[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