[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 28, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28932-28945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13749]
[[Page 28931]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 86
Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle
Engines; Modification of Federal On-board Diagnostic Regulations for
Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks; Extension of Acceptance of
California OBD II Requirements; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 28932]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86
[FRL-5827-6]
Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines; Modification of Federal On-board Diagnostic
Regulations for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks; Extension of
Acceptance of California OBD II Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action proposes modifications to the federal on-board
diagnostics regulations, including: harmonizing the emission levels
above which a component or system is considered malfunctioning (i.e.,
the malfunction thresholds) with those of the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) OBD II requirements; mandating that EPA OBD systems fully
evaluate the entire emission control system, including the evaporative
emission control system; indefinitely extending the allowance of
deficiencies for federal OBD vehicles; indefinitely extending the
allowance of optional compliance with the California OBD II
requirements for federal OBD certification while also updating the
allowed version of those California OBD II regulations to the most
recently revised version; extending the current flexibility afforded
alternate fueled vehicles through the 2004 model year rather than
providing that flexibility only through the 1998 model year; updating
the incorporation by reference of several recommended practices
developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to incorporate
recently published versions, while also incorporating by reference two
standardization protocols developed by the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO). OBD systems in general provide substantial
ozone benefits.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 28, 1997. A public
hearing will be held on July 9, 1997. The hearing will begin at 10:00
a.m. and continue until all testimony has been presented. Requests to
present oral testimony must be received on or before June 27, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: the EPA, Air Docket, Room M-1500 (Mail Code 6102),
Waterside Mall, Attn: Docket A-96-32, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460.
Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in Docket No.
A-96-32. The docket is located at The Air Docket, 401 M. Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and may be viewed in room M1500 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The telephone number is (202)
260-7548 and the facsimile number is (202) 260-4400. A reasonable fee
may be charged by EPA for copying docket material. The hearing will be
held at the Holiday Inn North Campus, 3600 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor,
MI.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, Vehicle Programs and
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2565
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, Telephone 313-668-4288, or
Internet e-mail at ``[email protected].''
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Electronic Availability
II. Introduction and Background
III. Requirements of the Proposed Rule
A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds and Monitoring
Requirements
B. Similar Operating Conditions Window
C. Extension of Allowance of California OBD II
D. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD
Vehicles
E. Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles
F. Applicability
G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference
H. Certification Provisions
IV. Discussion of Issues
A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds
B. Similar Operating Conditions Window
C. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements
D. Extension of Allowance of California OBD II
E. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD
Vehicles
F. Diagnostic Readiness Codes
G. EPA Recall Policy
H. Extension of Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles
I. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Cost Effectiveness
VI. Public Participation
A. Summary of Specific Comments Requested by EPA
B. Comments and the Public Docket
C. Public Hearing
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
C. Impact on Small Entities
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
I. Electronic Availability
Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this
final rulemaking are available via the Internet on the Office of Mobile
Sources (OMS) Home Page (http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/). Users can find
OBD related information and documents through the following path once
they have accessed the OMS Home Page: ``Automobiles,'' ``I/M & OBD,''
``On-Board Diagnostics Files.''
Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this
final rulemaking are also available on the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin
Board System (TTN BBS). Users are able to access and download TTN BBS
files on their first call. After logging onto TTN BBS, to navigate
through the BBS to the files of interest, the user must enter the
appropriate command at each of a series of menus. The steps required to
access information on this rulemaking are listed below. The service is
free, except for the cost of the phone call.
TTN BBS: 919-541-5742 (1,200--14,400 bps, no parity, eight data
bits, one stop bit). Voice help: 919-541-5384 Internet address: TELNET
ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov Off-line: Mondays from 8:00-12:00 Noon ET.
1. Technology Transfer Network Top Menu: GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL
AREAS (Bulletin Boards) (Command: T)
2. TTN TECHNICAL INFORMATION AREAS: OMS-Mobile Sources Information
(Command: M)
3. OMS BBS === MAIN MENU FILE TRANSFERS: Rulemaking & Reporting
(Command: K)
4. RULEMAKING PACKAGES: <7> Inspection & Maintenance (Command: 7)
5. Inspection & Maintenance Rulemaking Areas: File Area # . . . On-
Board Diagnostics (Command: 2)
At this stage, the system will list all available OBD Review files.
To download a file, select a transfer protocol which will match the
terminal software on your computer, then set your own software to
receive the file using that same protocol.
If unfamiliar with handling compressed (i.e., ZIP'd) files, go to
the TTN top menu, System Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the
necessary program to download in order to unZIP the files of interest
after downloading to your computer. After getting the files you want
onto your computer, you can quit TTN BBS with the oodbye command.
II. Introduction and Background
On February 19, 1993, pursuant to Clean Air Act section 202(m), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 7521(m), the EPA published a final
[[Page 28933]]
rulemaking (58 FR 9468) requiring manufacturers of light-duty vehicles
(LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs) to install on-board diagnostic
(OBD) systems on such vehicles beginning with the 1994 model year. The
regulations promulgated in that final rulemaking require that
manufacturers install OBD systems which monitor emission control
components for any malfunction or deterioration causing exceedance 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 technician in diagnosis and repair.
Additionally, the original federal OBD regulations provide an
allowance for manufacturers to satisfy federal OBD requirements through
the 1998 model year by installing systems satisfying the California OBD
II requirements pertaining to those model years. Beginning with the
1999 model year, manufacturers are required to satisfy the unique
requirements of federal OBD.
In August 1996, EPA published a final rulemaking (61 FR 45898)
updating the version of the California OBD II requirements that are
acceptable for federal OBD compliance demonstration. The February 1993
final rulemaking allowed compliance with the 1992 version of California
OBD II (Mail-Out #92-56). California subsequently revised their OBD II
requirements in December of 1994. The August 1996 federal rule served
to allow compliance with the revised California OBD II requirements
(Mail-Out #95-34) rather than the 1992 version of OBD II.
In today's action, EPA is proposing a revision to the federal OBD
regulations such that the allowance of compliance with the California
OBD II regulations (excluding anti-tampering provisions) extends
indefinitely, rather than applying only through the 1998 model year.
EPA seeks this revision as a result of comments from the domestic and
major import original equipment manufacturers who claim that the
efforts to meet the unique federal OBD requirements will divert
resources away from broader OBD development and calibration efforts.
EPA believes that the benefits of a robust OBD program outweigh the
benefits of the unique requirements of the federal OBD regulations. EPA
also believes, as was noted in an August 30, 1996 final rule (61 FR
45898), that the California OBD II program fully meets the requirements
of the 1990 Clean Air Act and fulfills the intent of the federal OBD
program.
Today's action also proposes to amend federal OBD requirements to
harmonize with those of the California OBD II requirements for 1999 and
later model year light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks
(LDTs). This harmonization will result in federal OBD malfunction
thresholds consistent with the California OBD II thresholds, and it
will require monitoring of all emission-related powertrain components
similar to the California OBD II regulations. EPA believes that this
harmonization is consistent with the requirements of section 202(m) of
the CAA and will not compromise the stringency of the federal OBD
program.
Also being proposed is an extension of the current flexibility
within the federal OBD requirements for alternate fueled vehicles. In a
direct final rulemaking published in March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15242), EPA
made an allowance for alternate fueled vehicles to comply with OBD
requirements to the extent feasible through the 1998 model year, with
full compliance required in the 1999 model year. With today's proposal,
the flexibility provisions of the March 1995 direct final rule will
extend through the 2004 model year, with full compliance required in
the 2005 model year.
Also being proposed is the continuation of the allowance of
deficiencies for federal OBD compliance. This allowance will extend
indefinitely. Also being proposed is an updating of materials
incorporated by reference. These materials, developed by the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), have been incorporated or proposed for
incorporation in earlier rulemakings. More recent versions have been
developed and/or published and are proposed for incorporation today.
III. Requirements of the Proposed Rule
A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds and Monitoring Requirements
EPA is proposing that, beginning in the 1999 model year, OBD
systems on spark-ignition LDVs and LDTs must be able to detect and
alert the driver of the following emission-related malfunctions or
deterioration: 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The text presented here does not constitute proposed
regulatory text, which can be viewed immediately following this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Catalyst deterioration or malfunction before it results in an
increase in HC emissions equal to or greater than 1.5 times the HC
standard, as compared to the HC emission level measured using a
representative 4000 mile catalyst system.
