[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15242-15247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6272]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86
[AMS-FRL-5170-6]
RIN 2060-AC65
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines: Regulations Requiring On-Board Diagnostic (OBD)
Systems--Acceptance of Revised California OBD II Requirements; OBD
Relief for Alternative Fueled Vehicles; and Revisions for Consistency
Between Federal OBD and California OBD II
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This direct final rulemaking revises requirements associated
with on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems. The federal OBD rulemaking,
published February 19, 1993, allowed for compliance with California OBD
II requirements as satisfying federal OBD requirements through the 1998
model year, an allowance of which most original equipment automobile
manufacturers intend to take advantage. The California Air Resources
Board has recently revised their OBD II requirements. The federal OBD
regulations require appropriate revisions such that compliance with the
recently revised OBD II requirements will satisfy federal OBD.
Additionally, aspects of the federal OBD requirements will be revised
and updated, in some cases to maintain consistency with the OBD II
provisions, including providing OBD relief for alternative fueled
vehicles, and in some cases to clarify federal OBD provisions. Finally,
consistent with an order from the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, the federal regulations are being revised to delete a
requirement that manufacturers include certain features to deter
tampering on affected vehicles.
DATES: This final action will become effective on May 22, 1995 unless
notice is received by April 24, 1995 that any person wishes to submit
adverse comments. Should EPA receive such notice, EPA will publish
subsequent action in the Federal Register withdrawing all or part of
this final action.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: The Air Docket, room M-1500 (Mail [[Page 15243]] Code
6102), Waterside Mall, Attention: Docket No. A-90-35, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Materials relevant to this rulemaking are
contained in Docket No. A-90-35, and may be viewed from 8:30 a.m. until
noon and from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. A
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket material. Those
wishing to notify EPA of their intent to submit adverse comments on
this action should contact Todd Sherwood, Certification Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Rd., Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Sherwood, (313) 668-4405.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction and Background
On February 19, 1993, the EPA promulgated a final rulemaking1
requiring manufacturers of light-duty vehicles (LDV) and light-duty
trucks (LDT) to install on-board emission control diagnostics (OBD)
systems on such vehicles beginning in model year 1994. The regulations
promulgated in that final rulemaking require that manufacturers install
OBD systems which monitor emission control components for any
malfunction or deterioration causing exceedances of certain emission
thresholds, and alert the vehicle operator to the need for repair. That
rulemaking also requires that, when a malfunction occurs, diagnostic
information must be stored in the vehicle's computer to assist the
mechanic in diagnosis and repair.
\1\ 58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, that rulemaking makes an allowance for manufacturers
to satisfy the Federal OBD requirements through the 1998 model year by
installing systems satisfying the California OBD II requirements
pertaining to those model years. This allowance means that
manufacturers could concentrate on designing one system to meet the
California OBD II requirements and installing that system nationwide
during allowable model years. As EPA regulations cannot be revised
except through EPA rulemaking, the OBD II requirements allowed under
this provision were, and have continued to be, those existing on the
date of publication of the federal OBD final rulemaking. This means
that subsequent changes made to the OBD II requirements by the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) may be inconsistent and
potentially unacceptable for federal OBD compliance. The provisions of
this direct final rulemaking will allow manufacturers to comply with
federal OBD requirements by optionally complying with more recent OBD
II regulations, specifically those contained in ARB Mail Out #95-03,
made publicly available January 19, 1995.
Also included in the February 1993 federal OBD final rulemaking was
a requirement that all LDVs and LDTs for which emission standards were
in place comply with the OBD requirements. A separate Agency
rulemaking2 subsequently promulgated emission standards for
gaseous alternative fuels, and specified that these vehicles comply
with federal OBD requirements beginning in the 1997 and 1998 model
years for liquified petroleum gas and natural gas, respectively. The
provisions of this direct final rulemaking will provide some regulatory
relief through the 1998 model year for alternative fueled vehicles by
requiring implementation of diagnostic strategies only to the extent
feasible, or where the unique effects of alternative fuels on those
diagnostic strategies are not of concern.
