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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

[FRL-6196-4]

Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles and New Motor

Vehicle Engines; Modification of Federal On-board Diagnostic

Regulations for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks; Extension of

Acceptance of California OBD II Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's action finalizes modifications to the federal on-board

diagnostics regulations, including: harmonizing the emission levels

above which a component or system is considered malfunctioning (i.e.,

the malfunction thresholds) with those of the California Air Resources

Board (CARB) OBD II requirements; mandating that EPA OBD systems fully

evaluate the entire emission control system, including the evaporative

emission control system; indefinitely extending the allowance of

deficiencies for federal OBD vehicles; indefinitely extending the

allowance of optional compliance with the California OBD II

requirements for federal OBD certification while also updating the

allowed version of those California OBD II regulations to the most

recently published version; providing flexibility to alternate fueled

vehicles through the 2004 model year rather than providing flexibility

only through the 1998 model year; updating the incorporation by

reference of several recommended practices developed by the Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE) to incorporate recently published versions,

while also incorporating by reference standardization protocol

developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

OBD systems in general provide substantial ozone benefits.

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

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in

Docket No. A-96-32. The docket is located at The Air Docket, 401 M.

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, and may be viewed in room M1500

between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The telephone

number is (202) 260-7548 and the facsimile number is (202) 260-4400. A

reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, Vehicle Programs and

Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000

Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, Telephone 734-214-4288, or

Internet e-mail at ``[email protected].''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which

manufacturer new motor vehicles and engines. Regulated categories

include:

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

Examples of regulated

Category entities

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

Industry.................................. New motor vehicle and engine

manufacturers.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities EPA is now aware could potentially

be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the

table could also be regulated. To determine whether your product is

regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in Sec. 86.099-17 of title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability

of this action to a particular product, consult the person listed in

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Table of Contents

I. Electronic Availability

II. Introduction and Background

III. Requirements of the Final Rule

A.Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds and Monitoring Requirements

B. Similar Operating Conditions Window

C. Extension for Acceptance of California OBD II as Satisfying

Federal OBD

D. Deficiency Provisions

E. Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles

F. Applicability

G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

H. Certification Provisions

IV.Discussion of Comments and Issues

A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds

B. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements

[[Page 70682]]

C. Extension for Acceptance of California OBD II as Satisfying

Federal OBD

D. Deficiency Provisions

E. Diagnostic Readiness Codes

F. Provisions for Alternate Fuel Vehicles

G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

H. Diesel Cycle Vehicles

I. Certification Requirements

J. Comments on Cost Effectiveness and Environmental Impact

V. Cost Effectiveness

VI. Public Participation

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

C. Impact on Small Entities

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

E. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

Protection

G. Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

H. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

I. Electronic Availability

Electronic copies of the preamble and regulatory text of this final

rulemaking are available via the Internet on the Office of Mobile

Sources (OMS) Home Page (http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/). Users can find

OBD related information and documents through the following path once

they have accessed the OMS Home Page: ``Automobiles,'' ``I/M & OBD,''

``On-Board Diagnostics Files.''

II. Introduction and Background

On February 19, 1993 pursuant to Clean Air Act section 202(m), 42

U.S.C. 7521(m), the EPA published a final rulemaking (58 FR 9468)

requiring manufacturers of light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty

trucks (LDTs) to install on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems on such

vehicles beginning with the 1994 model year. The regulations

promulgated in that final rulemaking require manufacturers to install

OBD systems that monitor emission control components for any

malfunction or deterioration causing exceedance of certain emission

thresholds. The regulations also require that the driver be notified of

the need for repair via a dashboard light when the diagnostic system

has detected a problem.

On May 28, 1997, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(62 FR 28932) that proposed changes to the federal OBD requirements.

Those proposed changes would be implemented beginning with the 1999

model year. The proposed revisions included: harmonizing the emission

levels above which a component or system is considered malfunctioning

(i.e., the malfunction thresholds) with those of the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) OBD II requirements; mandating that federal OBD

systems fully evaluate the entire emission control system, including

the evaporative emission control system; indefinitely extending the

allowance of deficiencies for federal OBD vehicles; indefinitely

extending the allowance of optional compliance with the California OBD

II requirements for federal OBD certification while also updating the

version of those California OBD II regulations to which manufacturers

may certify to the most recently revised version; providing flexibility

for alternate fueled vehicles through the 2004 model year rather than

providing flexibility only through the 1998 model year; updating the

incorporation by reference of several recommended practices developed

by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to incorporate recently

published versions, while also incorporating by reference two

standardization protocols developed by the International Organization

for Standardization (ISO). Today's action will finalize these and other

proposed changes along with other minor changes as discussed below.