(2) Engine misfire before it results in an exhaust emission
exceedance of 1.5 times the applicable standard for HC, CO or
NOX.
(3) Oxygen sensor deterioration or malfunction before it results in
an exhaust emission exceedance of 1.5 times the applicable standard for
HC, CO or NOX.
(4) Any vapor leak in the evaporative and/or refueling system
(excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve and the
intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused by
a 0.040 inch diameter orifice shall also be detected. The absence of
evaporative purge air flow from the complete evaporative emission
control system shall also be detected.
(5) Any deterioration or malfunction occurring in a powertrain
system or component directly intended to control emissions, including
but not necessarily limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
system, if equipped, the secondary air system, if equipped, and the
fuel control system, singularly resulting in exhaust emissions
exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard for HC, CO or
NOX shall also be detected.
(6) Any other deterioration or malfunction occurring in an
electronic emission-related powertrain system or component not
otherwise described above that either provides input to or receives
commands from the on-board computer, and has a measurable impact on
emissions or is used as part of the diagnostic strategy for any other
monitored system or component. Monitoring of components required by
this paragraph shall be satisfied by employing electrical circuit
continuity checks and, for computer input components, rationality
checks (input values within manufacturer specified ranges) and, for
output components, functionality checks (proper functional response to
computer commands).
For compression-ignition engines, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 above
would not apply.
Upon detection of a malfunction, the malfunction indicator light
(MIL) is to be illuminated and a fault code stored no later than the
end of the next driving cycle during which monitoring occurs provided
the malfunction is again detected. The only exception to this would be
if, upon Administrator approval, a manufacturer is allowed to use a
diagnostic strategy that employs statistical algorithms for malfunction
determination (e.g., Exponentially Weighted Moving Averages (EWMA)).
The Administrator considers such strategies beneficial for some
monitors because they reduce the danger of
[[Page 28934]]
illuminating the MIL falsely since more monitoring events are used in
making pass/fail decisions. However, the Administrator will only
approve such strategies provided the number of trips required for a
valid malfunction determination is not excessive (e.g., six or seven
monitoring events). Manufacturers are required to determine the
appropriate operating conditions for diagnostic system monitoring with
the limitation that monitoring conditions are encountered at least once
during the first engine start portion of the applicable Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) or a similar test cycle as approved by the
Administrator.
B. Similar Operating Conditions Window
Also being proposed today is a revision to the engine operating
conditions window associated with extinguishing the MIL for engine
misfire and fuel system malfunctions. Currently, the federal OBD
regulations require that, upon MIL illumination and diagnostic trouble
code storage associated with engine misfire or fuel system
malfunctions, the manufacturer is allowed to extinguish the MIL
provided the same malfunction is not again detected during three
subsequent sequential trips during which engine speed is within 375
rpm, engine load is within 10 percent, and the engine's warm-up status
is the same as that under which the malfunction was first detected, and
no new malfunctions have been detected. Today's proposed revision is to
widen the engine load parameter from the current 10 percent value to 20
percent.
C. Extension of Allowance of California OBD II
EPA is proposing to extend the existing provision allowing optional
compliance with the California OBD II requirements, excluding the
California OBD II anti-tampering provisions, as satisfying federal OBD.
This allowance will continue indefinitely, rather than being eliminated
after the 1998 model year as currently specified. EPA is also proposing
to update the version of California OBD II allowed for optional federal
OBD compliance. Rather than the currently allowed CARB Mail-Out #95-34,
the allowed version will be CARB's recently updated version contained
in Mail-Out #96-34. This version of the California OBD II regulations
contains proposed amendments to the OBD II regulations and is intended
primarily for public comment purposes. After the final version of the
revised OBD II regulations is completed, EPA will, in its final action
on this proposal, allow compliance with that revised version provided
relevant portions of that version are acceptable for federal OBD
compliance demonstration. Manufacturers choosing the California OBD II
demonstration option need not comply with portions of that regulation
pertaining to vehicles certified under the Low Emission Vehicle Program
as those standards are not federal emission standards. Additionally,
manufacturers choosing the California OBD II demonstration option need
not comply with section (b)(4.2.2) which pertains to all vehicles
regardless of emission standards. That section requires evaporative
system leak detection monitoring down to a 0.02 inch diameter orifice
and represents a level of stringency beyond that ever appropriately
considered for federal OBD compliance. Lastly, manufacturers choosing
the California OBD II demonstration option need not comply with section
(d) which contains the anti-tampering provisions of the California OBD
II regulations.
D. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD Vehicles
Today's action proposes to extend the current flexibility
provisions (i.e., ``deficiency provisions'') contained in Sec. 86.094-
17(i) indefinitely, rather than being eliminated beyond the 1998 model
year. This will allow the Administrator to accept an OBD system as
compliant even though specific requirements are not fully met. This
provision neither constitutes a waiver from federal OBD requirements,
nor does it allow compliance without meeting the minimum requirements
of the CAA (i.e., oxygen sensor monitor, catalyst monitor, and
standardization features).
E. Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles
EPA is proposing to extend the current flexibility provision for
alternate fuel vehicles through the 2004 model year. Such vehicles will
be expected to comply fully with the OBD requirements proposed today
during gasoline operation (if applicable), and during alternate fuel
operation except where it is technologically infeasible to do so. Any
manufacturer wishing to utilize this flexibility provision must
demonstrate technological infeasibility concerns to EPA well in advance
of certification application.
F. Applicability
Today's proposed revisions to federal OBD malfunction thresholds,
monitoring requirements, deficiency provisions, alternate fuel
provisions, and the recommended practices incorporated by reference
apply to all 1999 and later model year light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks for which emission standards are in place or are
subsequently developed and promulgated by EPA. Today's proposed actions
to extend the allowance of optional compliance with California OBD II
and to update the acceptable version of the California OBD II
regulation apply to 1998 and later model year vehicles.
G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference
Also being proposed is the adoption of ISO 9141-2 entitled ``Road
vehicles--Diagnostic systems--Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange
of digital information,'' as an acceptable protocol for standardized
on-board to off-board communications. This standardized procedure was
proposed in September 24, 1991 (56 FR 48272), but could not be adopted
in the February 1993 final rule because the ISO document was not yet
finalized. ISO 9141-2 has since been finalized and is incorporated by
reference in today's proposed regulatory language.
Today's action also proposes the incorporation by reference of ISO
14230-4, ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--KWP 2000 requirements for
Emission-related systems,'' as an acceptable protocol for standardized
on-board to off-board communications. This standardized procedure
contains a more up-to-date communication protocol than that contained
in ISO 9141-2. Today's action also proposes to incorporate updated
versions of the SAE procedures referenced in the current OBD
regulation. These SAE documents are J1850, J1979, J2012, J1962, J1877
and J1892.
H. Certification Provisions
The certification provisions associated with OBD, contained in
proposed section 86.099-30, will be appropriately revised to reflect
the proposed changes to the OBD malfunction thresholds and monitoring
requirements.
IV. Discussion of Issues
A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds
The OBD malfunction thresholds promulgated by EPA in 1993 are based
on emission increases above a baseline level for any particular
vehicle. In other words, any malfunction or component deterioration
should be detected prior to emissions increasing above the non-
malfunctioning and/or non-deteriorated
[[Page 28935]]
emission level by an amount equal to the given threshold. For example,
all OBD systems currently must be able to detect oxygen sensor
deterioration before it results in an exhaust emissions increase of
greater than 0.2 g/mi HC, 1.7 g/m CO, or 0.5 g/mi NOX. The
emission increase would be measured relative to the baseline level for
the vehicle. EPA interprets the baseline level to be the vehicle's
emissions under normal, properly operating conditions.
EPA is proposing to substitute this approach with an approach
consistent with that in the California OBD II regulations.
Manufacturers have argued on several occasions that EPA should continue
to allow optional compliance with California OBD II for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance with the federal OBD program. Their primary
purpose in making this argument is to avoid the need to recalibrate
their OBD systems to the unique federal OBD thresholds. EPA agrees with
that argument and can see no cost effective value in requiring
calibration to two similar but distinct sets of OBD thresholds. In
addition, EPA believes revision of its OBD thresholds is appropriate
because EPA's current thresholds, based on increases over baseline
emission levels, could result in requirements for MIL illumination even
at emission levels below the applicable standards.
