[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 245 (Tuesday, December 22, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70681-70697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32570]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[FRL-6196-4]


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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Today's action finalizes 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 published version; providing flexibility to alternate fueled 
vehicles through the 2004 model year rather than providing 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 standardization protocol 
developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 
OBD systems in general provide substantial ozone benefits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action becomes effective January 21, 1999.

ADDRESSES: 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, Vehicle Programs and 
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, Telephone 734-214-4288, or 
Internet e-mail at ``[email protected].''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which 
manufacturer new motor vehicles and engines. Regulated categories 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated
                 Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  New motor vehicle and engine
                                             manufacturers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities EPA is now aware could potentially 
be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the 
table could also be regulated. To determine whether your product is 
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 86.099-17 of title 40 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability 
of this action to a particular product, consult the person listed in 
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Table of Contents

I. Electronic Availability
II. Introduction and Background
III. Requirements of the Final Rule
    A.Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds and Monitoring Requirements
    B. Similar Operating Conditions Window
    C. Extension for Acceptance of California OBD II as Satisfying 
Federal OBD
    D. Deficiency Provisions
    E. Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles
    F. Applicability
    G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference
    H. Certification Provisions
IV.Discussion of Comments and Issues
    A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds
    B. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements

[[Page 70682]]

    C. Extension for Acceptance of California OBD II as Satisfying 
Federal OBD
    D. Deficiency Provisions
    E. Diagnostic Readiness Codes
    F. Provisions for Alternate Fuel Vehicles
    G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference
    H. Diesel Cycle Vehicles
    I. Certification Requirements
    J. Comments on Cost Effectiveness and Environmental Impact
V. Cost Effectiveness
VI. Public Participation
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    C. Impact on Small Entities
    D. Unfunded Mandates Act
    E. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
    F. Applicability of Executive Order 13045: Children's Health 
Protection
    G. Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
    H. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

I. Electronic Availability

    Electronic copies of the preamble and 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.''

II. Introduction and Background

    On February 19, 1993 pursuant to Clean Air Act section 202(m), 42 
U.S.C. 7521(m), the EPA published a final 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 manufacturers to install 
OBD systems that monitor emission control components for any 
malfunction or deterioration causing exceedance of certain emission 
thresholds. The regulations also require that the driver be notified of 
the need for repair via a dashboard light when the diagnostic system 
has detected a problem.
    On May 28, 1997, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(62 FR 28932) that proposed changes to the federal OBD requirements. 
Those proposed changes would be implemented beginning with the 1999 
model year. The proposed revisions included: 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 federal 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 
version of those California OBD II regulations to which manufacturers 
may certify to the most recently revised version; providing flexibility 
for alternate fueled vehicles through the 2004 model year rather than 
providing 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). Today's action will finalize these and other 
proposed changes along with other minor changes as discussed below.

III. Requirements of the Final Rule

    Following are the provisions promulgated by this final rulemaking. 
A complete discussion of the comments received on the proposed 
regulations and the Agency's response to those comments can be found in 
section IV--Discussion of Comments and Issues.

A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds and Monitoring Requirements

    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 as evaluated 
over the original Federal Test Procedure (FTP; i.e., not including the 
Supplemental FTP): 1, 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The text presented here does not constitute regulatory text. 
The final regulatory text can be viewed immediately following this 
preamble.
    2 Note that, while malfunction thresholds are based 
on FTP emissions, this does not mean that OBD monitors need operate 
only during the FTP. All OBD monitors that operate during the FTP 
should operate in a similar manner during non-FTP conditions. The 
prohibition against defeat devices in Sec. 86.094-16 applies to 
these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Catalyst deterioration or malfunction before it results in an 
increase in NMHC 3 emissions equal to or greater than 1.5 
times the NMHC standard, as compared to the NMHC emission level 
measured using a representative 4000 mile catalyst system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As a point of clarification, Tier 1 federal emissions 
standards are expressed in terms of NMHC. Therefore, in order to 
remain consistent, all references to HC will be referred to as NMHC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Engine misfire before it results in an exhaust emission 
exceedance of 1.5 times the applicable standard for NMHC, 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 
NMHC, 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; any absence of evaporative purge air 
flow from the complete evaporative emission control system. On vehicles 
with fuel tank capacity greater than 25 gallons, the Administrator 
shall revise the size of the orifice to the feasibility limit, based on 
test data, if the most reliable monitoring method available cannot 
reliably detect a system leak equal to a 0.040 inch diameter orifice.
    (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 NMHC, CO or 
NOX. For vehicles equipped with a secondary air system, a 
functional check, as described in paragraph (b)(6), may satisfy the 
requirements of this paragraph provided the manufacturer can 
demonstrate that deterioration of the flow distribution system is 
unlikely. This demonstration is subject to Administrator approval and, 
if the demonstration and associated functional check are approved, the 
diagnostic system shall indicate a malfunction when some degree of 
secondary airflow is not detectable in the exhaust system during the 
check.
    (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; monitoring of components required by this paragraph shall be 
satisfied by employing electrical circuit continuity checks and, 
wherever feasible, rationality checks for

[[Page 70683]]

computer input components (input values within manufacturer specified 
ranges), and functionality checks for computer output components 
(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.
    For compression-ignition engines, paragraph 1 above would apply 
only when the catalyst is needed for NMHC control, and 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 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. This is not meant to 
suggest that monitors be designed to operate only under FTP conditions, 
as such a design would not encompass the complete operating range 
required for OBD malfunction detection.

B. Similar Operating Conditions Window

    The Agency is finalizing a revision to the engine operating 
conditions window associated with extinguishing the MIL for engine 
misfire and fuel system malfunctions. The federal OBD regulations will 
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 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.

C. Extension for Acceptance of California OBD II as Satisfying Federal 
OBD

    The Agency is finalizing a provision allowing optional compliance 
with the current California OBD II requirements, excluding the 
California OBD II anti-tampering requirements, as satisfying federal 
OBD. The current California OBD II requirements are in CARB Mail-Out 
#97-24 (EPA Air Docket A-96-32, Document IV-H-01, December 9, 1997). 
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 standards. Additionally, manufacturers choosing the 
California OBD II demonstration option need not comply with section 
(b)(4.2.2), which requires evaporative system leak detection of a 0.02 
inch diameter orifice and represents a level of stringency beyond that 
ever appropriately considered for federal OBD compliance. The Agency is 
finalizing a provision that will require evaporative leak detection of 
a 0.04 inch diameter orifice, with some flexibility afforded to 
vehicles with a fuel tank capacity greater than 25 gallons (see 
Sections III.A.4 and IV.B.2.d). Lastly, manufacturers choosing the 
California OBD II demonstration option need not comply with section 
(d), which contains the anti-tampering provisions of the California 
regulations.

D. Deficiency Provisions

    Today's action finalizes a provision to extend the current 
flexibility provisions (i.e., ``deficiency provisions'') contained in 
Sec. 86.094-17(i) indefinitely, rather than being eliminated beyond the 
1999 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 finalizing a flexibility provision for alternate fuel 
vehicles that will apply 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.

F. Applicability

    Today's finalized provisions 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.

G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    Today's action finalizes the incorporation by reference of ISO 
9141-2 February 1994, ``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 final 
regulatory language.
    Today's action also finalizes the incorporation by reference of 
updated versions of the SAE procedures referenced in the current OBD 
regulation. These SAE documents are J1850, J1979, J2012, J1962, J1877 
and J1892.
    The incorporation by reference of these documents was approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register in a letter dated December 15, 
1997. A copy of this letter may be found in the docket for this 
rulemaking (A-96-32, IV-H-02).

H. Certification Provisions

    The certification provisions associated with OBD, contained in 
Sec. 86.099-30, are today revised to reflect the proposed changes to 
the OBD malfunction thresholds and monitoring requirements.