III. Requirements of the Final Rule

Following are the provisions promulgated by this final rulemaking.

A complete discussion of the comments received on the proposed

regulations and the Agency's response to those comments can be found in

section IV--Discussion of Comments and Issues.

A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds and Monitoring Requirements

Beginning in the 1999 model year, OBD systems on spark-ignition

LDVs and LDTs must be able to detect and alert the driver of the

following emission-related malfunctions or deterioration as evaluated

over the original Federal Test Procedure (FTP; i.e., not including the

Supplemental FTP): 1, 2

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

\1\ The text presented here does not constitute regulatory text.

The final regulatory text can be viewed immediately following this

preamble.

2 Note that, while malfunction thresholds are based

on FTP emissions, this does not mean that OBD monitors need operate

only during the FTP. All OBD monitors that operate during the FTP

should operate in a similar manner during non-FTP conditions. The

prohibition against defeat devices in Sec. 86.094-16 applies to

these rules.

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

(1) Catalyst deterioration or malfunction before it results in an

increase in NMHC 3 emissions equal to or greater than 1.5

times the NMHC standard, as compared to the NMHC emission level

measured using a representative 4000 mile catalyst system.

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

\3\ As a point of clarification, Tier 1 federal emissions

standards are expressed in terms of NMHC. Therefore, in order to

remain consistent, all references to HC will be referred to as NMHC.

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

(2) Engine misfire before it results in an exhaust emission

exceedance of 1.5 times the applicable standard for NMHC, CO or

NOX.

(3) Oxygen sensor deterioration or malfunction before it results in

an exhaust emission exceedance of 1.5 times the applicable standard for

NMHC, CO or NOX.

(4) Any vapor leak in the evaporative and/or refueling system

(excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve and the

intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused by

a 0.040 inch diameter orifice; any absence of evaporative purge air

flow from the complete evaporative emission control system. On vehicles

with fuel tank capacity greater than 25 gallons, the Administrator

shall revise the size of the orifice to the feasibility limit, based on

test data, if the most reliable monitoring method available cannot

reliably detect a system leak equal to a 0.040 inch diameter orifice.

(5) Any deterioration or malfunction occurring in a powertrain

system or component directly intended to control emissions, including

but not necessarily limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)

system, if equipped, the secondary air system, if equipped, and the

fuel control system, singularly resulting in exhaust emissions

exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard for NMHC, CO or

NOX. For vehicles equipped with a secondary air system, a

functional check, as described in paragraph (b)(6), may satisfy the

requirements of this paragraph provided the manufacturer can

demonstrate that deterioration of the flow distribution system is

unlikely. This demonstration is subject to Administrator approval and,

if the demonstration and associated functional check are approved, the

diagnostic system shall indicate a malfunction when some degree of

secondary airflow is not detectable in the exhaust system during the

check.

(6) Any other deterioration or malfunction occurring in an

electronic emission-related powertrain system or component not

otherwise described above that either provides input to or receives

commands from the on-board computer and has a measurable impact on

emissions; monitoring of components required by this paragraph shall be

satisfied by employing electrical circuit continuity checks and,

wherever feasible, rationality checks for

[[Page 70683]]

computer input components (input values within manufacturer specified

ranges), and functionality checks for computer output components

(proper functional response to computer commands); malfunctions are

defined as a failure of the system or component to meet the electrical

circuit continuity checks or the rationality or functionality checks.

For compression-ignition engines, paragraph 1 above would apply

only when the catalyst is needed for NMHC control, and paragraphs 2,3,

and 4 above would not apply.

Upon detection of a malfunction, the malfunction indicator light

(MIL) is to be illuminated and a fault code stored no later than the

end of the next driving cycle during which monitoring occurs provided

the malfunction is again detected. The only exception to this would be

if, upon Administrator approval, a manufacturer is allowed to use a

diagnostic strategy that employs statistical algorithms for malfunction

determination (e.g., Exponentially Weighted Moving Averages (EWMA)).

The Administrator considers such strategies beneficial for some

monitors because they reduce the danger of illuminating the MIL falsely

since more monitoring events are used in making pass/fail decisions.