Today's proposal will revise the federal OBD malfunction thresholds
such that, in general, they are based not on baseline emissions, but
rather the emission standards themselves. The proposed regulations will
require identification of misfires and malfunction of oxygen sensors
and all other powertrain systems or components directly intended to
control emissions (e.g., evaporative purge control, EGR, secondary air
system, fuel control system) when emissions exceed the specified
emission threshold, which will be set at 1.5 times the applicable
emission standard. For evaporative leak detection, as discussed in more
detail in section C, ``Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements,''
today's proposal eliminates the current 30 g/test emission threshold
and instead requires detection of any hole equivalent to or greater in
size to one with a 0.04 inch diameter. For catalyst deterioration, the
proposed threshold is an increase of 1.5 times the applicable standard
compared to emissions from a representative catalyst run for 4000
miles. This threshold is consistent with California's threshold for
detection of catalyst malfunction or deterioration. As discussed
further in section C, this proposal also would require monitoring of
emission-related powertrain components that provide information to and
receive commands from the on-board computer whose malfunction may
impact emissions or may impair the ability of the OBD system to perform
its job (e.g., throttle position sensor, coolant temperature sensor,
vehicle speed sensor, etc.). Monitoring of these components must
include, at a minimum, electrical circuit continuity checks, and
effective rationality and/or functionality checks. Deterioration or
malfunction of these components would be identified when a component
failed the circuit continuity check or the rationality and/or
functionality checks.
While EPA believes that the proposed changes to the malfunction
thresholds will not be controversial to OEMs in general, issues still
exist. The Agency is concerned that this proposal may penalize those
OEMs who have proactively set out to meet the federal OBD thresholds
ahead of the existing 1999 model year cutoff of optional California OBD
II compliance. It may also penalize those small volume manufacturers
who may not have any plans for California vehicle sales and have thus
concentrated development efforts solely on the existing federal OBD
thresholds. EPA requests comment on the significance of this issue, and
requests suggestions on how best to resolve the issue while also
satisfying the Agency's desire to harmonize the federal and California
OBD requirements.
Another issue for discussion is that of threshold stringency. In
most cases, the California OBD II thresholds are more stringent than
the current federal thresholds. However, in some cases, the current
federal OBD malfunction thresholds are actually more stringent than the
California OBD II thresholds, particularly for Tier I light-duty
trucks. In particular, the current federal OBD thresholds can in some
cases require OBD detection and MIL illumination for malfunctions in
systems and components specifically used for emission control (e.g.,
EGR, evaporative purge, secondary air) even though vehicle emissions
may be below the emission standards. This, by definition, is lower than
requiring MIL illumination at 1.5 times the standard. Given that
vehicles are required to meet emission standards, it can be argued that
manufacturers should not be required to illuminate the MIL when
emissions are below those standards. EPA is sympathetic to the consumer
and the potential for seeking repair of systems or components used
specifically for emission control when no direct emission standards are
being violated. It should be noted that the revised malfunction
thresholds will effectively be no different, and in some cases will be
more stringent, for the major emission control component monitors
(i.e., catalyst, oxygen sensor, and engine misfire).
EPA is interested in any comments surrounding this issue and the
significance of its concern. Since the majority of the OEM industry has
repeatedly requested that EPA continue allowing optional compliance
with California OBD II as satisfying federal OBD, and this proposed
change results in federal OBD thresholds consistent with those
contained in the California OBD II requirements, EPA believes that the
proposed change to federal OBD malfunction thresholds should be
satisfactory and noncontroversial to those OEMs. In addition, EPA
believes that these revisions are consistent with the requirements of
CAA Section 202(m) and are technologically feasible.
B. Similar Operating Conditions Window
Another provision proposed today is to widen the engine load range
defining the similar operating conditions window. The proposal is to
widen that range from the current 10 percent value to 20 percent. This
window is used to determine when operating conditions for fuel system
and misfire malfunctions are again within the same operating window to
determine whether or not a previously detected malfunction is still
present. This window is used because malfunctions in the fuel control
system and those associated with engine misfire tend to happen at
specific operating conditions, rather than occurring during all modes
of operation. As a result, when a fuel system or misfire malfunction is
detected, the operating conditions window is stored in memory. During a
subsequent trip where operating conditions again enter that similar
conditions window, the presence of a malfunction will result in MIL
illumination. If, after three trips where similar operating conditions
are again encountered without the malfunction recurring, the MIL can be
extinguished provided no other MIL illuminating malfunction has been
detected.
This similar operating conditions window is being widened due to
difficulties in entering the current 10 percent window during
subsequent trips. This can result in an inability to extinguish a MIL
for a malfunction that is no longer occurring. For example, if a
cylinder misfires on a four cylinder car due to water in the gasoline,
then it will likely be very difficult to extinguish
[[Page 28936]]
the MIL after refilling with better gasoline because the engine load
characteristics at any given RPM will be very different while again
running consistently on all four cylinders.
The result of this proposed change is an increased latitude in
entering the wider similar conditions window on subsequent trips
resulting in a greater likelihood of extinguishing the MIL for
malfunctions that are no longer occurring. This proposed change will
not make it easier for the manufacturer to extinguish the MIL for
malfunctions that are still occurring, nor will it make it less likely
that the malfunction will be appropriately identified and flagged. For
these reasons, EPA knows of no issues surrounding this proposed change,
but is open to any comments.
C. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements
The federal OBD requirements contained in 40 CFR 86.094-17 require
that the OBD system monitor proper functionality of the catalyst and
oxygen sensor, and monitor and detect engine misfire (including
identification of the particular misfiring cylinder(s)) and detect
electrical disconnection of the evaporative purge control and any
emission-related powertrain component or system which directly or
indirectly sends information to or receives information from the
vehicle's computer. Implied in those requirements is that any
functional deterioration or malfunction of an emission-related
powertrain component other than the catalyst, the oxygen sensor, or an
engine misfire related component not causing exceedance of the
malfunction thresholds does not require detection. The philosophy of
the original federal OBD program was that those emission-related
powertrain components unlikely to malfunction or unlikely to
malfunction in a way so as to increase emissions above the malfunction
thresholds need not be monitored for anything more than electrical
circuit continuity (i.e., functionality and rationality checks need not
be done).2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A rationality check is a diagnostic strategy whereby the on-
board computer analyzes the electronic signal sent by a sensor and
compares that to a known range of appropriate values. For example, a
coolant temperature sensor reading 70 degrees F after 10 minutes of
vehicle operation is not providing rational information to the on-
board computer because coolant temperature should be much higher
after 10 minutes of operation. Therefore, the system should be
identified as malfunctioning. A functionality check is a diagnostic
strategy whereby the on-board computer analyzes the functional
response of a component after first sending a functional command to
that component. If the desired functional response does not occur,
the component should be identified as malfunctioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, the malfunction detection threshold placed on evaporative
leak detection is currently 30 g/test. Because of advancements made to
evaporative emission control systems, this threshold is proving to be
insufficiently stringent, and provides little incentive to place an
evaporative system leak detection monitor on the vehicle or prevent
leaks from occurring because even relatively large leaks can sometimes
emit fewer vapors than 30 grams during a diurnal test.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ While below 30 grams, the vapors emitted should by no means
be considered insignificant. See EPA's rulemaking decision on the
enhanced evaporative emission control system for more information on
the significance of evaporative emissions on urban air quality (58
FR 16002, March 24, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With today's proposal, the federal OBD program adopts the
philosophy originally built into the California OBD II program, in that
all emission-related powertrain components must be monitored. The
proposed regulation would require that all powertrain components
specifically intended to control emissions (e.g., evaporative purge
control, EGR, secondary air system, fuel control system) be monitored.
This proposal also would require monitoring of all other emission-
related powertrain components that provide information to and receive
commands from the on-board computer whose malfunction may impact
emissions or may impair the ability of the OBD system to perform its
job (e.g., throttle position sensor, coolant temperature sensor,
vehicle speed sensor, etc.). Monitoring of these components must
include, at a minimum, electrical circuit continuity checks, and
effective rationality and/or functionality checks.
The primary OBD monitoring system impacted by this proposed change
is the evaporative system leak detection monitor. The proposed
regulations require an evaporative leak detection monitor while,
originally, the Agency intended the federal OBD requirement to allow
for certification without the evaporative leak detection monitor
provided both the manufacturer and EPA were confident that the design
of the evaporative emission control system was robust enough so as not
to fail during in-use operation. However, only one major manufacturer
has taken advantage of this allowance, and even that manufacturer has
used this allowance on only a portion of their production fleet. All
other major manufacturers have apparently decided that they do not have
sufficient confidence in their evaporative emission control system to
warrant removing the monitor, or they have decided that it is more cost
effective to implement the monitor on federally certified vehicles
rather than to recalibrate those vehicles for sale without it.