[[Page 70684]]

IV. Discussion of Comments and Issues

A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds

1. Summary of Proposal
    EPA proposed to substitute its current approach for OBD malfunction 
thresholds for an approach consistent with the malfunction thresholds 
in the California OBD II regulations. Specifically, EPA proposed to 
revise the federal OBD malfunction thresholds such that they be based 
not on baseline emissions, but rather the emissions standards 
themselves. The proposed revisions would require identification of 
malfunctions of powertrain systems or components when emissions exceed 
1.5 times the applicable federal standard.
    For catalyst deterioration or malfunction, the proposed revisions 
would require identification when emissions exceed 1.5 times the NMHC 
standard as compared to the NMHC emission level measured using a 
representative 4000 mile catalyst system. For example, a vehicle with 
4000 mile emissions of 0.10 g/mi NMHC would have a catalyst malfunction 
threshold of 0.475 g/mi NMHC [(1.5)  x  (0.25 g/mi NMHC) + 0.10 g/mi 
NMHC = 0.475 g/mi NMHC].
    For evaporative leak detection, the proposal eliminated the 30 g/
test emission threshold and instead requires detection of any hole 
equivalent to, or greater in size than, one with a 0.04 inch diameter.

2. Summary of Comments

    All the comments specifically referring to the proposed 
modifications to the federal OBD malfunction thresholds were 
supportive. One comment also recommended that the Agency incorporate a 
provision that would allow for a two year carryover of systems that are 
fully compliant with the current EPA OBD thresholds. This commenter has 
chosen to certify most of its light-duty fleet to the EPA thresholds 
since the 1996 model year, rather than choosing the California OBD II 
compliance option. The commenter goes on to state that their OBD 
compliance plans have already been made under the assumption that the 
EPA thresholds would remain a viable compliance option and to require 
compliance with the thresholds finalized today would be overly 
burdensome while providing no environmental benefit.

3. Response to Comments

    The Agency concurs with the comments received and will finalize 
changes to the malfunction thresholds as follows. The finalized 
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 of 1.5 times the applicable federal 
emission standard. For evaporative systems, leak detection will be 
required for any hole equivalent to, or greater in size than, one with 
a 0.04 inch diameter. For catalyst deterioration, the threshold is an 
increase of 1.5 times the applicable standard compared to emissions 
from a representative catalyst run for 4000 miles. Additionally, as 
stated in the NPRM, the Agency is concerned about penalizing OEMs or 
small volume manufacturers who had proactively set out to meet the EPA 
OBD requirements and the Agency agrees that it would be overly 
burdensome to require manufacturers to redesign systems that are 
already in production. Therefore, the Agency will finalize a provision 
that will allow for a two year carryover period for systems that are 
fully compliant with the current EPA OBD regulations contained in 
Sec. 86.098-17, paragraphs (a) through (i).

B. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements

1. Summary of Proposal
    The proposal outlined requirements for 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.). These components must be monitored, at a minimum, 
for electrical circuit continuity checks, and effective rationality 
and/or functionality checks. Deterioration or malfunction of these 
components will be identified when a component fails the circuit 
continuity check or the rationality or functionality check.
    In contrast, the original EPA OBD requirements left the monitoring 
of many of these components to the discretion of the manufacturer. 
Should the manufacturer determine that any such components were not 
likely to malfunction, or upon their malfunction they would not cause 
exceedance of the emission thresholds, then such components need not be 
monitored. The proposed change was that this optional monitoring 
approach be eliminated and be replaced with mandatory monitoring 
requirements.

2. Summary of Comments

    There were several comments regarding specific proposed changes to 
the monitoring requirements.
    (a) Regarding secondary air system monitoring requirements, the 
Agency proposed that this system be monitored for deterioration or 
malfunction at 1.5 times the applicable standard. The American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) recommended that only a 
functionality check is feasible for this system rather than the 
proposed emissions based monitor. Manufacturers have already invested 
in an monitoring strategy which conducts a functional check of the 
secondary air system. AAMA argues that in order to implement an 
emissions based monitor to meet the proposed federal requirements, 
manufacturers would have to add costly hardware that will likely result 
in no additional air quality benefits. AAMA suggests that only a 
functional check be required with administrator approval.
    (b) Regarding the proposed functionality and rationality check 
provisions for electronic powertrain component monitors, AAMA 
recommended that EPA require functionality and rationality checks only 
when they are feasible. The comment argues that, while manufacturers 
have successfully implemented rationality and/or functionality checks 
on many of the comprehensive components, they have found that for some 
components such as the intake air temperature sensor, monitoring for 
functionality and/or rationality would require development and 
implementation of complex monitoring strategies that, in the end, 
result in no additional air quality benefit.
    (c) Regarding catalyst damage misfire monitoring requirements, AAMA 
recommended that EPA not require continuous MIL illumination following 
catalyst damage misfire until it is detected on two consecutive driving 
cycles or the next driving cycle in which similar conditions are 
encountered. AAMA is concerned that the current provisions for catalyst 
damage misfire detection may result in detection of infrequent misfires 
that are not related to any hardware malfunction. Such misfires are 
typically the result of water in the gasoline or water vapor in the 
fuel systems. As a result, no repair can be made because the problem is 
not the result of a hardware of software malfunction.
    (d) Regarding evaporative system monitoring, AAMA recommended that, 
for reasons of technological feasibility,

[[Page 70685]]