However, the Administrator will only approve such strategies provided

the number of trips required for a valid malfunction determination is

not excessive (e.g., six or seven monitoring events). Manufacturers are

required to determine the appropriate operating conditions for

diagnostic system monitoring with the limitation that monitoring

conditions are encountered at least once during the first engine start

portion of the applicable Federal Test Procedure (FTP) or a similar

test cycle as approved by the Administrator. This is not meant to

suggest that monitors be designed to operate only under FTP conditions,

as such a design would not encompass the complete operating range

required for OBD malfunction detection.

B. Similar Operating Conditions Window

The Agency is finalizing a revision to the engine operating

conditions window associated with extinguishing the MIL for engine

misfire and fuel system malfunctions. The federal OBD regulations will

require that, upon MIL illumination and diagnostic trouble code storage

associated with engine misfire or fuel system malfunctions, the

manufacturer is allowed to extinguish the MIL provided the same

malfunction is not again detected during three subsequent sequential

trips during which engine speed is within 375 rpm, engine load is

within 20 percent, and the engine's warm-up status is the same as that

under which the malfunction was first detected, and no new malfunctions

have been detected.

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

OBD

The Agency is finalizing a provision allowing optional compliance

with the current California OBD II requirements, excluding the

California OBD II anti-tampering requirements, as satisfying federal

OBD. The current California OBD II requirements are in CARB Mail-Out

#97-24 (EPA Air Docket A-96-32, Document IV-H-01, December 9, 1997).

Manufacturers choosing the California OBD II demonstration option need

not comply with portions of that regulation pertaining to vehicles

certified under the Low Emission Vehicle Program as those standards are

not federal standards. Additionally, manufacturers choosing the

California OBD II demonstration option need not comply with section

(b)(4.2.2), which requires evaporative system leak detection of a 0.02

inch diameter orifice and represents a level of stringency beyond that

ever appropriately considered for federal OBD compliance. The Agency is

finalizing a provision that will require evaporative leak detection of

a 0.04 inch diameter orifice, with some flexibility afforded to

vehicles with a fuel tank capacity greater than 25 gallons (see

Sections III.A.4 and IV.B.2.d). Lastly, manufacturers choosing the

California OBD II demonstration option need not comply with section

(d), which contains the anti-tampering provisions of the California

regulations.

D. Deficiency Provisions

Today's action finalizes a provision to extend the current

flexibility provisions (i.e., ``deficiency provisions'') contained in

Sec. 86.094-17(i) indefinitely, rather than being eliminated beyond the

1999 model year. This will allow the Administrator to accept an OBD

system as compliant even though specific requirements are not fully

met. This provision neither constitutes a waiver from federal OBD

requirements, nor does it allow compliance without meeting the minimum

requirements of the CAA (i.e., oxygen sensor monitor, catalyst monitor,

and standardization features).

E. Provisions for Alternate Fueled Vehicles

EPA is finalizing a flexibility provision for alternate fuel

vehicles that will apply through the 2004 model year. Such vehicles

will be expected to comply fully with the OBD requirements proposed

today during gasoline operation (if applicable), and during alternate

fuel operation except where it is technologically infeasible to do so.

Any manufacturer wishing to utilize this flexibility provision must

demonstrate technological infeasibility concerns to EPA well in advance

of certification.

F. Applicability

Today's finalized provisions to federal OBD malfunction thresholds,

monitoring requirements, deficiency provisions, alternate fuel

provisions, and the recommended practices incorporated by reference

apply to all 1999 and later model year light-duty vehicles and light-

duty trucks for which emission standards are in place or are

subsequently developed and promulgated by EPA.

G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

Today's action finalizes the incorporation by reference of ISO

9141-2 February 1994, ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--Part 2: CARB

requirements for interchange of digital information,'' as an acceptable

protocol for standardized on-board to off-board communications. This

standardized procedure was proposed in September 24, 1991 (56 FR

48272), but could not be adopted in the February 1993 final rule

because the ISO document was not yet finalized. ISO 9141-2 has since

been finalized and is incorporated by reference in today's final

regulatory language.

Today's action also finalizes the incorporation by reference of

updated versions of the SAE procedures referenced in the current OBD

regulation. These SAE documents are J1850, J1979, J2012, J1962, J1877

and J1892.

The incorporation by reference of these documents was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in a letter dated December 15,

1997. A copy of this letter may be found in the docket for this

rulemaking (A-96-32, IV-H-02).