\2\ 59 FR 48472, September 21, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 86.094-18 of the February 1993 rulemaking was a requirement
that vehicle manufacturers install on affected vehicles features to
deter modification except as authorized by the manufacturer. Several
associations representing aftermarket parts manufacturers, rebuilders,
distributors, retailers and service and repair providers
(``petitioners'') petitioned for review of this provision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Docket
No. 93-1277). On May 9, 1994, the Agency and the petitioners filed with
the Court a Joint Motion to Remand the Administrative Record to the
Agency ``in order for EPA to reconsider the anti-tampering provisions,
to address any tensions between these provisions and the access and
information availability requirements [of sections 202(m)(4) and
202(m)(5) of the Act], and, if necessary, to promulgate new regulations
addressing EPA's concerns about tampering.'' The parties further
requested the Court to order that the anti-tampering provisions (and
the incorporation of California's anti-tampering regulations) be
vacated. On May 19, 1994, the Court ordered that the joint motion be
granted and that the anti-tampering regulation be vacated. The Court
also ordered that 40 CFR 86.094-17(j) be vacated to the extent it
requires compliance with California's anti-tampering regulations for
those vehicles optionally certified to the California OBD II
requirements. On October 7, 1994, EPA published a notice3
informing the public of the decision of the court and announcing its
intention to issue a final rulemaking officially withdrawing these
provisions. Today's action withdraws these provisions.
\3\ 59 FR 51114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Requirements of This Direct Final Rulemaking
A. Acceptance of Revised California OBD II
This direct final rulemaking allows manufacturers to comply with
federal OBD requirements by optionally complying with the revised and
recently adopted California OBD II regulations. This allowance is not
new. The allowance for optional compliance with California OBD II was
made in the federal OBD final rulemaking in February, 1993. However,
since that time, the ARB has made several revisions to the OBD II
regulations.
Because the Agency cannot simply accept the revised OBD II without
undergoing the federal regulatory process, any optional compliance with
California OBD II under the current federal regulations must be done
against the OBD II regulations as they existed in February, 1993 (ARB
Mail Out #92-56, November, 1992). However, the ARB has determined that
several manufacturers would have difficulty complying with the OBD II
regulations as they existed in February, 1993. The most notable
requirements that currently pose difficulties are those for engine
misfire detection under all positive torque engine speeds and
conditions and full OBD II implementation on alternative fueled
vehicles. Additionally, most manufacturers have indicated difficulty
meeting other aspects of the OBD II regulations due to, for example,
the complexity of the computer software requirements, and unpredictable
driver actions such as resting a foot on the gas pedal while stopped at
a traffic light. It is these additional difficulties that have prompted
ARB to provide a ``deficiency'' allowance in their revised OBD II
regulations whereby manufacturers can certify as OBD II compliant
despite some reasonably acceptable and unplanned deficiency in the OBD
system.
As a result of the ARB revisions to OBD II, and to remain
consistent with the original intent of providing for optional
compliance with OBD II for federal OBD purposes, this direct final
rulemaking will provide the same [[Page 15244]] option but will require
that manufacturers choosing this option comply with the more recent OBD
II regulations contained in ARB Mail Out #95-03. This means that any
federal vehicles complying with federal OBD by optionally complying
with California OBD II are allowed the same deficiencies as allowed
under the OBD II provisions. Note, however, that a manufacturer
requesting certification of a deficient OBD II system must receive EPA
acceptance of any deficiency independently of an acceptance made by
ARB. The Agency will use the same criteria specified by the ARB, those
criteria being the extent to which the requirements are satisfied
overall on the vehicle applications in question, the extent to which
the resultant diagnostic system design will be more effective than
earlier OBD systems, and a demonstrated good-faith effort to meet the
requirements in full by evaluating and considering the best available
monitoring technology. The Agency will make every effort to make
determinations of OBD II deficiency acceptance in concert with ARB
staff to avoid the potential for conflicting determinations. However,
the extent to which the agencies can make concurrent and coordinated
findings will rely heavily on the manufacturer, who will be expected to
provide any necessary information to both agencies in parallel rather
than pursuing deficiency determinations on a separate basis.
B. Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD Vehicles
Consistent with ARB, the Agency has determined that a similar
provision must also be provided for those vehicles certifying to the
federal OBD requirements of Sec. 86.094-17. This is necessary for the
same reasons it was necessary for ARB to make the change. Despite the
best efforts of manufacturers, many have needed to certify vehicles
with some sort of deficiency when unanticipated problems arose that
could not be remedied in time to meet production schedules. Given the
newness and considerable complexity of designing, producing, and
installing the components and systems that make up the OBD system,
manufacturers have expressed and demonstrated difficulty in complying
with every aspect of the OBD requirements, and such difficulty appears
likely to continue into the 1996 and 1997 model years. The Agency
believes that 100 percent compliance can be achieved, but during the
initial years of OBD implementation, EPA believes that some sort of
relief must be provided to allow for certification of vehicles that,
despite the best efforts of the manufacturers, have deficient OBD
systems.