EPA should allow a larger orifice threshold for evaporative system 
monitors on vehicles with fuel tank capacity greater that 25 gallons. 
AAMA states that, on fuel tanks with a capacity of greater than 25 
gallons, it is not possible to reliably detect such small leaks. The 
comment argues that the larger vapor volume possible with large volume 
tanks results in very small pressure changes associated with a 0.04 
inch hole. Such small pressure changes cannot be reliably detected 
using existing leak detection strategies. As a result, these smaller 
pressure changes are more difficult to detect under typical driving 
conditions on vehicles with large fuel tank capacity.
    (e) Power take-off units are used to provide power from a vehicle's 
engine to an auxiliary device such as a snow plow blade. Regarding OBD 
detection during operation of power take-off units, AAMA recommended 
allowing disablement of certain diagnostics during power take-off unit 
operation. The comment states that many diagnostics cannot function 
reliably during power take-off operation due to the unpredictable load 
that is applied under these operations, which results in a high risk of 
false MIL illumination. The comment argues that, due to small volumes 
of such vehicles and/or infrequent operation of power take-off mode, 
this disablement will have little or no impact on air quality.
    (f) Associated with the provision allowing the use of statistical 
algorithms, AAMA recommended replacing the term ``monitoring event'' 
with the term ``driving cycle'' for purposes of clarity and 
consistency. The comment argues that the Agency's definition of 
``monitoring event'' is unclear and recommends using CARB's definition 
of ``driving cycle'' for consistency.
    (g) The Agency proposed regulatory language that would require OBD 
systems to detect and identify any deterioration or malfunction 
occurring in a powertrain system or component directly intended to 
control emissions. A comment was received from AAMA specifically 
referring to the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system as being 
an emission related component for which no cost effective monitoring 
strategies currently exist. Further, the comment states that since the 
proposed requirement is effective with the 1999 MY, manufacturers will 
not have sufficient lead time to both develop cost effective monitoring 
strategies, and implement those strategies on new vehicles. AAMA 
recommends finalizing a provision similar to one found in the 
California OBD II regulations that would allow manufacturers to design 
a robust PCV system in lieu of monitoring. AAMA also recommends 
allowing sufficient leadtime for manufacturers, consistent with the 
CARB OBD II requirements, to implement necessary changes to the PCV 
system.
3. Response to Comments
    (a) The Agency agrees that there may be technological feasibility 
issues in requiring detection of deterioration of secondary air systems 
at 1.5 times the standard. Therefore, the Agency will finalize a 
provision allowing an optional functional check of the secondary air 
system in lieu of the emission based monitor, with Administrator 
approval. The Agency believes that such a provision will have no 
adverse impact on air quality and will still result in implementation 
of the most technologically effective secondary air system monitors.
    (b) The Agency agrees with commenters that there are some 
feasibility issues with rationality and functionality checks for 
certain electronic powertrain components. To address this concern, the 
Agency will finalize a provision mandating rationality and 
functionality checks unless the manufacturer can demonstrate 
technological infeasibility. Upon receiving Administrator approval of 
that demonstration, applicable monitoring requirements may be waived.
    (c) The Agency agrees with the commenter's concerns that the 
current provisions for detection and identification of catalyst 
damaging misfire may increase the likelihood of unserviceable MIL 
illuminations. The Agency will finalize a provision to allow for 
continuous MIL illumination for catalyst damage misfire only after it 
is detected on two consecutive driving cycles or the next driving cycle 
under which similar conditions are encountered.
    (d) The Agency agrees with the concerns of AAMA that the proposed 
requirements for evaporative system leak detection may not be feasible 
for fuel tanks with a capacity of greater than 25 gallons. The Agency 
will finalize a provision to allow a larger orifice threshold for 
evaporative system leak detection for fuel tanks with a capacity 
greater than 25 gallons. Manufacturers wishing to utilize this 
flexibility must obtain Administrator approval prior to certification.
    (e) The Agency agrees with commenters that vehicles equipped with 
power take-off units may not be able to have fully functioning OBD 
systems during power take-off unit operation. The Agency is finalizing 
a provision to allow for the disablement of the OBD system during, and 
only during, power take-off operation.
    (f) The Agency agrees with commenters that there may be some 
confusion with the definitions of ``driving cycle'' and ``monitoring 
event'' with regards to the use of statistical algorithms for MIL 
illumination. To avoid confusion with terminology used in the CARB OBD 
II regulations, the Agency will replace the term ``monitoring event'' 
with the term ``driving cycle.'' This is consistent with the Agency's 
intent behind the term ``monitoring event'' so the change has no impact 
on OBD requirements other than to eliminate potential confusion.
    (g) The Agency agrees with comments associated with monitoring of 
PCV systems. The Agency will finalize a provision that will allow 
manufacturers to design and implement robust PCV systems in lieu of 
monitoring those systems. With regards to appropriate leadtime, the 
Agency will allow for appropriate leadtime to implement necessary 
changes to the PCV system but will expect such changes to progress as 
rapidly as is practical.

C. Extension for Acceptance of California OBD II as Satisfying Federal 
OBD.

1. Summary of Proposal
    EPA proposed to extend indefinitely the existing provision allowing 
optional compliance with the California OBD II requirements, excluding 
the California OBD II anti-tampering provisions and the 0.02 inch 
evaporative leak detection provision, as satisfying federal OBD. 
Currently, this compliance option, which is used by most manufacturers, 
ends with the 1998 model year. The proposal sought to eliminate that 
1998 model year restriction, making the California OBD II compliance 
option applicable indefinitely. EPA also proposed to update the version 
of California OBD II allowed for optional federal OBD compliance. The 
NPRM noted that the current version of CARB's regulations were 
contained in Mail-Out #96-34. However, EPA noted that CARB Mail-Out 
#96-34 was intended primarily for public comment purposes. EPA stated 
that it would accept the final version of the revised California OBD II 
regulations in its final rule if relevant portions of the final version 
are acceptable for federal OBD compliance demonstration. EPA published 
a Notice of Document Availability (63 FR 8386) on February 19, 1998 
announcing that the final version of CARB's OBD II regulations (CARB 
Mail-Out #97-24)

[[Page 70686]]

had been completed and placed in the regulatory docket for this 
rulemaking (EPA Air Docket A-96-32, IV-H-01). EPA stated that the final 
CARB OBD II regulations were appropriate for federal OBD compliance and 
also placed in the docket a detailed analysis of the minor differences 
between CARB Mail-Outs #96-34 and #97-24 (EPA Air Docket A-96-32, IV-B-
01). EPA provided thirty days (until March 23, 1998) for any parties to 
comment on Mail-Out #97-24.
    The proposal stated that 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. 
The demonstration of compliance with California OBD II need only show 
compliance as correlated to the applicable federal emission standards, 
not California 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.
2. Summary of Comments
    Several commenters expressed strong support for a provision to 
indefinitely extend the allowance of California OBD II as satisfying 
federal OBD. Commenters stated that this option allows flexibility and 
decreases the certification burdens associated with dual certification.
    However, a comment from automotive aftermarket associations, 
primarily builders of aftermarket parts, expressed concern that the 
Agency is abdicating its federal emissions rulemaking and certification 
authority by accepting CARB OBD II as meeting federal OBD for any time 
period. The comment claims that EPA is inappropriately delegating its 
authority and violating section 177 of the Clean Air Act. This comment 
strongly objects to a provision that would extend the existing 
provision indefinitely, suggesting that, by allowing optional 
compliance with California OBD II requirements, EPA will ensure that 
such vehicles will be equipped with anti-tampering devices that are 
allowed under the CARB OBD II regulations. The comment goes on to 
suggest that simply removing the anti-tampering provision from the 
federal OBD regulations in effect does little, because it still permits 
manufacturers to install anti-tampering devices on their vehicles. The 
aftermarket associations represented in the comment believe that anti-
tampering devices violate sections 202(m) and 207 of the Clean Air Act 
and that the federal OBD regulations should prohibit anti-tampering 
devices altogether. The comment claims that the ability to reprogram 
the computer is an important feature of vehicle service and repair, and 
that the access to reverse engineer and ability to reprogram must be 
made available to the automotive aftermarket.
    The comment also objects to EPA's decision to extend this 
compliance option beyond the 1998 model year while the commenters' 
challenge to an earlier rule dealing with this issue is being heard by 
the federal court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Further, the comment 
objects to EPA's note in the proposal that EPA would use the final 
version of California's OBD II regulations in its final rule, if the 
version of the California regulations is judged appropriate. The 
comment states that it would not have an effective opportunity to 
comment on the final rule.
    The comment also alleges that EPA will adopt any changes that CARB 
may make in the future, without allowing commenters to participate in 
any such rulemaking. In particular, the comment notes that California's 
regulations may not promote access and ease of use of OBD systems. The 
comment also questions whether consumers will be more satisfied with 
vehicles certified to the California OBD II threshold option, rather 
than to the federal OBD thresholds.
    The aftermarket associations provided a later comment providing 
four alleged incidences where false MIL illumination problems were 
encountered in the automotive aftermarket. These incidences allegedly 
support their claim that tampering protection devices may prevent 
aftermarket service providers from installing aftermarket parts. The 
associations state that EPA must either prohibit anti-tampering devices 
that prevent parts manufacturers from reverse engineering, or must 
require automobile manufacturers to provide the information necessary 
to build the aftermarket parts.
    In response to CARB's December 1996 proposed revisions to their OBD 
II requirements, Mr. Jack Heyler expressed concerns over the ability of 
independent repair shops to reprogram vehicle computers (EPA Air Docket 
A-96-32, Document IV-H-14). Mr. Heyler also expressed concern over the 
ability of automotive aftermarket to design and manufacture parts and 
diagnostic tools. The California Automotive Wholesalers' Association 
(CAWA) expressed concerns over the potential economic impact on the 
thousands of businesses within California's automotive aftermarket 
repair industry due to the lack of diagnostic and service information 
availability requirements under the California OBD II regulation and 
the anti-tampering provisions of that regulation. In a joint statement 
made on behalf of several aftermarket associations, the Motor Equipment 
Manufacturers Association (MEMA) expressed strong support of the staff 
recommendation to eliminate the anti-tampering requirements applicable 
to electronically reprogrammable vehicles with OBD II. Mr. Haluza went 
on to suggest that all of Section 1968.1(d) on anti-tampering 
provisions should be eliminated from the OBD II regulation. Further, 
Mr. Haluza suggested that California ``must take affirmative steps to 
not grant certification to vehicles which contain any tampering 
protection which would prevent or restrict access to OBD data or system 
in violation of section 202 of the U.S. Clean Air Act.''
    AAMA provided comments supporting the extension of the California 
OBD II compliance option. AAMA stated that the extension would allow 
manufacturers to focus their energies on developing and perfecting a 
single OBD system, rather than diverting resources to meet two sets of 
OBD thresholds. In its comments, AAMA expressed its view that the 
aftermarket comments are not grounded on any statutory or evidentiary 
basis. AAMA argued that EPA is not abdicating its responsibility under 
the Clean Air Act or violating any section of the Act.
3. Response to Comments
    The Agency will finalize a provision to allow for indefinite 
acceptance of the California OBD II requirements as outlined in CARB 
Mail-Out #97-24 as meeting federal OBD requirements. The adverse 
comments regarding the indefinite extension of allowing California OBD 
II regulations as satisfying federal OBD are focused on two main 
issues. The first issue regards EPA's alleged abdication of federal 
authority to California in the establishment of emissions regulations. 
The adverse comments argue that allowing manufacturers to optionally 
certify vehicles to the California OBD II regulations to satisfy 
federal OBD requirements is an abdication of federal