Additionally, many state I/M representatives have expressed concerns
with the current federal OBD allowance for certification without an
evaporative leak detection monitor. These representatives are eager for
widespread OBD implementation such that their I/M programs can rely on
OBD checks as replacement for emission tailpipe and/or evaporative
tests. They are concerned about their ability to rely solely on the OBD
system for I/M purposes given the future potential that more
manufacturers will sell vehicles without the OBD evaporative leak
detection monitor. Should more manufacturers make use of that current
federal OBD allowance, and without some form of I/M evaporative system
test, they will be left without any kind of evaporative system
evaluation.
The Agency has altered its OBD philosophy, in part, as an effort to
enhance the role of OBD in future I/M programs. Like the state
representatives referred to above, the Agency also hopes that current
emission test based I/M programs can be replaced with a much less time
consuming and more cost efficient check of the OBD system. However,
without monitors on all emission-related components, particularly the
evaporative system leak detection monitor, the OBD-only based I/M
program is not as likely to occur due to its potential for more limited
evaluation of the vehicle.
Further, the Agency believes that mandating these monitors will not
adversely affect the federal OBD program nor will it pose undue burden
on the OEMs. In fact, under the federal OBD rulemaking in February
1993, though EPA did not mandate all the monitors mentioned, the
manufacturer was still held responsible for any adverse affects that
those systems, if malfunctioning, could potentially cause.
Additionally, the Agency fully believes that the feasibility of
expanded monitoring requirements is well established as argued in the
recent California OBD II waiver decision (61 FR 53371, October 11,
1996). Further, many OEMs have already certified to federal OBD by
demonstrating compliance with California OBD II requirements. Lastly,
many OEMs have indicated their willingness to participate in the
National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program, which includes California
OBD II
[[Page 28937]]
monitoring requirements. This suggests that expanded monitoring
requirements as proposed today are fully acceptable to at least the
majority of the OEM industry. For these reasons, today's proposed
change is not expected to result in any increased costs associated with
the federal OBD program over original estimates.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The original cost estimate outlined in 58 FR 9468, February
19, 1993, included the costs associated with evaporative leak
detection monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency does have some concerns regarding this issue, similar to
the concerns expressed in Section IV(A). The expansion of mandatory
monitors may penalize those OEMs who have proactively set out to design
a federal OBD system ahead of the 1999 model year cutoff of optional
California OBD II compliance. It may also penalize those small volume
manufacturers who may not have any plans for California vehicle sales
and have thus concentrated development efforts solely on a federal OBD
system. However, the Agency also has concerns over the effectiveness of
an OBD based I/M program without having OBD monitoring of essentially
the entire emission control system.
The Agency requests comment on today's proposed expansion of
mandatory monitors under the federal OBD program. Of particular
interest are comments from those manufacturers that have concentrated
on designing a unique federal OBD system due to the more limited
mandatory monitoring requirements. The Agency will consider the
possibility of providing a two year phase-in period in the form of a
carry-over allowance for compliance with the proposed federal OBD
revisions; any phase-in period will apply only to those vehicles
certified to the unique federal OBD requirements in the 1998 model
year. Also of interest are comments from state Inspection and
Maintenance program officials regarding their concern over the
potential that, without the revisions proposed, federal OBD systems
will not have all of the monitors currently required in the California
OBD II program.
D. Extension of Allowance of California OBD II
Today's action proposes to extend indefinitely the allowance for
manufacturers to comply with federal OBD requirements by optionally
complying with California OBD II. The allowance for optional compliance
with California OBD II has already been established in the federal OBD
program and was incorporated into the federal OBD final rulemaking in
February 1993 [58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993]. However, in that final
rulemaking, and in an August 1996 final rule [61 FR 45898, August 30,
1996], the Agency provided that allowance only through the 1998 model
year.
Additionally, today's proposed action seeks to update the version
of the California OBD II regulation that is applicable for federal OBD
compliance beginning with the 1998 model year. This action is similar
to an action taken in the August 1996 final rule that updated the
applicable version of the California OBD II regulation. However, since
that time, CARB has again made several revisions to the California OBD
II regulations, some of which apply to federal Tier I type vehicles.
These revisions provide some relief from earlier versions of OBD II,
but they are relatively minor and do not affect the overall soundness
of the OBD II program.
Both of these changes, updating the applicable version of the OBD
II regulations and extending indefinitely the allowance of California
OBD II for federal OBD compliance, are being proposed for the sake of
harmonization of OBD related requirements between California and EPA.
Most of the original equipment industry has repeatedly requested that
EPA continue to accept the California OBD II regulations so as to avoid
the need for major vehicle recalibrations as part of complying with the
similar but distinct federal OBD requirements. Further, all 1998 and
beyond model year California OBD II vehicles will be designed and
certified according to the recently revised OBD II regulation, rather
than the 1995 version. As a result, EPA must update the applicable
version of the OBD II regulation to which compliance can be shown for
federal OBD purposes.
As a result of this proposed action, any federal vehicles complying
with federal OBD by optionally complying with California OBD II are
allowed the same deficiencies as allowed under the California OBD II
provisions. Note, however, that a manufacturer requesting certification
of a deficient California OBD II system must receive EPA acceptance of
any deficiency independently of an acceptance made by CARB. The Agency
will use the same criteria specified by CARB in their OBD II
regulation. (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.) Except that EPA will not
provide deficiency allowances for lack of catalyst monitors or oxygen
sensor monitors because the Clean Air Act specifically requires these
monitors no later than the 1996 model year. Moreover, EPA will grant
such deficiencies based upon the same premise expressed in section
IV(E) with regard to granting deficiencies for federal OBD vehicles.
The Agency will make every effort to determine the acceptability of
California OBD II deficiency requests in concert with CARB 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.
E. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD Vehicles
Despite the best efforts of manufacturers, many have needed to
certify vehicles with some sort of deficiency when unanticipated
problems have arisen that could not be remedied in time to meet
production schedules. Given the relative newness and, most importantly,
the 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. Furthermore, this difficulty appears likely to
continue indefinitely. The Agency believes that 100 percent compliance
can be achieved, but 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. Though EPA will accept minor deficiencies, EPA will not
accept any deficiency requests that include the complete lack of a
required diagnostic monitor, with the possible exception of the special
provisions being proposed today for alternate fueled vehicles. In fact,
EPA expects to implement this deficiency allowance primarily for
software or calibration type problems, as opposed to cases where
hardware is at fault. This is EPA's expectation due to a belief that,
despite unintended and unforseen software problems occurring on these
complicated computer controlled systems, manufacturers
[[Page 28938]]
should have functioning OBD hardware in place, especially now that OBD
regulations have been in existence for several years. 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 are
intended to prevent a manufacturer from using the deficiency allowance
as a means to avoid compliance or delay implementation of any OBD
monitors or to compromise the overall effectiveness of the OBD program.
The Agency proposes that the ``deficiency'' allowance be provided
indefinitely, and requests comment on concerns surrounding this
proposal.
F. Diagnostic Readiness Codes
Because of the considerable confusion regarding the setting and
clearing of diagnostic readiness codes, or I/M readiness codes, this
section serves to provide EPA's interpretation of its regulations on
these codes. The original OBD final rulemaking of February 1993,
required that, absent the presence of any fault codes, separate status
codes shall be used to identify correctly functioning emission control
systems and those systems which need further vehicle operation to be
fully evaluated. The purpose behind the readiness code is to allow an
inspection and maintenance (I/M) official to determine whether or not a
vehicle has undergone sufficient operation to allow the OBD system to
fully evaluate the emission control system. This way, the I/M official
could be certain that the lack of OBD diagnostic trouble codes could be
interpreted to mean that the vehicle was operating cleanly, rather than
perhaps being an indication that the OBD system simply had not had time
to fully evaluate the vehicle.
Many manufacturers have had difficulty interpreting exactly what
was expected via this requirement. Some manufacturers have interpreted
the requirement to mean that with every ``key-on,'' the readiness codes
should be set to ``not ready'' status. However, such an approach
effectively defeats the purpose behind the readiness code since any
vehicle having been turned off while waiting for the I/M inspection
would subsequently be interpreted as ``not ready'' for I/M inspection.