H. Certification Provisions

The certification provisions associated with OBD, contained in

Sec. 86.099-30, are today revised to reflect the proposed changes to

the OBD malfunction thresholds and monitoring requirements.

[[Page 70684]]

IV. Discussion of Comments and Issues

A. Federal OBD Malfunction Thresholds

1. Summary of Proposal

EPA proposed to substitute its current approach for OBD malfunction

thresholds for an approach consistent with the malfunction thresholds

in the California OBD II regulations. Specifically, EPA proposed to

revise the federal OBD malfunction thresholds such that they be based

not on baseline emissions, but rather the emissions standards

themselves. The proposed revisions would require identification of

malfunctions of powertrain systems or components when emissions exceed

1.5 times the applicable federal standard.

For catalyst deterioration or malfunction, the proposed revisions

would require identification when emissions exceed 1.5 times the NMHC

standard as compared to the NMHC emission level measured using a

representative 4000 mile catalyst system. For example, a vehicle with

4000 mile emissions of 0.10 g/mi NMHC would have a catalyst malfunction

threshold of 0.475 g/mi NMHC [(1.5) x (0.25 g/mi NMHC) + 0.10 g/mi

NMHC = 0.475 g/mi NMHC].

For evaporative leak detection, the proposal eliminated the 30 g/

test emission threshold and instead requires detection of any hole

equivalent to, or greater in size than, one with a 0.04 inch diameter.

2. Summary of Comments

All the comments specifically referring to the proposed

modifications to the federal OBD malfunction thresholds were

supportive. One comment also recommended that the Agency incorporate a

provision that would allow for a two year carryover of systems that are

fully compliant with the current EPA OBD thresholds. This commenter has

chosen to certify most of its light-duty fleet to the EPA thresholds

since the 1996 model year, rather than choosing the California OBD II

compliance option. The commenter goes on to state that their OBD

compliance plans have already been made under the assumption that the

EPA thresholds would remain a viable compliance option and to require

compliance with the thresholds finalized today would be overly

burdensome while providing no environmental benefit.

3. Response to Comments

The Agency concurs with the comments received and will finalize

changes to the malfunction thresholds as follows. The finalized

regulations will require identification of misfires and malfunction of

oxygen sensors and all other powertrain systems or components directly

intended to control emissions (e.g., evaporative purge control, EGR,

secondary air system, fuel control system) when emissions exceed the

specified emission threshold of 1.5 times the applicable federal

emission standard. For evaporative systems, leak detection will be

required for any hole equivalent to, or greater in size than, one with

a 0.04 inch diameter. For catalyst deterioration, the threshold is an

increase of 1.5 times the applicable standard compared to emissions

from a representative catalyst run for 4000 miles. Additionally, as

stated in the NPRM, the Agency is concerned about penalizing OEMs or

small volume manufacturers who had proactively set out to meet the EPA

OBD requirements and the Agency agrees that it would be overly

burdensome to require manufacturers to redesign systems that are

already in production. Therefore, the Agency will finalize a provision

that will allow for a two year carryover period for systems that are

fully compliant with the current EPA OBD regulations contained in

Sec. 86.098-17, paragraphs (a) through (i).

B. Expanded Federal OBD Monitoring Requirements

1. Summary of Proposal

The proposal outlined requirements for monitoring of emission-

related powertrain components that provide information to and receive

commands from the on-board computer whose malfunction may impact

emissions or may impair the ability of the OBD system to perform its

job (e.g. throttle position sensor, coolant temperature sensor, vehicle

speed sensor, etc.). These components must be monitored, at a minimum,

for electrical circuit continuity checks, and effective rationality

and/or functionality checks. Deterioration or malfunction of these

components will be identified when a component fails the circuit

continuity check or the rationality or functionality check.

In contrast, the original EPA OBD requirements left the monitoring

of many of these components to the discretion of the manufacturer.

Should the manufacturer determine that any such components were not

likely to malfunction, or upon their malfunction they would not cause

exceedance of the emission thresholds, then such components need not be

monitored. The proposed change was that this optional monitoring

approach be eliminated and be replaced with mandatory monitoring

requirements.

2. Summary of Comments

There were several comments regarding specific proposed changes to

the monitoring requirements.

