the

      first two vehicles tested.   However subseqeunt tests did not

      show any such problem and the vehicle emissions were within

      acceptable Timits.   The device did not show any significant

      increase in miles per gallon.


VI.   Conclusion

      Based on the majority of the test results and an engineering

      evaluation, the staff feels that the use of the "Cagle Mark II

      Automatic Fuel Control" Device should not have an adverse effect
      on the exhaust emission control systems of vehicles with conventional

      or variable venturi carburetors and mechanical or electric fuel pumps

      with and without recirculation systems.


VII. Recommendation

      In view of the above discussion and conclusion the staff feels
      that granting the Cagle Corporation an exemption from the

      prohibitions of Section 27156 of the California Vehicle Code

      for its "Cagle Automatic Fue! Control" device for installation

      on 1979 and older model vehicles using conventional or variable

      venturi carburetors with mechanical or electric fuel pumps with

      and without recirculating systems is justified.   The staff

      recommend adopting Executive Order D—75—2.



Document Created: 2005-09-01 12:43:51
Document Modified: 2005-09-01 12:43:51

Previous E.O. D-75-1 | Previous E.O. D-74 | Next E.O. D-75-3 | Next E.O. D-76