The EPA ``deficiency'' allowance should not be seen as a waiver of
any kind. EPA will continue to grant blanket waivers for 1994 and/or
1995 model year vehicles. However, beginning with the 1996 model year,
blanket waivers will not be granted. Though EPA will accept minor
deficiencies, EPA does not intend to accept any deficiency requests
that include the complete lack of a required diagnostic monitor.
Furthermore, EPA does not intend to certify vehicles with federal OBD
systems that have more than one OBD system deficiency, and EPA will not
allow carryover of any deficiency to the following model year unless it
can be demonstrated that correction of the deficiency requires hardware
modifications that absolutely cannot be accomplished in the time
available, as determined by the Administrator. These limitations should
prevent a manufacturer from using the deficiency allowance as a means
to avoid compliance or delay OBD implementation.
C. Relief for Alternative Fueled Vehicles
The acceptance of the recent OBD II regulations also means that
alternative-fueled federal vehicles optionally complying with
California OBD II are provided considerable relief relative to previous
versions of OBD II. This direct final rule will make the same
provisions available for vehicles certified specifically to the federal
OBD requirements of Sec. 86.094-17. Previously, OBD II required that
alternative fueled vehicles comply fully with all applicable
requirements beginning in the 1996 model year. EPA's final rulemaking
on gaseous fuels4 required that LDVs and LDTs fueled by liquified
petroleum gas (LPG) meet OBD requirements beginning with optionally
certified vehicles in the 1994 model year. The gaseous fuels rulemaking
also required that natural gas vehicles meet OBD requirements beginning
with the 1998 model year. However, manufacturers have stated that, due
to the workload associated with complying fully with the OBD
requirements on gasoline vehicles, coupled with the low sales volumes
projected for alternative fueled vehicles, OBD development and testing
for such vehicles cannot be completed in either the OBD II or federal
OBD timeframes. Manufacturers have stated that more time is needed to
evaluate the effects of alternative fuels on component performance to
ensure that OBD diagnostic strategies will be reliable in-use. As a
result of the OBD implementation deadlines, manufacturers have
considered delaying plans to sell alternative fueled vehicles.
\4\59 FR 48472, September 21, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing these manufacturer concerns, and the inherent
environmental benefits of having greater numbers of alternatively
fueled vehicles manufactured as soon as possible, both the ARB and EPA
have decided to delay full OBD II/federal OBD implementation until the
1999 model year for alternative fueled vehicles. For federal
certification beginning in the 1997 model year for LPG light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks, and beginning in the 1998 model year
for natural gas LDVs and LDTs, manufacturers will be required to
implement diagnostic strategies to the extent feasible, but will not be
required to include monitoring strategies for which the effects of
alternative fuels are of technological concern. Specifically,
manufacturers will be required to implement electrical circuit
continuity and/or functional checks at a minimum, and those major
system monitors unaffected by fuel type. In addition, EPA will not
require that federal alternative fueled vehicles minimally comply with
California OBD I5 for those years prior to initiation of
applicable emission standards. Instead, beginning with the
applicability of emission standards and extending through the 1998
model year, EPA will require compliance with OBD II or federal OBD to
the extent feasible. This is an important provision for manufacturers,
since minimal compliance with OBD I sometimes cannot be met on
alternative fueled vehicles (e.g., OBD I requires EGR monitoring while
many alternative fueled vehicles have no EGR), and sometimes
manufacturers would rather comply with OBD II or federal OBD than
comply with OBD I because it is more accurate and effective (e.g., OBD
I requires pass/fail determinations of computer input and output
components, while OBD II requires rational decisions to be made
concerning the functional characteristics of input and output
components, i.e., the component is working, but is it working the way
it should work?).
\5\Title 13 California Code Sec. 1968, p. 614.16.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Revised Engine Misfire Identification Criteria
Another change being made in this direct final rulemaking is a
revision to the misfire identification requirement. Currently, the
federal OBD regulation requires that a fault code identify the specific
cylinder in which a misfire condition has been detected for those
[[Page 15245]] cases where just one cylinder is misfiring. However, in
working toward meeting the expanded misfire monitoring requirements of
OBD II for the 1997 model year (detection under all positive torque
engine conditions), some manufacturers have found that specific
cylinder identification can be unreliable at higher engine speeds. The
current federal OBD requirement does not specifically require misfire
detection at such engine speeds, but the Agency does not want to
provide any incentive for manufacturers to disable misfire monitoring
under conditions where misfire can occur and can be reliably detected,
even where those conditions are outside the range of Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) operation. Consequently, the new provision will allow a
manufacturer to disable algorithms employed to identify the misfiring
cylinder under certain operating conditions if it can be demonstrated
that the algorithm would not operate reliably when such conditions
exist. This change will have no impact on the operating conditions
under which misfire is to be detected, and it is consistent with
changes recently made to the OBD II regulations.