Therefore, to clarify, the readiness code, for those monitors
having associated readiness codes, should be set to ``ready'' status
only after sufficient vehicle operation such that the monitor has been
properly exercised and a valid determination can be made as to the
component's or system's operational status. Generally, this equates to
two driving cycles, where driving cycle is defined as vehicle operation
during which a particular monitor is exercised. Note that a driving
cycle may be different for different monitors, and not all monitors
have associated readiness codes. For example, continuously operating
monitors are considered ``ready'' since they operate continuously
rather than during only limited operating conditions; therefore, such
monitors may not have an associated readiness code.
The readiness codes should never be set to ``not ready'' status by
any means other than intentional resetting via a scan tool or perhaps
due to battery power interruption. Further, when setting a readiness
code to ``not ready'' status using a scan tool (after conducting any
necessary repairs), all readiness codes should be set to ``not ready''
rather than resetting only the readiness code associated with the
repaired component. In other words, readiness codes should be set to
``not ready'' status as a group rather than individually. This will
serve to ensure adequate vehicle operation and OBD system evaluation
following vehicle repairs and prior to subsequent I/M inspections.
G. EPA Recall Policy
Because the Agency has received numerous questions regarding its
recall policy relative to OBD, this section serves to clarify the
issue. Under the federal OBD program, a decision to recall the OBD
system for recalibration or repair, or a replacement of a
malfunctioning component, will depend on factors including, but not
limited to, the level of emissions above applicable standards, whether
the defect is uniform over the entire engine family or limited to a
sub-class of the engine family, or the presence of any identifiable
faulty or deteriorated components which affect emissions with no MIL
illumination.
In the case of an OBD system failing to identify an infrequent
component failure, the OBD system, not the component, would be the
subject of the recall and that recall would occur only if the
determination were made that the ``failure to identify'' would occur on
a substantial number of vehicles of the same general OBD design and/or
monitoring strategy. Therefore, in the Agency's opinion, if evidence
supports that an identical malfunction could occur with sufficient
probability without being flagged by a similar OBD system design and/or
monitoring strategy, that OBD system design is inadequate and has
failed or would fail to detect that malfunction. Such a determination
would provide little confidence in that OBD monitor or strategy to
properly monitor during in-use operation, and, therefore, it should be
recalled.
H. Extension of Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles
In a direct final rulemaking published March 23, 1995 (60 FR
15242), EPA made an allowance for alternate fueled vehicles to comply
with federal OBD requirements to the extent feasible through the 1998
model year, without being required to include monitoring strategies for
which the effects of alternate fuels are of technological concern.
Beginning with the 1999 model year, full compliance with all federal
OBD requirements would be expected. This one to two year delay in full
OBD implementation was provided because industry argued they had not
had sufficient lead time to properly assess the effects of alternate
fuels on OBD monitoring strategies. As a result, there was considerable
concern within industry and EPA regarding whether monitoring strategies
for alternate fueled vehicles could be developed within the available
time. Thus, the OBD requirements were presenting a roadblock to
development of alternate fueled vehicles. The delay allowed
manufacturers more lead time to design and develop OBD strategies
suited for alternate fuels, and thus allowed greater production of
alternate fueled vehicles.
All of these arguments for additional lead time still exist at this
time. Many technological aspects of alternate fueled vehicles that
provide environmental benefits also cause problems in terms of OBD
monitoring strategies. The uncertainty involved with alternate fueled
vehicles is a result of their unknown effects on emission components,
and the variability of deterioration characteristics of monitors and
sensors with which the fuels come into contact. The technology-forcing
nature of OBD regulations has required industry to concentrate almost
exclusively on developing new OBD strategies for gasoline vehicles and
making improvements to existing strategies. Additional lead time,
beyond that mentioned above, would provide the opportunity for more
data collection from in-use alternate fueled vehicles to evaluate the
unique effects of these fuels on emission control system components
[[Page 28939]]
and the corresponding OBD system monitors.
EPA recently contracted SouthWest Research Institute to study the
technological feasibility and lead time issues associated with OBD
systems and alternate fueled vehicles. The study (On-Board
Diagnostics--Second Generation (OBD-II) System Criteria for Alternate-
Fueled Vehicles, Final Report, Melvin N. Ingalls, Sep. 1996) (EPA Air
Docket A-96-32, I-A-01) supports EPA's independent analyses that the
manufacturers of alternate fueled vehicles still face considerable
challenges in incorporating fully functional OBD systems into the
design of these vehicles. The report concluded, as stated in the
Executive Summary, ``Aftermarket conversions (the majority of gaseous
fuel vehicles are conversions) have a particularly great need for
further OBD system development. The CNG and LPG industry press
(magazines, newsletters, and the like) identify OBD-II as the biggest
problem facing vehicle conversion companies.''
Therefore, EPA is proposing to extend the existing provision for
alternate fueled vehicles to allow additional lead time for full
compliance with federal OBD through the 2004 model year with full
compliance required in the 2005 model year. The additional OBD
development time will allow manufacturers (both OEM and converters) to
evaluate the effects of alternate fuels on emission control system
performance and thus ensure that OBD diagnostic strategies will be
reliable in-use. EPA believes that EPA certified alternate fueled
vehicles can provide environmental benefits relative to gasoline
vehicles, and EPA is committed to seeing larger volumes of EPA
certified alternate fueled vehicles produced and sold. Note that this
flexibility is intended to apply only during operation on an alternate
fuel and even then the flexibility applies only to the extent
manufacturers can show that diagnostic strategies for alternate fuel
operation are technologically infeasible. Manufacturers will be
required to implement monitoring strategies to the extent feasible, but
will not be required to include monitoring strategies the reliability
of which are still doubtful for alternate fuel operation. To further
clarify, EPA will expect that vehicles designed for use on more than
one fuel (i.e., flexible fuel vehicles) have fully operating OBD
systems upon initial sale. Should a non-gasoline fuel then be
introduced, the monitors affected by the alternate fuel could be
deactivated to the extent the manufacturer can show that reliable
diagnostic strategies are infeasible. Therefore, if the vehicle is not
fueled by an alternate fuel, the OBD system will be fully functioning.
Authority for this proposal exists under section 202(m)(1)(A). That
section clearly states that OBD systems be required that can accurately
identify emission-related system deterioration or malfunction. While
gasoline technologies have been developed that can accurately detect
such problems, EPA does not believe that sufficient evidence has been
demonstrated at this time showing that OBD systems will perform
accurately while operating on alternate fuels. To the extent such
evidence becomes available prior to model year 2005, or to the extent
technological infeasibility cannot be demonstrated, manufacturers will
be less able to use these flexibility provisions.
I. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference
The Agency is not aware of any potential issues surrounding the
inclusion of either ISO 9141-2, or ISO 14230-4 into the federal OBD
regulations, or updating the SAE Recommended Practices already
incorporated by reference. ISO 9141-2 and ISO 14230-4 are similar in
nature to SAE J1850, which outlines standardized means of on-board to
off-board computer communications. The details of all the materials
proposed for Incorporation by Reference are contained in 40 CFR 86.1
and 86.099-17 (h). Nonetheless, the Agency is open to any comments
regarding the materials proposed today for incorporation by reference.
V. Cost Effectiveness
This proposed rulemaking alters an existing provision by revising
the current federal OBD malfunction thresholds. These revisions will
result in essentially equivalent stringency for the major emission
control system monitors, while slightly relaxing stringency in certain
cases for some more minor emission control system monitors. Because
most of industry has requested that EPA harmonize emission thresholds
with the California OBD II thresholds as a means to minimize resource
requirements, EPA believes that today's proposal will provide cost
savings to those OEMs certifying solely to the California OBD II
thresholds by eliminating the need to incur significant recalibration
costs and efforts for the 1999 model year.
However, EPA is aware that some OEMs, particularly extremely small
volume import manufacturers, may have concentrated their efforts on the
unique federal OBD malfunction thresholds. EPA believes that the
primary cost imposed on these particular OEMs associated with today's
proposal would be for the mandatory evaporative system leak detection
monitoring. These systems have been estimated by EPA to cost $18 per
vehicle (58 FR 9483). The Agency believes that mandating the
evaporative system leak detection monitor would not increase the cost
of the federal OBD program. The cost of this monitor was taken into
consideration in the original federal OBD regulations (58 FR 9468) even
though this monitor was originally optional. Additionally, these
extremely small volume import manufacturers will be required to
reevaluate their OBD calibrations since they are set for compliance
with the current federal OBD thresholds and would require potential
rework to comply with the thresholds proposed today. Because this
recalibration effort could be resource intensive, EPA requests comments
on the level of burden and potential means of resolving this concern
should it be warranted based on the burden imposed.