[[Page 70687]]

authority to set air quality standards. The Agency has consistently 
stated that allowing manufacturers to satisfy federal OBD requirements 
by demonstrating compliance with California OBD II requirements is 
simply a compliance option, not an abdication of federal authority. 
This option allows manufacturers to implement one OBD system nationwide 
that fully meets the intent of the Clean Air Act and its amendments. 
The Agency has clearly not abdicated its authority. EPA has followed 
proper regulatory procedures in considering the acceptability of the 
California regulations in satisfying federal OBD.
    EPA has provided notice and opportunity to comment on the 
appropriateness of allowing compliance with California's OBD II 
regulations to be used as a federal compliance option, and EPA has 
provided its responses to any adverse comments. EPA has also followed 
appropriate rulemaking procedures in considering whether revisions to 
California OBD II regulations are appropriate for federal compliance 
purposes, and EPA will continue to do so if, in the future, it 
determines that it is appropriate to allow compliance with later 
revisions of California's OBD II regulations.
    EPA independently reviews California OBD II regulations to 
determine their appropriateness. Any decision to include such 
regulations is premised on such regulations being consistent with and 
appropriate under the Clean Air Act. EPA has found that California's 
OBD II regulations appropriately implement the requirements of section 
202(m) and that allowing compliance with such regulations as a 
compliance option is an appropriate policy, promoting national 
consistency with no loss of environmental protection. EPA notes that, 
in the case of certain subparts of California's OBD II regulations 
(e.g. California's anti-tampering regulations and California's 0.02 
inch evaporative leak detection monitoring regulations) EPA has, in its 
discretion, decided not to require compliance with such subparts for 
the purposes of compliance with federal regulations. EPA also notes 
that, with regard to the California regulations actually included in 
this compliance option, the commenters have not provided any argument 
or evidence that such regulations are illegal or inappropriate. EPA 
operates its own OBD certification and compliance program and makes all 
determinations regarding whether vehicles may be certified as complying 
with federal OBD regulations.
    Regarding the comment that extending the compliance option is 
contrary to section 177, EPA fails to see how its action has any effect 
on states' ability to choose to adopt California's emission standards. 
EPA has neither required nor forbidden states from adopting such 
standards. The Virginia v. EPA case referenced in the comment is 
inapposite, as that case dealt with EPA specifically requiring states 
to implement the California LEV standards, though EPA could not itself 
promulgate such standards under its own authority under section 202 of 
the Act. Unlike that case, here EPA is promulgating regulations under 
its own acknowledged authority to promulgate OBD regulations under 
section 202(m) of the Act. This final action places no obligation on 
states to promulgate any regulations. EPA refers to its responsive 
brief in MEMA v. EPA, No. 96-1397 (D.C. Cir), for further discussion 
(EPA Air Docket A-96-32, Document IV-H-12.)
    The second major issue argued in the adverse comments regards anti-
tampering devices. The adverse comments suggest that the Agency's 
unwillingness to promulgate provisions that prohibit auto manufacturers 
from installing anti-tampering devices violates the intent of section 
202(m) of the Clean Air Act. The Agency believes that sections 202(m) 
(4) and (5) of the Act were designed to ensure that independent repair 
shops would be able to (1) access fault codes and other output 
generated by a vehicle's OBD system through a generic scanning device, 
(2) understand what the output means without the need of a special 
decoding device available only from the manufacturer, and (3) receive 
nonproprietary information regarding repairing OBD and emission-related 
malfunctions, including the information vehicle manufacturers provide 
to their dealers. The Agency has consistently argued that these 
sections of the Act were not intended to require manufacturers to give 
away proprietary information concerning the internal computer codes 
within the vehicle's computer. California's anti-tampering provisions, 
as well as anti-tampering measures that manufacturers voluntarily 
install in vehicles, protect these proprietary codes and thus do not 
violate the requirements of section 202(m). Moreover, such codes are 
not the type of information contemplated under section 202(m) (4) and 
(5), as they are internal to the vehicle, and are not useful for 
automotive repair, as opposed to the manufacture of automotive parts. 
The Agency has promulgated separate regulations on the availability of 
service information (60 FR 55521) that outline what types of 
information manufacturers must make available to interested parties. 
These regulations, among other things, require manufacturers to provide 
independent repair shops with the same ability to reprogram that the 
manufacturers provide to their own dealers. These regulations are not 
affected by this rulemaking. The Agency is satisfied that the existing 
regulations, as well as the regulations being finalized today, meet the 
full intent of the Clean Air Act.
    Regarding whether California's OBD II regulations promote access 
and ease of use of OBD systems, California's OBD II regulations have 
always contained provisions ensuring uncontrolled access to, and ease 
of use of, the OBD system using generic tools. These regulations are 
very similar to EPA's own access regulations. Moreover, though 
California's OBD II regulations do not contain service information 
availability requirements, EPA's service information regulations are 
equally applicable to vehicles choosing either the California 
thresholds compliance option or the federal thresholds compliance 
option.
    The D.C. Circuit recently issued its decision upholding EPA's 
interpretation of section 202(m)(4) and (5), as it pertained to two 
earlier EPA actions related to its and California's OBD regulations. 
MEMA v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449 (D.C. Circuit, 1998).
    Furthermore, as EPA has found on several earlier occasions, the 
anti-tampering provisions do not violate any of the provisions of 
section 207 of the Act. EPA's determination that anti-tampering 
provisions do not violate the Act does not contravene manufacturers' 
obligations to abide by section 207. Section 207(b)'s requirement that 
manufacturers may not invalidate a warranty based on the use of a 
certified aftermarket part is not affected by the use of anti-tampering 
strategies; nor is section 207(c)'s requirement that manufacturer 
manuals contain language indicating that service of the vehicles may be 
performed by any repair operation using any certified part. This rule 
does not change manufacturers' continuing obligation to provide 
aftermarket service providers with all information provided to 
dealerships regarding emission related repair, including the ability to 
reprogram computers.
    EPA refers to its previous discussions of these issues in the 
Service Information Availability rule and the OBD waiver decision (61 
FR 53371), as well as its responsive briefs and the decision of the 
court in the D.C. Circuit