E. Delay of the Signal Access Requirements of SAE J1979 Test Modes 6
and 7
Also being changed in this direct final rulemaking is a delay to
the 1997 model year for full implementation of the signal access
requirements specified in Secs. 86.094-17(f)(3) and 86.094-17(h). Test
modes 6 and 7 have only recently been added to Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1979 to standardize the format
for making available numerical test results and limits for monitored
components and systems, and the one-trip trouble codes for continuously
monitored components. This information is helpful in diagnosis and
repair of emission-related malfunctions.
F. Extension of Limited Waiver Provisions Into the 1995 Model Year
EPA is providing an extension through the 1995 model year of a
limited waiver provision found in Sec. 86.094-17(i). Previously, this
limited waiver provision was provided for 1994 model year vehicles
only. As decided in the February, 1993, OBD final rulemaking, there may
be some engine families with very low sales volumes that have never
been equipped with an OBD I or similar OBD system. In such cases, EPA
may make special considerations by granting waivers as done in the 1994
model year for the 1995 model year to a system less than OBD I. EPA
will consider such factors as manufacturer projections of very low
sales volume for an engine family (e.g., 5000 or less), scheduled
phase-out of significant engine technology with the 1994 or 1995 model
years for that engine family, and whether or not the engine, or any
similar engine within the manufacturer's product line, has ever been
equipped with an OBD I or similar OBD system in making waiver decisions
to a system less than OBD I. As stated, this provision was previously
available only for 1994 model year vehicles and is now being provided
for 1995 model year vehicles. Note that the Agency has no intention of
providing this limited waiver provision for the 1996 model year.
G. Revised Electrical Continuity/Functionality Check Provisions
Also being changed in this direct final rulemaking is the
electrical circuit continuity monitoring provision of Sec. 86.094-
17(b)(1). This change is being made to clarify the Agency's stance that
component functionality checks (i.e., a check of the functional
characteristics of a component/system) are an acceptable and perhaps
more effective diagnostic tool than an electrical continuity check
alone. The current requirement specifies that, ``* * * all emission-
related powertrain components connected to a computer shall, at a
minimum, be monitored for circuit continuity.'' The new requirement
specifies that a functional system check may be performed provided the
manufacturer can demonstrate that the functional check is equivalent or
superior to the circuit continuity monitor.
Correspondingly, the certification provisions of Sec. 86.094-30 and
Sec. 86.095-30 are being changed to reflect the monitoring requirement
change being made to Sec. 86.094-17(b)(1). The new certification
provisions specify that the MIL must illuminate upon electrical
disconnection of the evaporative purge control (if equipped), or the
operation of any emission-related powertrain component which results in
emission increases equal to any one of the 0.2/1.7/0.5 g/mi HC/CO/
NOX emission thresholds.
These changes are similar to a change recently made to the OBD II
regulations which requires that the MIL be illuminated for any
emission-related powertrain component malfunction causing emissions to
increase by 15 percent of the applicable emission standard. Section
86.094-17(b) currently requires that the OBD system, at a minimum,
detect loss of circuit continuity in any emission-related powertrain
component connected to a computer. This requirement will still apply as
the minimum acceptable monitoring approach. However, because the Agency
believes that a functional check can be a more effective diagnostic
tool than an electrical continuity check alone, the Agency will accept
a functional check. The Agency will minimally accept an electrical
continuity check provided the manufacturer can demonstrate the adequacy
of such a check.
H. Deletion of Anti-Tampering Regulations
Also being changed in this direct final rulemaking is the deletion
of Sec. 86.094-18 and the revision of Sec. 86.094-17(j) for reasons
specified above and in Federal Register notice of court decisions
regarding Agency regulations.6 EPA is continuing to review its
policy concerns regarding tampering. EPA may in the future determine
that it is appropriate to promulgate new regulations to address these
concerns. If the Agency determines that new regulations are
appropriate, EPA will at that time publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking addressing these concerns.