The automotive aftermarket industry is likely to argue that the
provisions of today's proposal will impose heavy economic burdens on
that industry. The automotive aftermarket has made claims of heavy
economic burdens during development of the California OBD II
regulations and the ensuing waiver process during which California
requested a waiver from federal preemption for the purpose of enforcing
their unique OBD program. In response to today's proposed revisions,
the aftermarket may argue that excessive costs will be incurred because
the anti-tampering measures required under the California OBD II
regulations will present more difficulty for the automotive aftermarket
in carrying out their business of reverse engineering original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts and designing replacement or
specialty parts. However, EPA is not including CARB's anti-tampering
provisions in its incorporation of California's regulations. Failure to
incorporate these provisions still allows OEMs to voluntarily implement
anti-tampering measures, but such is also the case under federal OBD.
Moreover, CARB has eliminated the anti-tampering provisions considered
most egregious by the aftermarket.5 Therefore, EPA believes
that the provisions of this proposed rulemaking are not
[[Page 28940]]
responsible for any potential increased costs on the automotive
aftermarket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CARB Mail-Out #96-34, proposed amendments to the California
Code of Regulations section 1968.1, paragraph (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs and emission reductions associated with the federal OBD
program were developed for the February 19, 1993, final rulemaking. The
changes being proposed today do not affect the costs or emission
reductions published as part of that rulemaking, with the possible
exception of decreasing costs for larger volume manufacturers.
VI. Public Participation
A. Summary of Specific Comments Requested by EPA
This section serves only to highlight the issues upon which EPA
specifically requests public comment. This section does not preclude in
any way the submittal of comments not requested here. Furthermore, this
section does not provide details on the proposed requirements, nor
potential issues surrounding those proposals; such detail can be found
in sections III and IV, above.
1. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds
As discussed in section IV.A., the Agency is proposing changes to
the current federal OBD malfunction thresholds. The Agency requests
comment regarding the impact of these proposed changes on those
manufacturers having proactively set out to meet the current federal
OBD thresholds ahead of the 1999 model year. The Agency also requests
comment regarding the impact of the proposed changes on small volume
manufacturer who may not have any plans for California vehicle sales
and have thus concentrated development efforts solely on the existing
federal OBD thresholds. Furthermore, realizing that EPA has requested
comment on the appropriateness of a two year grace period for those
manufacturers having certified to the current EPA thresholds in the
1998 model year, EPA requests comment on how best to resolve the issue
while also satisfying the Agency's desire to harmonize the federal and
California OBD requirements.
The Agency is also requesting comment on the stringency of the
proposed thresholds given that thresholds for some monitors will be
relaxed somewhat, while others will become more stringent.
2. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements
The Agency requests comment on today's proposed expansion of
mandatory monitors under the federal OBD program. Of particular
interest are comments from those manufacturers that have concentrated
on designing a unique federal OBD system due to the more limited
mandatory monitoring requirements.
Also of interest are comments from state Inspection and Maintenance
program officials regarding their concern over the potential for OBD
systems on vehicles that do not have all of the monitors currently
required in the Californian OBD II program.
3. Extension of Allowance of OBD Deficiencies for Federal OBD Vehicles
As discussed in section IV.D., the Agency is proposing to
indefinitely extend the current ``deficiency'' provisions of the
federal OBD program. The Agency believes that this is a reasonable
proposal given the intricate nature of OBD systems and the likelihood
that minor software glitches will occur. Comment is requested on
concerns regarding this proposal.
4. Extension of Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles
The Agency is proposing that special OBD flexibilities be afforded
to alternate fueled vehicle. Comments are specifically requested on the
need for such flexibility, and the need for that flexibility to extend
through the 2004 model year as opposed to a nearer term model year.
Comments are also requested regarding EPA's expectation that bi-fuel
alternate fuel vehicles (i.e., those vehicles with one fuel delivery
system capable of operation on two different fuels or any combination
of those fuels) and dual-fuel alternate fuel vehicles (i.e., those
vehicles with two separate fuel delivery systems) have fully compliant
OBD systems during gasoline operation.
5. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference
As discussed in section IV.H., the Agency is proposing to
Incorporate by Reference a series of standardized SAE and ISO
procedures. The Agency is not aware of any issues surrounding the
proposed Incorporation by Reference, but is open to any comments
regarding this issue.
6. Cost Effectiveness
As discussed in section V, EPA is aware that some OEMs,
particularly extremely small volume import manufacturers, have
concentrated their efforts on the unique federal OBD malfunction
thresholds. Because the proposed changes may require recalibration
efforts, and those efforts could be resource intensive, EPA requests
comments on the level of burden and potential means of resolving this
concern should it be warranted based on the burden imposed.
B. Comments and the Public Docket
EPA welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking.
Commenters are especially encouraged to give suggestions for changing
any aspects of the proposal. All comments, with the exception of
proprietary information should be addressed to the EPA Air Docket
Section, Docket No. A-96-32 (see ADDRESSES).
Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly separate such information from other
comments by (1) labeling proprietary information ``Confidential
Business Information'' and (2) sending proprietary information directly
to the contact person listed (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and
not to the public docket. This will help insure that proprietary
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter
wants EPA to use a submission labeled as confidential business
information as part of the basis for the final rule, then a
nonconfidential version of the document, which summarizes the key data
or information, should be sent to the docket.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed
by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40
CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission
when it is received by EPA, the submission may be made available to the
public without notifying the commenters.
C. Public Hearing
Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the
public hearing (see DATES) should, if possible, notify the contact
person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least seven days prior
to the day of the hearing. The contact person should be given an
estimate of the time required for the presentation of testimony and
notification of any need for audio/visual equipment. Testimony will be
scheduled on a first come, first serve basis. A sign-up sheet will be
available at the registration table the morning of the hearing for
scheduling those who have not notified the contact earlier. This
testimony will be scheduled on a first come, first serve basis to
follow the previously scheduled testimony.
EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or
material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to
the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an
advanced copy of any
[[Page 28941]]
statement or material to be presented at the hearing at least one week
before the scheduled hearing date. This is to give EPA staff adequate
time to review such material before the hearing. Such advanced copies
should be submitted to the contact person listed.
The official records of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days
following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary
testimony. All such submittals should be directed to the Air Docket
Section, Docket No. A-96-32 (see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be
conducted informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. A
written transcript of the hearing will be placed in the above docket
for review. Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of the transcript should
make individual arrangements with the court reporter recording the
proceedings.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 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:
(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
Today's action does not impose any new information collection
burden. The modifications proposed above do 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). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in 40 CFR 86.084-17 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0104 (EPA ICR No. 783.35).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Copies of the ICR document(s) may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,
Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M St., SW. (mail code 2136);
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. Include the ICR and/
or OMB number in any correspondence.
C. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies when
proposing a rule, to identify potentially adverse impacts of federal
regulations upon small entities. In instances where significant impacts
are possible on a substantial number of these entities, agencies are
required to develop a proposed Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this proposed rule. This rule
will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses. This rulemaking will provide regulatory
relief to both large and small volume automobile manufacturers by
maintaining consistency with California OBD II requirements. It will
not have a substantial impact on such entities. This rulemaking will
not have a significant impact on businesses that manufacture, rebuild,
distribute, or sell automotive parts, nor those involved in automotive
service and repair, as the revisions affect only requirements on
automobile manufacturers.
In the absence of the proposed rule, the expiration of the
Sec. 86.094-17(j) provision allowing optional demonstration of
compliance with California OBD II requirements to suffice for EPA
certification purposes, would necessitate full vehicle manufacturer
compliance with the current federal OBD requirements at Sec. 86.094-
17(a) through (h), beginning with the 1999 model year. Manufacturers
have thus far chosen to reduce their costs by producing vehicle OBD
systems to California specifications, thereby avoiding the necessity of
developing significantly different OBD calibrations meeting the
existing federal specifications, for the non-California market. Because
the proposed rule modifies federal requirements to capture many
benefits of the California option, EPA believes that it reduces
manufacturer costs over a no-action baseline for 1999 and later model
years.