[[Page 70688]]

case recently decided. (The Response to Comments document for the 
Service Information Availability rule, the Decision Document for the 
OBD waiver decision, and the responsive briefs have all been placed in 
the docket for this rulemaking, Air Docket A-96-32.)
    Regarding the comments providing examples of MIL illuminations that 
have been encountered by the automotive aftermarket (IV-G-05), EPA does 
not believe these examples provide any basis for revising its proposal.
    The first example is an Internet conversation from 1995 which, 
though difficult to decipher, appears to indicate the parties having 
difficulty in installing aftermarket performance parts that cause the 
MIL to illuminate on a particular vehicle. The second example is a 
February 9, 1995 correspondence from a fuel systems manufacturer to the 
California Air Resources Board suggesting that, if the manufacturer 
does not receive privileged OBD system parameters, the manufacturer 
will have to discontinue manufacturing and selling its systems.
    Both of these examples refer to the same issue: that of the need 
for aftermarket parts manufacturers to build their parts to be 
compatible with OBD systems. There is little question that the advent 
of vehicle OBD systems has required some aftermarket parts 
manufacturers to work within tighter constraints in building their 
parts. Certainly, some manufacturers will need to perform more testing 
or do further analysis in designing their parts. However, the Agency 
fully believes that aftermarket parts manufacturers, who have had to 
continue revising their parts as vehicles have become more 
sophisticated, will continue to be able to build such parts in the 
future. The Agency believes that fully compliant systems can be 
designed via reverse engineering of the original equipment 
configuration, or more thorough testing protocols. Though manufacturer 
anti-tampering subprograms may make reverse engineering somewhat more 
difficult, reverse engineering is not impossible nor do these 
regulations make such activities illegal. Additionally, parts 
manufacturers may receive proprietary information through licensing 
agreements with OEMs. The Agency has discussed the latter 
correspondence with CARB and CARB suggests that this aftermarket parts 
manufacturer, without OBD system parameters, has made good progress in 
meeting CARB's OBD II regulations without negative impacts on their 
business.
    In any case, these additional constraints will occur whether 
manufacturers comply with the federal OBD requirements (even prior to 
this regulatory revision) or California's OBD II requirements. There is 
nothing unique to California's OBD II hardware requirements that 
particularly disadvantages aftermarket parts manufacturers. Regarding 
anti-tampering mechanisms, as discussed above, these mechanisms protect 
information that is proprietary in nature and that is not required to 
be made available under section 202(m)(5). All information that is 
subject to section 202(m)(5) must now be made available under the 
Service Information Rule, which had not been promulgated at the time of 
these correspondences.
    The next example involves a series of letters between the 
California Air Resources Board and an aftermarket parts manufacturer 
requesting data and information from that manufacturer as to how their 
aftermarket parts impact OBD systems in order to receive a waiver under 
California's aftermarket parts regulations. In their letter of 
response, the parts manufacturer stated that this data cannot be 
provided unless the parts manufacturer had access to specific OBD 
technical and operational data. EPA does not operate a mandatory parts 
certification program, so this example is not pertinent.
    One final example is a letter that deals with the issue of false 
MIL illuminations; in particular, one associated with changing tire 
diameter from 16'' to 19,'' and the other associated with installing a 
generator on a Class C motor home. The comment claims that these 
modifications did not impact emission performance in any manner, 
implying that the resultant MIL illumination is consequently false. In 
the example of changing tire diameter, it is conceivable that changing 
tire diameter could be interpreted by the OBD system in such a way 
that, for example, may alter the fueling strategy of the vehicle which 
in turn may cause emissions to increase. However, since no emission 
data were provided with the example, the implication is impossible to 
verify. In the example of the Class C motor home, the Agency believes 
that such a vehicle would be outside the scope of this rulemaking, 
which applies only to light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. As 
stated above, there is little question that the advent of vehicle OBD 
systems has required some market parts manufacturers to work within 
tighter constraints in building their parts. The Agency believes that 
fully compliant systems can be designed via reverse engineering of the 
original equipment configuration, or more thorough testing protocols. 
Additionally, parts manufacturers may receive proprietary information 
through licensing agreements with OEMs. In any event, as discussed 
above, nothing in Sec. 202(m)(5) requires that aftermarket parts 
manufacturers be entitled to information for making parts. See MEMA v. 
Nichols, 142 F.3d at 465. Nor does section 202(m)(5) indicate that EPA 
should require automobile manufacturers to give away their proprietary 
information. In fact, Sec. 202(m)(5) suggests the opposite, that EPA's 
regulations be limited by CAA restrictions on the release of trade 
secrets.
    Another example provided by this letter suggests that false MIL 
illumination has occurred following installation of high-powered 
aftermarket sound systems. This example suggests that these amplifiers 
cause battery voltage to drop and that OBD system parameters would be 
needed by the aftermarket to avoid the false MIL. No data was supplied 
to support this example and it is unclear to the Agency why a properly 
installed sound system with the appropriate rating for the particular 
vehicle would draw battery voltage down so low. Further, it is 
difficult to understand how the availability of OBD parameters would 
rectify the situation given that battery voltage being drawn so low is 
very likely to create an excessive draw on the alternator which is 
likely to have adverse emission impacts; MIL illumination would seem 
appropriate in such a circumstance.
    Regarding Mr. Heyler's concerns that information needed for repairs 
has not been made available to independent repair facilities under 
California's OBD II regulations, and that language be added to those 
regulations indicating that ``information--which is made available to 
dealer-owned repair facilities--be made available to all independents 
on a contractual basis at a reasonable cost,'' EPA's Service 
Information regulations were promulgated for the purpose of ensuring 
that independent service facilities have access, at a reasonable cost, 
to the same information to which dealer-owned facilities have access. 
As of December 1, 1997, manufacturers are required to make available to 
independent service providers reprogramming capability for all 
emission-related programming events for vehicles beginning with model 
year 1994. Regarding Mr. Heyler's comments on the manufacture of 
independent parts, see the response to the aftermarket comments 
provided above.
    Regarding CAWA's comments, EPA notes that its service information

[[Page 70689]]

requirements are applicable in California, as EPA made clear in its OBD 
waiver proceeding.
    EPA notes that this rule will have no effect on the likelihood or 
ability of manufacturers to incorporate anti-tampering strategies; 
however, EPA notes that the version of the California OBD II 
regulations being referenced in today's rulemaking actually contain 
less stringent and less specific anti-tampering provisions than the 
version to which EPA had previously referred. This is consistent with 
the statement of Mr. Haluza regarding the draft regulation.
    Additionally, on March 23, 1995, EPA published a direct final 
rulemaking (60 FR 55521) that removed any requirement for manufacturers 
to install anti-tampering strategies on federal vehicles, including 
vehicles certified under the option allowing compliance with California 
OBD II.
    Regarding the issue of whether EPA should extend this compliance 
option beyond the 1998 model year while the commenters' challenge to 
the earlier rule is before the D.C. Circuit, the D.C. Circuit has, as 
noted above, issued an opinion upholding EPA's earlier actions. 
Regarding the comment's objection to EPA using the final version of 
California's regulations without opportunity to comment, on February 
19, 1998, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice that the final 
California regulations were completed and available in the docket for 
this rulemaking. EPA provided a thirty day comment period (until March 
23, 1998) to allow for comment on California's final regulations. EPA 
received no further comments in response to the February 19, 1998 
notice.