\6\ 59 FR 51114, October 7, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Public Participation and Effective Date
The Agency is publishing this action as a direct final rule because
it views the changes contained herein as noncontroversial and
anticipates no adverse or critical comments. This direct final
rulemaking alters an existing provision by aligning federal OBD
requirements with the most recent California OBD II requirements. Auto
manufacturers should not take issue since they favor the requirements
intended under this rule as they will save costs without impacting OBD
system effectiveness, and they are provided more leadtime for
development of OBD systems for alternative fueled vehicles. Aftermarket
manufacturers and the independent service industry should not take
issue since the rule will not affect the serviceability of vehicles or
the design of replacement parts. Aftermarket fuel conversion kit
manufacturers should not take issue since they favor additional
leadtime for development of OBD systems. Environmental groups should
not take issue since the rule will not significantly affect the
emission reductions associated with OBD, and the rule will provide
regulatory relief for alternative fueled vehicles allowing these
vehicles to be more readily introduced into the vehicle fleet.
[[Page 15246]]
In addition, the Agency's deletion of the anti-tampering
regulations is required by court order.
This action will be effective on May 22, 1995 unless EPA is
notified by April 24, 1995 that adverse or critical comments will be
submitted. EPA requests that, should any adverse or critical comments
be submitted, they be submitted according to the specific issues as
identified below:
(a) Acceptance of Revised California OBD II
(b) Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD Vehicles
(c) Relief for Alternative Fueled Vehicles
(d) Revised Engine Misfire Identification Criteria
(e) Delay of the Signal Access Requirements of SAE J1979 Test Modes
6 and 7
(f) Extension of Limited Waiver Provisions into the 1995 Model Year
(g) Revised Electrical Continuity/Functionality Check Provisions
(h) Deletion of Anti-Tampering Regulations
Should EPA receive such notice of adverse or critical comments on
the specific issues as identified above, EPA will publish one action
withdrawing the provisions of this final action corresponding to that
specific issue. A subsequent action will then be published proposing
those provisions and requesting comments.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
Under Executive Order 128667, the Agency must determine
whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject
to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
\7\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or,
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
This direct final rulemaking does not change the information
collection requirements submitted to and approved by OMB in association
with the OBD final rulemaking (58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993; and, 59
FR 38372, July 28, 1994).
C. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires Federal agencies to
identify potentially adverse impacts of federal regulations upon small
entities. This direct final rulemaking will provide regulatory relief
to both large and small volume automobile manufacturers by maintaining
consistency with California OBD II requirements, by providing the
limited 1995 model year waiver, by allowing deficiencies for federal
OBD compliance, and by providing regulatory relief for alternative
fueled vehicles. This direct final rulemaking will have no impact on
businesses which manufacture, rebuild, distribute, or sell automotive
parts, nor those involved in automotive service and repair.
Therefore, pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(B), the Administrator certifies that this regulation
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not apply to this action
as it does not involve the collection of information as defined
therein.
E. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking Documents
Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this
direct final rulemaking are available on the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network bulletin
Board System (TTNBBS). Instructions for accessing TTNBBS and
downloading the relevant files are described below.
TTNBBS can be accessed using a dial-in telephone line (919) 541-
5742 and a 1200, 2400, or 9600 bps modem (equipment up to 14.4 Kbps can
be accommodated). The parity of the modem should be set to N or none,
the data bits to 8, and the stop bits to 1. When first signing on the
bulletin board, the user will be required to answer some basic
informational questions to register into the system. After registering,
proceed through the following options from a series of menus:
(T) Gateway to TTN Technical Areas (Bulletin Boards)
(M) OMS
(K) Rulemaking and Reporting
At this point, the system will list all available files in the
chosen category in chronological order with brief descriptions. File
information can be obtained from the ``READ.ME'' file. To download a
file, the user needs to choose a file transfer protocol appropriate for
the user's computer from the options listed on the terminal.
TTNBBS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week except Monday
morning from 8-12 Eastern Time, when the system is down for maintenance
and backup. For help in accessing the system, call the systems operator
at (919) 541-5384 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, during
normal business hours Eastern Time.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Gasoline, Incorporation by reference, Motor
vehicles, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 2, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 86 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 86--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR
VEHICLES AND NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES: CERTIFICATION
AND TEST PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 215, 216, 217,
and 301(a), Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7524,
7525, 7541, 7542, 7549, 7550, 7552, and 7601(a)).