Further, figures provided by the U.S. Departments of Labor and
Commerce show the estimated cost of vehicle changes to meet 1996 model
year OBD II requirements to be less than 1% of total vehicle cost.
Because these changes already incorporate increased monitoring that is
required to meet California OBD II requirements and is also required by
the proposed rule, the rule is not expected to significantly increase
OBD system cost beyond the estimate given.
Therefore, the Administrator certifies that this regulation does
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, or $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the action proposed today would not include
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, Local, or tribal
[[Page 28942]]
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference,
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 14, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 86 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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 revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 86.1 is amended by adding the following entries in
numerical order to the table in paragraph (b)(2) and by adding
paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1 Reference materials.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 86
Document No. and name reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
SAE J 1850 July 1995, Class B Data Communication Network
Interface.............................................. 86.099-17
SAE J1877 October 1993, Recommended Practice for Bar-
Coded Vehicle Identification Number Label.............. 86.095-35
SAE J1892 July 1994, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded
Vehicle Emission Configuration Label................... 86.095-35
SAE J1962 January 1995, Diagnostic Connector............ 86.099-17
SAE J1979 E/E July 1996, Diagnostic Test Modes.......... 86.099-17
SAE J2012 July 1996, Recommended Format and messages for
Diagnostic Trouble Code Definitions, Part C............ 86.099-17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(5) ISO material. The following table sets forth material from the
International Organization of Standardization that has been
incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name
of the material. The second column lists the section(s) of this part,
other than Sec. 86.1, in which the matter is referenced. The second
column is presented for information only and may not be all inclusive.
Copies of these materials may be obtained from the International
Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR part 86
Document No. and name reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO 9141-2 February 1994, Road vehicles--Diagnostic
systems Part 2......................................... 86.099-17
ISO 14230-4 April 1996, Road vehicles--Diagnostic
systems................................................ 86.099-17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A--[Amended]
Sec. 86.094-21 [Amended]
3. Section 86.094-21 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(i).
4. Section 86.094-38 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through
(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.094-38 Maintenance instructions.
(a) through (f) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.087-38.
* * * * *
5. Section 86.095-35 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.095-35 Labeling.
* * * * *
(i) All light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall comply with
SAE Recommended Practices J1877 ``Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded
Vehicle Identification Number Label,'' (October 1993), and J1892
``Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded Vehicle Emission Configuration
Label,'' (July 1994). SAE J1877 and J1892 are incorporated by reference
(see Sec. 86.1).
6. Section 86.098-17 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)
through (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.098-17 Emission control diagnostic system for 1998 and later
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
* * * * *
(b)(2) through (i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-17.
(j) Demonstration of compliance with California OBD II requirements
(Title 13 California Code Sec. 1968.1), as modified pursuant to
California Mail Out #96-34 (October 25, 1996), shall satisfy the
requirements of this section, except that compliance with Title 13
California Code Secs. 1968.1(b) (4.2.2), pertaining to evaporative leak
detection, and 1968.1(d), pertaining to tampering protection, are not
required to satisfy the requirements of this section.
7. A new Sec. 86.099-17 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.099-17 Emission control diagnostic system for 1999 and later
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
(a) All light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall be equipped
with an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system capable of monitoring, for
each vehicle's useful life, all emission related powertrain systems or
components. All systems and components required to be monitored by this
section shall be evaluated periodically, but no less frequently than
once per Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule as defined in paragraph (a)
of Appendix I of this part, or similar trip as approved by the
Administrator.
(b) Malfunction descriptions. The OBD system shall detect and
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain
systems or components according to the following malfunction
definitions as measured and calculated in accordance with test
procedures set forth in subpart B of this part. Paragraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(3) of this section do not apply to diesel cycle light-duty vehicles
or light-duty trucks.
(1) Catalyst deterioration or malfunction before it results in an
increase in HC emissions 1.5 times the HC standard, as compared to the
HC emission level measured using a representative 4000 mile catalyst
system.
(2) Engine misfire resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5
times the applicable standard for HC, CO or NOX; and any
misfire capable of damaging the catalytic converter.
(3) Oxygen sensor deterioration or malfunction resulting in exhaust
emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standard for HC, CO or
NOX.
(4) Any vapor leak in the evaporative and/or refueling system
(excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve and the
intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused by
a 0.040 inch diameter orifice; and the absence of evaporative purge air
flow from the complete evaporative emission control system.
(5) Any deterioration or malfunction occurring in a powertrain
system or component directly intended to control emissions, including
but not necessarily limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
system, if equipped, the secondary air system, if equipped, and the
fuel control system, singularly resulting in exhaust emissions
exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard for HC, CO or
NOX.
(6) Any other deterioration or malfunction occurring in an
electronic
[[Page 28943]]
emission-related powertrain system or component not otherwise described
above that either provides input to or receives commands from the on-
board computer and has a measurable impact on emissions; monitoring of
components required by this paragraph shall be satisfied by employing
electrical circuit continuity checks and, for computer input
components, rationality checks (input values within manufacturer
specified ranges) and, for output components, functionality checks
(proper functional response to computer commands); malfunctions are
defined as a failure of the system or component to meet the electrical
circuit continuity checks or the rationality or functionality checks.
(7) Oxygen sensor or any other component deterioration or
malfunction which renders that sensor or component incapable of
performing its function as part of the OBD system shall be detected and
identified on vehicles so equipped.
(c) Malfunction indicator light. The OBD system shall incorporate a
malfunction indicator light (MIL) readily visible to the vehicle
operator. When illuminated, it shall display ``Check Engine,''
``Service Engine Soon,'' or a similar phrase or symbol approved by the
Administrator. A vehicle shall not be equipped with more than one
general purpose malfunction indicator light for emission-related
problems; separate specific purpose warning lights (e.g. brake system,
fasten seat belt, oil pressure, etc.) are permitted. The use of red for
the OBD-related malfunction indicator light is prohibited.
(d) MIL illumination. The MIL shall illuminate and remain
illuminated when any of the conditions specified in paragraph (b) of
this section are detected and verified, or whenever the engine control
enters a default or secondary mode of operation considered abnormal for
the given engine operating conditions. The MIL shall blink once per
second under any period of operation during which engine misfire is
occurring and catalyst damage is imminent. After no more than two such
misfire detections, the MIL shall maintain a steady illumination when
the misfire is not occurring and shall remain illuminated until the MIL
extinguishing criteria of this section are satisfied. The MIL shall
also illuminate when the vehicle's ignition is in the ``key-on''
position before engine starting or cranking and extinguish after engine
starting if no malfunction has previously been detected. If a fuel
system or engine misfire malfunction has previously been detected, the
MIL may be extinguished if the malfunction does not reoccur during
three subsequent sequential trips during which engine speed is within
375 rpm, engine load is within 20 percent, and the engine's warm-up
status is the same as that under which the malfunction was first
detected, and no new malfunctions have been detected. If any
malfunction other than a fuel system or engine misfire malfunction has
been detected, the MIL may be extinguished if the malfunction does not
reoccur during three subsequent sequential trips during which the
monitoring system responsible for illuminating the MIL functions
without detecting the malfunction, and no new malfunctions have been
detected. Upon Administrator approval, statistical MIL illumination
protocols may be employed, provided they result in comparable
timeliness in detecting a malfunction and evaluating system
performance, i.e., three to six monitoring events would be considered
acceptable.
(e) Storing of computer codes. The emission control diagnostic
system shall record and store in computer memory diagnostic trouble
codes and diagnostic readiness codes indicating the status of the
emission control system. These codes shall be available through the
standardized data link connector per SAE J1979 specifications as
referenced in paragraph (h) of this section.
(1) A diagnostic trouble code shall be stored for any detected and
verified malfunction causing MIL illumination. The stored diagnostic
trouble code shall identify the malfunctioning system or component as
uniquely as possible. At the manufacturer's discretion, a diagnostic
trouble code may be stored for conditions not causing MIL illumination.
Regardless, a separate code should be stored indicating the expected
MIL illumination status (i.e., MIL commanded ``ON,'' MIL commanded
``OFF'').
(2) For a single misfiring cylinder, the diagnostic trouble code(s)
shall uniquely identify the cylinder, unless the manufacturer submits
data and/or engineering evaluations which adequately demonstrate that
the misfiring cylinder cannot be reliably identified under certain
operating conditions. The diagnostic trouble code shall identify
multiple misfiring cylinder conditions; under multiple misfire
conditions, the misfiring cylinders need not be uniquely identified if
a distinct multiple misfire diagnostic trouble code is stored.