D. Deficiency Provisions

1. Summary of Proposal
    The Agency proposed to extend the current flexibility provisions 
(i.e. ``deficiency provisions'') contained in 86.094-17(i) 
indefinitely, rather than being eliminated beyond the 1998 model year. 
Additionally, the Agency clarified its policy regarding deficiencies 
and their carryover from one model year to the next.
2. Summary of Comments
    Most comments received were in support of the indefinite extension 
of the deficiency provision. The Agency also received comments 
expressing concerns regarding a limit on the number of deficiencies 
that can be granted and not allowing carryover of deficiencies from one 
model year to the next, except where unreasonable hardware 
modifications would be necessary. The Agency also received comments 
suggesting that the complete lack of a diagnostic monitor should be 
allowed under the deficiency provision.
3. Response to Comments
    As stated in the NPRM, the Agency believes that, despite the best 
attempts by manufacturers to comply with the complex OBD requirements, 
there will still be unanticipated instances that cannot be remedied in 
time to meet production schedules. Given the newness and considerable 
complexity of designing, producing, and installing the components and 
systems that make up the OBD system, manufacturers have expressed and 
demonstrated difficulty in complying with every aspect of the OBD 
requirements, and such difficulty appears likely to continue in future 
model years. The Agency has already, on February 17, 1998, finalized a 
provision to extend the EPA's allowance of deficiencies through the 
1999 model year. (63 FR 7718.) In today's action, the Agency is 
finalizing a provision to indefinitely allow for deficiencies beyond 
the 1999 model year.
    With regards to allowing more than one deficiency, as stated in the 
NPRM, EPA does not intend to certify vehicles that have more than one 
OBD system deficiency unless it can be demonstrated that correction of 
the deficiency requires hardware and/or software modifications that 
absolutely cannot be accomplished in the time available, as determined 
by the Administrator. These limitations should prevent a manufacturer 
from using a deficiency allowance as a means to avoid compliance or 
delay OBD implementation.
    With regards to the carryover of deficiencies from one model year 
to the next, the Agency will finalize a provision to allow for the 
carryover of a deficiency from one model year to the next where 
unreasonable hardware or software modifications would otherwise be 
necessary to eliminate the deficiency. The Agency agrees with comments 
that there may be instances where deficiencies may not be discovered 
until late in the development process and there may not be enough time 
to develop software changes, new calibrations and validation testing to 
ensure a reliable software change.
    The Agency does not intend that the deficiency provisions be used 
as a long term planning tool by the manufacturers, but rather as a 
flexibility to address last minute problems. Requests for the carryover 
of deficiencies must be approved by the Administrator well in advance 
of certification with ample demonstration by the manufacturer that 
correction of the deficiency requires hardware and/or software 
modifications that absolutely cannot be made in time to meet production 
schedules.
    Furthermore, EPA will not accept any deficiency requests that 
include the complete lack of a major diagnostic monitor (``major'' 
diagnostic monitors being those for the catalyst, oxygen sensor, engine 
misfire, and evaporative leaks), with the possible exception of the 
special provisions for alternate fueled vehicles discussed below. With 
regards to the allowing of deficiencies for ``major'' diagnostic 
monitors, the Agency does not have the authority to certify a vehicle 
that does not meet the minimum requirements of the Clean Air Act (i.e., 
oxygen sensor monitor, catalyst monitor, and standardization features). 
Given that oxygen sensor monitors and catalyst monitors are now 
standard equipment on gasoline-fueled vehicles, it is not arguable that 
such monitors cannot be installed in such vehicles. Furthermore, the 
Agency considers these and other major monitors to be critical aspects 
of a working OBD system. Without these monitors, or any subset of these 
monitors, the OBD system does not meet the minimum requirements that 
EPA believes is necessary for a viable OBD system.

E. Diagnostic Readiness Codes

1. Summary of Proposal
    In the proposal, EPA provided clarification on the issue of 
diagnostic readiness codes, rather than proposing anything new, and 
requested comment on the clarification. 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. Readiness codes allow the I/M official to be certain 
that the lack of OBD diagnostic trouble codes means that the vehicle is 
operating cleanly, rather than perhaps being an indication that the OBD 
system simply had not had time to fully evaluate the vehicle. The I/M 
readiness codes, for those monitors that have associated I/M 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 component's or system's operational 
status.
2. Summary of Comments
    AAMA recommended that the Agency put in place a provision that 
would

[[Page 70690]]

allow for the clearing of OBD readiness codes for affected monitors if 
monitoring is disabled for a number of driving cycles due to extreme 
operating conditions. For example, the evaporative leak detection 
monitor is typically disabled at temperatures below 40  deg.F to avoid 
false MILs due to freezing vapors in the fuel lines. The comment argues 
that it would be unfair if a vehicle failed to pass an I/M inspection 
because it had stayed in extreme conditions during the time between a 
maintenance that included disconnecting the battery (which clears I/M 
readiness codes) and the I/M inspection.
3. Response to Comments
    The Agency agrees that there may be conditions under which certain 
monitors will not and should not run. In particular, the Agency is 
aware that evaporative system monitors, when exposed to extremely low 
ambient temperatures, will not be able to run because any water vapor 
in the fuel lines can freeze. Such freezing is not unusual, but it does 
make attempts at leak detection very difficult and increases the 
likelihood of false failure determinations. Because these readiness 
codes are intended to assist in Inspection and Maintenance programs, 
the Agency is sensitive to the possibility that consumers may bring 
their vehicles in for inspection with readiness codes that are set to 
``not ready'' because a particular monitor was not able to run.
    Therefore, the Agency is today finalizing a provision that will 
allow for readiness flags to be set to ``ready'' if monitoring is 
disabled for at least two driving cycles due to the continued presence 
of extreme operating conditions (such as ambient temperatures below 40 
deg.F, or altitudes above 8000 feet). Administrator approval must be 
obtained in advance and shall be based on the conditions for monitoring 
system disablement and the number of driving cycles specified without 
completion of monitoring before readiness is indicated.

F. Provisions for Alternate Fuel Vehicles

1. Summary of Proposal
    The Agency proposed a flexibility provision for alternate fuel 
vehicles through the 2004 model year. Currently, alternate fuel 
vehicles must fully comply with federal OBD requirements beginning in 
the 1999 model year. Under the proposed provision, alternate fuel 
vehicles must fully comply with federal OBD requirements during 
gasoline operation beginning in the 1999 model year. However, during 
alternate fuel operation, some monitors may be deactivated where 
technological infeasibility can be demonstrated and the Administrator 
has provided approval.
2. Summary of Comments
    The Agency received several comments in support of the proposed 
alternate fuel provision through the 2004 model year. The arguments 
made by commenters suggest that significant technological hurdles still 
face the alternate fuel industry in fully complying with the federal 
OBD requirements. For example, the catalyst is designed for control of 
emissions from gasoline fuels. The auto manufacturers have generated 
large amounts of data on the durability of catalysts during gasoline 
operation. Such is not the case for catalyst durability during 
alternate fuel operation. As a result, it appears that no manufacturer 
can currently calibrate a catalyst monitor for proper malfunction 
detection at high mileages since so little data exists showing the 
emission durability after 100k miles of alternate fuel operation. 
Therefore, commenters recommend that more lead time be given to fully 
explore this and other technological hurdles still facing OBD 
implementation on alternate fuel vehicles.
3. Response to Comments
    The Agency agrees with the commenters that technological 
feasibility remains an issue for OBD systems on alternate fuel 
vehicles. As the Agency stated in the proposal, it is supportive of the 
use of alternate fuel vehicles and is committed to seeing larger 
volumes of EPA certified alternate fueled vehicles produced and sold. 
Therefore, the Agency will finalize a provision to allow flexibility in 
the OBD monitoring requirements during alternate fuel operation. This 
provision is intended to provide additional leadtime for alternate fuel 
OBD development. The provision extends through the 2004 model year 
only; it requires a demonstration of technological infeasibility and 
Administrator approval; and, it does not apply to alternate fuel 
vehicles while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel (for diesel cycle 
engines). To clarify, 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 include monitoring strategies to the 
extent feasible, but will not be required to include monitoring 
strategies the reliability of which is still doubtful for alternate 
fuel operation. Further, 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 manufacturers can show that reliable 
diagnostic strategies are not feasible.

