[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 pugliese.holly@epamail.epa.gov.''
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