(3) The diagnostic system may erase a diagnostic trouble code if
the same code is not re-registered in at least 40 engine warm-up
cycles, and the malfunction indicator light is not illuminated for that
code.
(4) Separate status codes, or readiness codes, shall be stored in
computer memory to identify correctly functioning emission control
systems and those emission control systems which require further
vehicle operation to complete proper diagnostic evaluation. A readiness
code need not be stored for those monitors that can be considered
continuously operating monitors (e.g., misfire monitor, fuel system
monitor, etc.). Readiness codes should never be set to ``not ready''
status upon key-on or key-off; intentional setting of readiness codes
to ``not ready'' status via service procedures must apply to all such
codes, rather than applying to individual codes.
(f) Available diagnostic data. (1) Upon determination of the first
malfunction of any component or system, ``freeze frame'' engine
conditions present at the time shall be stored in computer memory.
Should a subsequent fuel system or misfire malfunction occur, any
previously stored freeze frame conditions shall be replaced by the fuel
system or misfire conditions (whichever occurs first). Stored engine
conditions shall include, but are not limited to: engine speed, open or
closed loop operation, fuel system commands, coolant temperature,
calculated load value, fuel pressure, vehicle speed, air flow rate, and
intake manifold pressure if the information needed to determine these
conditions is available to the computer. For freeze frame storage, the
manufacturer shall include the most appropriate set of conditions to
facilitate effective repairs. If the diagnostic trouble code causing
the conditions to be stored is erased in accordance with paragraph (d)
of this section, the stored engine conditions may also be erased.
(2) The following data in addition to the required freeze frame
information shall be made available on demand through the serial port
on the standardized data link connector, if the information is
available to the on-board computer or can be determined using
information available to the on-board computer: Diagnostic trouble
codes, engine coolant temperature, fuel control system status (closed
loop, open loop, other), fuel trim, ignition timing advance, intake air
temperature, manifold air pressure, air flow rate, engine RPM, throttle
position sensor output value, secondary air status (upstream,
downstream, or atmosphere), calculated load value, vehicle speed, and
fuel pressure. The signals shall be provided in standard units based on
SAE specifications incorporated by
[[Page 28944]]
reference in paragraph (h) of this section. Actual signals shall be
clearly identified separately from default value or limp home signals.
(3) For all emission control 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
standardized data link connector per SAE J1979 specifications as
referenced in paragraph (h) of this section.
(4) Access to the data required to be made available under this
section shall be unrestricted and shall not require any access codes or
devices that are only available from the manufacturer.
(g) The emission control diagnostic system is not required to
evaluate systems or components during malfunction conditions if such
evaluation would result in a risk to safety or failure of systems or
components.
(h) Reference materials. The emission control diagnostic system
shall provide for standardized access and conform with the following
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and/or the following
International Standards Organization (ISO) standards. The following
documents are incorporated by reference (see Sec. 86.1):
(1) SAE material. (i) SAE J1850 ``Class B Data Communication
Network Interface,'' (July 1995) shall be used as the on-board to off-
board communications protocol. All emission related messages sent to
the scan tool over a J1850 data link shall use the Cyclic Redundancy
Check and the three byte header, and shall not use inter-byte
separation or checksums.
(ii) Basic diagnostic data (as specified in sections 86.094-17(e)
and (f)) shall be provided in the format and units in SAE J1979 ``E/E
Diagnostic Test Modes,'' (July 1996).
(iii) Diagnostic trouble codes shall be consistent with SAE J2012
``Recommended Format and Messages for Diagnostic Trouble Code
Definitions,'' (July 1996) Part C.
(iv) The connection interface between the OBD system and test
equipment and diagnostic tools shall meet the functional requirements
of SAE J1962 ``Diagnostic Connector,'' (January 1995).
(2) ISO materials. (i) ISO 9141-2 ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic
systems--Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange of digital
information,'' (February 1994) may be used as an alternative to SAE
J1850 as the on-board to off-board communications protocol.
(ii) ISO 14230-4 ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--KWP 2000
requirements for Emission-related systems'' (April 1996) may also be
used as the on-board to off-board network communications protocol.
(i) Deficiencies and alternate fueled vehicles. Upon application by
the manufacturer, the Administrator may accept an OBD system as
compliant even though specific requirements are not fully met. Such
compliances without meeting specific requirements, or deficiencies,
will be granted only if compliance would be infeasible or unreasonable
considering such factors as, but not limited to, technical feasibility
of the given monitor, 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 non-compliance, and the
manufacturer has demonstrated an acceptable level of effort toward
compliance as determined by the Administrator. Furthermore, EPA will
not accept any deficiency requests that include the complete lack of a
required diagnostic monitor, with the possible exception of the special
provisions for alternate fueled vehicles. For alternate fueled vehicles
(e.g. natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, ethanol),
beginning with the model year for which alternate fuel emission
standards are applicable and extending through the 2004 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 alternate fuel. At a minimum,
alternate fuel vehicles shall be equipped with an OBD system meeting
OBD requirements to the extent feasible as approved by the
Administrator.
(j) Demonstration of compliance with California OBD II requirements
(Title 13 California Code Sec. 1968.1), as modified pursuant to
California Mail Out 96-34 (October 25, 1996), shall
satisfy the requirements of this section, except that compliance with
Title 13 California Code Secs. 1968.1(b)(4.2.2), pertaining to
evaporative leak detection, and 1968.1(d), pertaining to tampering
protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this
section, and 1968.1(m)(5.1), pertaining to alternate fuel vehicles,
shall not apply.
8. A new section 86.099-30 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.99-30 Certification.
Section 86.099-30 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.094.30, Sec. 86.095-30, Sec. 86.096-30, or
Sec. 86.098-30. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.094.30, Sec. 86.095-30,
Sec. 86.096-30, or 86.098-30 is identical and applicable to
Sec. 86.099-30, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094.30.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-30.''
or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-30.'' or ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.''.
(a)(1) and (a)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(a)(3)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.
(a)(3)(ii) through (a)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-30.
(a)(4)(iii) introductory text through (a)(4)(iii)(C) [Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(a)(4)(iv) introductory text [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.095-30.
(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (a)(12) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094-30.
(a)(13) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-30.
(a)(14) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(a)(15) through (a)(18) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-
30.
(a)(19) introductory text through (a)(19)(iii) [Reserved]. For
guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.
(b)(1) introductory text through (b)(1)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For
guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(b)(1)(i)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.
(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.094-30.
(b)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.
(b)(3) through (b)(4)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-
30.
(b)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098.30.
(b)(4)(ii)(A) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.
(b)(4)(ii)(B) through (b)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see
Sec. 86.098-30.
(b)(5) through (e) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094.30.
(f) For engine families required to have an emission control
diagnostic system (an OBD system), certification will not be granted
if, for any emission data vehicle, assembly line vehicle, or other test
vehicle approved by the Administrator, the malfunction indicator light
does not illuminate under any of the following circumstances. Only
paragraph (f)(4) of this section applies to diesel cycle
[[Page 28945]]
vehicles where such vehicles are so equipped.
(1) A catalyst is replaced with a deteriorated or defective
catalyst, or an electronic simulation of such, resulting in an increase
of 1.5 times the HC standard above the HC emission level measured using
a representative 4000 mile catalyst system.
(2) An engine misfire condition is induced resulting in exhaust
emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standards for HC, CO or
NOX.
(3) Any oxygen sensor is replaced with a deteriorated or defective
oxygen sensor, or an electronic simulation of such, resulting in
exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standard for HC,
CO or NOX.
(4) A vapor leak is introduced in the evaporative and/or refueling
system (excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve
and the intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak
caused by a 0.040 inch diameter orifice, or the evaporative purge air
flow is blocked or otherwise eliminated from the complete evaporative
emission control system.
(5) A malfunction condition is induced in any emission-related
powertrain system or component, including but not necessarily limited
to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system, if equipped, the
secondary air system, if equipped, and the fuel control system,
singularly resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the
applicable emission standard for HC, CO or NOX.
(6) A malfunction condition is induced in an electronic emission-
related powertrain system or component not otherwise described above
that either provides input to or receives commands from the on-board
computer resulting in a measurable impact on emissions.
[FR Doc. 97-13749 Filed 5-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P