G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

1. Summary of Proposal
    The Agency proposed to Incorporate by Reference a series of 
standardized Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and International 
Standards Organization (ISO) procedures. The SAE documents are SAE 
J1850, SAE J1877, SAE J1892, SAE J1962, SAE J1979, and SAE J2012. The 
ISO documents proposed to be Incorporated by Reference were ISO 9141-2 
and ISO 1423-4.
2. Summary of Comments
    The Agency received no adverse comment on the Incorporation by 
Reference of the SAE and ISO standardized procedures. One commenter 
suggested the incorporation by reference of the ISO engine symbol for 
the malfunction indicator light (MIL) to use in place of the wording 
``check engine'' or ``service engine soon''.
3. Response to Comments
    The Agency will Incorporate by Reference all of the SAE and ISO 
standardized procedures with the exception of ISO 14230-4. This 
document has not been finalized by the International Standards 
Organization and therefore cannot be Incorporated by Reference in 
Agency regulations. Regarding the use of the ISO engine symbol for the 
malfunction indicator light, the Agency agrees with such a policy and 
has approved such MIL designs whenever they have been requested. To 
eliminate the need for the manufacturer to request Administrator 
approval of such MIL designs, and because the Agency believes that 
engine symbols are universally recognized without the need to 
understand the English phrases ``Service Engine Soon'' or ``Check 
Engine,'' the final regulations contain a provision allowing use of a 
universally recognized engine symbol.

[[Page 70691]]

H. Diesel Cycle Vehicles

1. Summary of Proposal
    In the regulatory language of the NPRM, the Agency incorrectly 
referred to sections of the regulatory language that did and did not 
apply to diesel cycle vehicles and trucks. The proposed regulatory 
language stated that Sec. 86.099-17 paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) did 
not apply to diesels, and that only Sec. 86.099-30 paragraph (f)(4) did 
apply to diesels.
2. Summary of Comments
    Comments received from AAMA suggested that there were several 
oversights as to which paragraphs of these sections did not apply to 
diesel cycle engines.
3. Response to Comments
    The Agency agrees that there were oversights as to which of the 
paragraphs contained in the sections noted above apply to diesel cycle 
engines. In section Sec. 86.099-17, paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) do 
not apply to diesel cycle engines. In section Sec. 86.099-30, 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) do not apply to diesel cycle engines.

I. Certification Requirements

1. Summary of Proposal
    The Agency did not propose any changes to the federal OBD 
certification requirements.
2. Summary of Comments
    The Agency received comments from AAMA regarding their concern that 
the NPRM regulatory language does not provide opportunities for 
manufacturers to provide engineering reports or other information that 
may alleviate problems on an emission data vehicle or other test 
vehicle before the vehicle is produced for sale. AAMA contends that 
last minute OBD calibration changes are often required after the 
emission certification calibrations have been established and that the 
emission data vehicle may not contain a finalized OBD calibration. AAMA 
contends that this opportunity is currently allowed by the Agency for 
other emission related changes made by the manufacturer and should be 
permitted for OBD systems as well.
    AAMA also expressed concern with regards to EPA inducing component 
faults that could potentially damage official certification vehicles. 
AAMA contends that such testing should be done only on development 
vehicles which would avoid the risk of damaging their certification 
vehicles while still providing the data needed by EPA.
3. Response to Comments
    The Agency's running change regulations codified in 40 CFR 86.079-
32, 86.079-33, and 86.079-34, allow the manufacturer to be given the 
opportunity to provide an engineering report or description of any 
follow-up actions that will alleviate any OBD concerns discovered on 
emissions or fuel economy data vehicles.
    With regards to concerns over inducing component-damaging faults on 
official certification vehicles, since it is not the Agency's intent to 
damage such vehicles, EPA agrees to consult with the manufacturer to 
ensure that appropriate test vehicles are used for such purposes.

J. Comments on Cost Effectiveness and Environmental Impact

1. Summary of Proposal
    In the preamble to the NPRM, the Agency stated that the proposed 
changes to the federal OBD program would not have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more, nor would they 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.
    With regards to environmental impact, the Agency proposed no 
changes that were expected to impact the originally estimated emissions 
reductions or air quality impact analyses finalized in the February 
1993, federal OBD regulations (58 FR 9468).
2. Summary of Comments
    The Agency received one unsubstantiated comment from an individual 
who stated that this regulation would have an effect on the economy 
that would exceed $100 million annually. The commenter suggests that 
OBD technology is changing the vehicle repair industry and forcing 
service facilities to adopt expensive and unreliable state-of-the art 
technologies that add substantial costs to the diagnosis and repair of 
OBD equipped vehicles. This commenter goes on to state that the 
proposed regulations would have minimal effect on the environment.
3. Response to Comments
    Regarding the concern that OBD technology is imposing significant 
cost on the repair industry, the Agency's Service Information 
Availability regulations (60 FR 55521) require that emission related 
vehicle repair information and the necessary tools to access the OBD 
system be made available by the auto manufacturer to the service and 
repair industry, and that it be available at competitive prices. The 
Agency disagrees that the provisions being finalized today or the 
issues raised by the commenter will have an annual impact on the 
economy greater than $100 million (See Section V.--Cost Effectiveness).
    Regarding comments that the proposed regulations will provide no 
environmental benefit to the public, the Agency does not agree. The 
changes proposed in the NPRM and being finalized today neither increase 
nor decrease the emission reductions expected from the OBD program. 
However, the Agency disagrees that OBD systems in general will provide 
no benefits. EPA provided emissions and air quality analyses in the 
initial federal OBD regulations (58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993) 
illustrating substantial emission reductions associated with OBD.

V. Cost Effectiveness

    This final 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 the regulations being finalized today 
will provide cost savings by eliminating the need to incur significant 
recalibration and/or retesting costs and efforts associated with having 
two sets of OBD regulations with which to comply.
    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 the 
regulations being finalized today 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 
estimates that the total potential additional cost of this regulation 
resulting from mandating the evaporative leak detection monitor will be 
substantially less than $20 million annually beginning in model year 
2001. In addition, the Agency believes that mandating the evaporative 
system leak detection monitor would not increase

[[Page 70692]]

the total 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, 
extremely small volume import manufacturers that are set for compliance 
with the current federal OBD thresholds will be required to reevaluate 
their OBD calibrations and would require potential rework to comply 
with the thresholds finalized today. Because this recalibration effort 
could be resource intensive, the Agency requested comments on the level 
of burden and potential means of resolving this concern should it be 
warranted based on the burden imposed. The Agency received comments 
indicating that it would be appropriate to allow manufacturers that 
have been set for compliance with the current federal OBD thresholds to 
meet such thresholds for two additional years. EPA has agreed to allow 
this in the final rule.
    The automotive aftermarket industry has argued that the provisions 
of the regulations being finalized today 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. The aftermarket has also argued 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 the current federal OBD regulations. Any costs 
associated with these anti-tampering devices are not a result of this 
rule, but of independent actions by manufacturers. Moreover, CARB has 
eliminated the anti-tampering provisions considered most egregious by 
the aftermarket.4 Therefore, EPA believes that the 
provisions of this final rulemaking are not responsible for increased 
costs on the automotive aftermarket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CARB Mail-Out #97-24, 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 finalized 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

    The Agency held a public hearing on July 9, 1997 for public 
testimony on the proposed revisions. Those comments and the additional 
comments received during the public comment period are available in Air 
Docket A-96-32. The comments received on the proposed revisions are 
discussed and addressed in section IV. of this final rulemaking.

VII. Administration 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.
    This action was submitted to OMB for review pursuant to Executive 
Order 12866.

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. 783.36).
    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 Information Collection Request (ICR) document may be 
obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at OP Regulatory Information 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137) ; 401 St., S.W. 
Washington DC 20640, by email at farmer.sandy epa mail.epa.gov.or by 
calling (202) 260-2740. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless 
it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 
number s for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR 
Chapter 15.