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Section 86.094-17 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1),
(e)(2), (f)(3), (i), and (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.094-17 Emission control diagnostic system for 1994 and later
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
* * * * *
[[Page 15247]]
(b) (1) The electronic evaporative emission purge control, if
equipped, and all emission-related powertrain components connected to a
computer shall, at a minimum, be monitored for circuit continuity. In
lieu of monitoring circuit continuity, a functional system check may be
performed provided the manufacturer can demonstrate that the functional
check is equivalent or superior to the circuit continuity monitor. All
components required by these regulations to be monitored shall be
evaluated periodically, but no less frequently than once per Urban
Dynamometer Driving Schedule as defined in appendix I, paragraph (a),
of this part, or similar trip.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) For a single misfiring cylinder, the fault code(s) shall
identify the cylinder, unless the manufacturer submits data and/or an
engineering evaluation which adequately demonstrate that the misfiring
cylinder cannot be reliably identified under certain operating
conditions; multiple misfiring cylinders need not be uniquely
identified if a distinct multiple misfire fault code is stored.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) For all emission control components and systems for which
specific on-board evaluation tests are conducted (catalyst, oxygen
sensor, etc.), the results of the most recent test performed by the
vehicle, and the limits to which the system is compared shall be
available through the data link per SAE J1979 specifications as
referenced in paragraph (h) of this section beginning no later than the
1997 model year. The Administrator may allow a pass/fail indication for
the most recent test results for those monitored components and systems
for which such an indication is more appropriate (e.g., misfire
detection, fuel system monitoring, etc.).
* * * * *
(i) Upon application by the manufacturer, the Administrator may
either waive the requirements of this section for specific components
of any class or category of light-duty vehicles or light-duty trucks
for model years 1994 or 1995 (or both), or, through the 1998 model
year, the Administrator may accept an OBD system as compliant even
though specific requirements are not fully met. Such waivers or
compliances without meeting specific requirements will be granted only
if compliance would be infeasible or unreasonable considering such
factors as, but not limited to, technical feasibility, lead time and
production cycles including phase-in or phase-out of engines or vehicle
designs and programmed upgrades of computers, and if any unmet
requirements are not carried over from the previous model year except
where unreasonable hardware modifications would be necessary to correct
the noncompliance, and the manufacturer has demonstrated an acceptable
level of effort toward compliance as determined by the Administrator.
For alternative fueled vehicles (i.e., natural gas, liquified petroleum
gas, or methanol), beginning with the model year for which emission
standards are applicable and extending through the 1998 model year,
manufacturers may request the Administrator to waive specific
monitoring requirements of this section for which monitoring may not be
reliable with respect to the use of the alternative fuel. At a minimum,
all vehicles covered by this section, including those receiving a
waiver as described in this paragraph, shall be equipped with an OBD
system meeting either the California OBD I requirements, or some
acceptable portion of the California OBD II or federal OBD requirements
as specified in this section, except that for the 1994 and 1995 model
years EPA may grant a waiver to a system less than OBD I giving
consideration to such factors as manufacturer projections of very low
sales volume for an engine family (e.g., 5000 or less), scheduled
phase-out of significant engine technology with the 1994 or 1995 model
years for that engine family, and whether or not the engine, or any
similar engine within the manufacturer's product line, has ever been
equipped with an OBD I or similar OBD system.
(j) Demonstration of compliance with California OBD II requirements
(Title 13 California Code 1968.1), as modified pursuant to California
Mail Out #95-03 (January 19, 1995), shall satisfy the requirements of
this section through the 1998 model year except that compliance with
Title 13 California Code 1968.1(d), pertaining to tampering protection,
is not required to satisfy the requirements of this section.
Sec. 86.094-18 [Removed].
3. Section 86.094-18 is removed.
4. Section 86.094-30 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.094-30 Certification.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) The electronic evaporative purge control device (if equipped)
is disconnected or the operation of any emission-related powertrain
component connected to a computer results in an increase in emissions
of 0.2 g/mi HC or 1.7 g/mi CO or 0.5 g/mi NOx on a normal
temperature (20 to 30 deg.C) emission certification test.
5. Section 86.095-30 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.095-30 Certification.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(4) The electronic evaporative purge control device (if equipped)
is disconnected or the operation of any emission-related powertrain
component connected to a computer results in an increase in emissions
of 0.2 g/mi HC or 1.7 g/mi CO or 0.5 g/mi NOx on a normal
temperature (20 to 30 deg.C) emission certification test.
[FR Doc. 95-6272 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P