(a) Regarding secondary air system monitoring requirements, the

Agency proposed that this system be monitored for deterioration or

malfunction at 1.5 times the applicable standard. The American

Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) recommended that only a

functionality check is feasible for this system rather than the

proposed emissions based monitor. Manufacturers have already invested

in an monitoring strategy which conducts a functional check of the

secondary air system. AAMA argues that in order to implement an

emissions based monitor to meet the proposed federal requirements,

manufacturers would have to add costly hardware that will likely result

in no additional air quality benefits. AAMA suggests that only a

functional check be required with administrator approval.

(b) Regarding the proposed functionality and rationality check

provisions for electronic powertrain component monitors, AAMA

recommended that EPA require functionality and rationality checks only

when they are feasible. The comment argues that, while manufacturers

have successfully implemented rationality and/or functionality checks

on many of the comprehensive components, they have found that for some

components such as the intake air temperature sensor, monitoring for

functionality and/or rationality would require development and

implementation of complex monitoring strategies that, in the end,

result in no additional air quality benefit.

(c) Regarding catalyst damage misfire monitoring requirements, AAMA

recommended that EPA not require continuous MIL illumination following

catalyst damage misfire until it is detected on two consecutive driving

cycles or the next driving cycle in which similar conditions are

encountered. AAMA is concerned that the current provisions for catalyst

damage misfire detection may result in detection of infrequent misfires

that are not related to any hardware malfunction. Such misfires are

typically the result of water in the gasoline or water vapor in the

fuel systems. As a result, no repair can be made because the problem is

not the result of a hardware of software malfunction.

(d) Regarding evaporative system monitoring, AAMA recommended that,

for reasons of technological feasibility,

[[Page 70685]]

EPA should allow a larger orifice threshold for evaporative system

monitors on vehicles with fuel tank capacity greater that 25 gallons.

AAMA states that, on fuel tanks with a capacity of greater than 25

gallons, it is not possible to reliably detect such small leaks. The

comment argues that the larger vapor volume possible with large volume

tanks results in very small pressure changes associated with a 0.04

inch hole. Such small pressure changes cannot be reliably detected

using existing leak detection strategies. As a result, these smaller

pressure changes are more difficult to detect under typical driving

conditions on vehicles with large fuel tank capacity.

(e) Power take-off units are used to provide power from a vehicle's

engine to an auxiliary device such as a snow plow blade. Regarding OBD

detection during operation of power take-off units, AAMA recommended

allowing disablement of certain diagnostics during power take-off unit

operation. The comment states that many diagnostics cannot function

reliably during power take-off operation due to the unpredictable load

that is applied under these operations, which results in a high risk of

false MIL illumination. The comment argues that, due to small volumes

of such vehicles and/or infrequent operation of power take-off mode,

this disablement will have little or no impact on air quality.

(f) Associated with the provision allowing the use of statistical

algorithms, AAMA recommended replacing the term ``monitoring event''

with the term ``driving cycle'' for purposes of clarity and

consistency. The comment argues that the Agency's definition of

``monitoring event'' is unclear and recommends using CARB's definition

of ``driving cycle'' for consistency.

(g) The Agency proposed regulatory language that would require OBD

systems to detect and identify any deterioration or malfunction

occurring in a powertrain system or component directly intended to

control emissions. A comment was received from AAMA specifically

referring to the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system as being

an emission related component for which no cost effective monitoring

strategies currently exist. Further, the comment states that since the

proposed requirement is effective with the 1999 MY, manufacturers will

not have sufficient lead time to both develop cost effective monitoring

strategies, and implement those strategies on new vehicles. AAMA

recommends finalizing a provision similar to one found in the

California OBD II regulations that would allow manufacturers to design

a robust PCV system in lieu of monitoring. AAMA also recommends

allowing sufficient leadtime for manufacturers, consistent with the

CARB OBD II requirements, to implement necessary changes to the PCV

system.

3. Response to Comments

(a) The Agency agrees that there may be technological feasibility

issues in requiring detection of deterioration of secondary air systems

at 1.5 times the standard. Therefore, the Agency will finalize a

provision allowing an optional functional check of the secondary air

system in lieu of the emission based monitor, with Administrator

approval. The Agency believes that such a provision will have no

adverse impact on air quality and will still result in implementation

of the most technologically effective secondary air system monitors.

(b) The Agency agrees with commenters that there are some

feasibility issues with rationality and functionality checks for

certain electronic powertrain components. To address this concern, the

Agency will finalize a provision mandating rationality and

functionality checks unless the manufacturer can demonstrate

technological infeasibility. Upon receiving Administrator approval of

that demonstration, applicable monitoring requirements may be waived.