C. Impact on Small Entities

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with this final 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. See United Distribution Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1005, 
1170 ( D.C. Cir. 1996).

[[Page 70693]]

    In the absence of this final 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. Most 
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 final 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 final rule, the rule is not expected to significantly increase OBD 
system cost beyond the estimate given.

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 of $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 finalized today would not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector.

E. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

F. Applicability of Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

    This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on 
environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately 
affect children.

G. Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by stature and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representative of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representative of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    This rule will be implemented at the federal level and imposes 
compliance obligations only on private industry. The rule thus creates 
no mandate on State, local or tribal governments, nor does it impose 
any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements 
of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

H. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal 
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and 
other representative of Indian tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies 
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities 
of Indian tribal governments. As noted above, this rule will be 
implemented at the federal level and imposes compliance obligations 
only on private industry. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

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: November 25, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 86 of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES 
AND ENGINES

    1. The authority citation for part 86 continues 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

[[Page 70694]]

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
                   Document No. and name                          86
                                                              reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
SAE J1850, July 1995, Class B Data Communication Network
 Interface.................................................    86.099-17
SAE J1877, July 1994, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded
 Vehicle Identification Number Label.......................    86.095-35
SAE J1892, October 1993, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded
 Vehicle Emission Configuration Label......................    86.095-35
SAE J1962, January 1995, Diagnostic Connector..............    86.099-17
SAE J1979, July 1996, E/E Diagnostic Test Modes............    86.099-17
SAE J2012, July 1996, Recommended Practices for Diagnostic
 Trouble Code Definitions..................................    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
                   Document No. and name                          86
                                                              reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO 9141-2, February 1994, Road vehicles--Diagnostic
 systems Part 2............................................    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 86.095-35 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 July 1994, ``Recommended Practice for 
Bar-Coded Vehicle Identification Number Label,'' and J1892 October 
1993, ``Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded Vehicle Emission 
Configuration Label.'' SAE J1877 and J1892 are incorporated by 
reference. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
Part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Society of Automotive 
Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. 
Copies may be inspected at Docket No. A-90-35 at EPA's Air Docket (LE-
131), room 1500M, 1st Floor, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    5. 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 #97-24 (December 9, 1997), 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.
    6. 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 
these regulations shall be evaluated periodically, but no less 
frequently than once per Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule as defined 
in Appendix I, paragraph (a), of this part, or similar trip 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, excluding those test 
procedures described in Sec. 86.158-00. Paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section does not apply to diesel cycle light-duty vehicles or diesel 
cycle light-duty trucks, except where the catalyst is needed for NMHC 
control. Paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of this section do not 
apply to diesel cycle light-duty vehicles or diesel cycle light-duty 
trucks.
    (1) Catalyst deterioration or malfunction before it results in an 
increase in NMHC emissions 1.5 times the NMHC standard, as compared to 
the NMHC 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 NMHC, 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 NMHC, 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; any absence of evaporative purge air 
flow from the complete evaporative emission control system. On vehicles 
with fuel tank capacity greater than 25 gallons, the Administrator may, 
following a request from the manufacturer, revise the size of the 
orifice to the smallest orifice feasible, based on test data, if the 
most reliable monitoring method available cannot reliably detect a 
system leak equal to a 0.040 inch diameter orifice.
    (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 NMHC, CO or 
NOX For vehicles equipped with a secondary air system, a 
functional check, as described in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, may 
satisfy the requirements of this paragraph provided the manufacturer 
can demonstrate that deterioration of the flow distribution system is 
unlikely. This demonstration

[[Page 70695]]

is subject to Administrator approval and, if the demonstration and 
associated functional check are approved, the diagnostic system shall 
indicate a malfunction when some degree of secondary airflow is not 
detectable in the exhaust system during the check. For vehicles 
equipped with positive crankcase ventilation (PCV), monitoring of the 
PCV system is not necessary provided the manufacturer can demonstrate 
to the Administrator's satisfaction that the PCV system is unlikely to 
fail.
    (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; monitoring of components required by this paragraph shall be 
satisfied by employing electrical circuit continuity checks and 
rationality checks for computer input components (input values within 
manufacturer specified ranges), and functionality checks for computer 
output components (proper functional response to computer commands) 
except that the Administrator may waive such a rationality or 
functionality check where the manufacturer has demonstrated 
infeasibility; 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.
    (8) Alternatively, for model years 1999 and 2000, engine families 
may comply with the malfunction descriptions of Sec. 86.098-17(a) and 
(b) in lieu of the malfunction descriptions in paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of this section. This alternative is not applicable after the 2000 
model year.
    (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,'' a universally recognizable engine symbol, 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. If such misfire is detected 
again during the following driving cycle (i.e., operation consisting 
of, at a minimum, engine start-up and engine shut-off) or the next 
driving cycle in which similar conditions are encountered, 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 similar conditions are encountered (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 driving cycles 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 
incorporated by reference 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. Subject to 
Administrator approval, if monitoring is disabled for a multiple number 
of driving cycles (i.e., more than one) due to the continued presence 
of extreme operating conditions (e.g., ambient temperatures below 
40 deg.F, or altitudes above 8000 feet), readiness for the subject 
monitoring system may be set to ``ready'' status without monitoring 
having been completed. Administrator approval shall be based on the 
conditions for monitoring system disablement, and the number of driving

[[Page 70696]]

cycles specified without completion of monitoring before readiness is 
indicated.
    (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 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 
incorporated by reference 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. Additionally, the diagnostic system is not required to 
evaluate systems or components during operation of a power take-off 
unit such as a dump bed, snow plow blade, or aerial bucket, etc.
    (h) Incorporation by 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. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be inspected at Docket No. A-90-35 at EPA's Air docket (LE-131), 
room 1500 M, 1st Floor, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (1) SAE material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from 
the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, 
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.
    (i) SAE J1850 July 1995, ``Class B Data Communication Network 
Interface,'' 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 Sec. 86.094-17(e) and 
(f)) shall be provided in the format and units in SAE J1979 July 1996, 
E/E Diagnostic Test Modes.
    (iii) Diagnostic trouble codes shall be consistent with SAE J2012 
July 1996, ``Recommended Practices for Diagnostic Trouble Code 
Definitions.''
    (iv) The connection interface between the OBD system and test 
equipment and diagnostic tools shall meet the functional requirements 
of SAE J1962 January 1995, ``Diagnostic Connector.''
    (2) ISO materials. Copies of these materials may be obtained from 
the International Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, 
CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
    (i) ISO 9141-2 February 1994, ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--
Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange of digital information,'' may 
be used as an alternative to SAE J1850 as the on-board to off-board 
communications protocol.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (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 or software 
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 
major diagnostic monitor (``major'' diagnostic monitors being those for 
the catalyst, oxygen sensor, engine misfire, and evaporative leaks), 
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 #97-24 (December 9, 1997), 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 the 
deficiency fine provisions of 1968.1(m)(6.1) and (6.2) shall not apply.

[[Page 70697]]

    7. A new Sec. 86.099-30 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 86.099-30  Certification.

    This Sec. 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 Sec. 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) and (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)(9)[Reserved]. For guidance see 
Sec. 86.094-30.
    (a)(10)(i) through (a)(11)(ii)(C)[Reserved]. For guidance see 
Sec. 86.098-30.
    (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 test vehicle approved by the Administrator in consultation 
with the manufacturer, the malfunction indicator light does not 
illuminate under any of the following circumstances, unless the 
manufacturer can demonstrate that any identified OBD problems 
discovered during the Administrator's evaluation will be corrected on 
production vehicles. Only paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6) of this section 
apply to diesel cycle vehicles and diesel cycle trucks where such 
vehicles and trucks 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 NMHC standard above the NMHC 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 NMHC, 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 NMHC, 
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 NMHC, 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. 98-32570 Filed 12-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P