(c) The Agency agrees with the commenter's concerns that the

current provisions for detection and identification of catalyst

damaging misfire may increase the likelihood of unserviceable MIL

illuminations. The Agency will finalize a provision to allow for

continuous MIL illumination for catalyst damage misfire only after it

is detected on two consecutive driving cycles or the next driving cycle

under which similar conditions are encountered.

(d) The Agency agrees with the concerns of AAMA that the proposed

requirements for evaporative system leak detection may not be feasible

for fuel tanks with a capacity of greater than 25 gallons. The Agency

will finalize a provision to allow a larger orifice threshold for

evaporative system leak detection for fuel tanks with a capacity

greater than 25 gallons. Manufacturers wishing to utilize this

flexibility must obtain Administrator approval prior to certification.

(e) The Agency agrees with commenters that vehicles equipped with

power take-off units may not be able to have fully functioning OBD

systems during power take-off unit operation. The Agency is finalizing

a provision to allow for the disablement of the OBD system during, and

only during, power take-off operation.

(f) The Agency agrees with commenters that there may be some

confusion with the definitions of ``driving cycle'' and ``monitoring

event'' with regards to the use of statistical algorithms for MIL

illumination. To avoid confusion with terminology used in the CARB OBD

II regulations, the Agency will replace the term ``monitoring event''

with the term ``driving cycle.'' This is consistent with the Agency's

intent behind the term ``monitoring event'' so the change has no impact

on OBD requirements other than to eliminate potential confusion.

(g) The Agency agrees with comments associated with monitoring of

PCV systems. The Agency will finalize a provision that will allow

manufacturers to design and implement robust PCV systems in lieu of

monitoring those systems. With regards to appropriate leadtime, the

Agency will allow for appropriate leadtime to implement necessary

changes to the PCV system but will expect such changes to progress as

rapidly as is practical.

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

OBD.

1. Summary of Proposal

EPA proposed to extend indefinitely the existing provision allowing

optional compliance with the California OBD II requirements, excluding

the California OBD II anti-tampering provisions and the 0.02 inch

evaporative leak detection provision, as satisfying federal OBD.

Currently, this compliance option, which is used by most manufacturers,

ends with the 1998 model year. The proposal sought to eliminate that

1998 model year restriction, making the California OBD II compliance

option applicable indefinitely. EPA also proposed to update the version

of California OBD II allowed for optional federal OBD compliance. The

NPRM noted that the current version of CARB's regulations were

contained in Mail-Out #96-34. However, EPA noted that CARB Mail-Out

#96-34 was intended primarily for public comment purposes. EPA stated

that it would accept the final version of the revised California OBD II

regulations in its final rule if relevant portions of the final version

are acceptable for federal OBD compliance demonstration. EPA published

a Notice of Document Availability (63 FR 8386) on February 19, 1998

announcing that the final version of CARB's OBD II regulations (CARB

Mail-Out #97-24)

[[Page 70686]]

had been completed and placed in the regulatory docket for this

rulemaking (EPA Air Docket A-96-32, IV-H-01). EPA stated that the final

CARB OBD II regulations were appropriate for federal OBD compliance and

also placed in the docket a detailed analysis of the minor differences

between CARB Mail-Outs #96-34 and #97-24 (EPA Air Docket A-96-32, IV-B-

01). EPA provided thirty days (until March 23, 1998) for any parties to

comment on Mail-Out #97-24.

The proposal stated that manufacturers choosing the California OBD

II demonstration option need not comply with portions of that

regulation pertaining to vehicles certified under the Low Emission

Vehicle Program as those standards are not federal emission standards.

The demonstration of compliance with California OBD II need only show

compliance as correlated to the applicable federal emission standards,

not California standards. Additionally, manufacturers choosing the

California OBD II demonstration option need not comply with section

(b)(4.2.2) which pertains to all vehicles regardless of emission

standards. That section requires evaporative system leak detection

monitoring down to a 0.02 inch diameter orifice and represents a level

of stringency beyond that ever appropriately considered for federal OBD

compliance. Lastly, manufacturers choosing the California OBD II

demonstration option need not comply with section (d) which contains

the anti-tampering provisions of the California OBD II regulations.

2. Summary of Comments

Several commenters expressed strong support for a provision to

indefinitely extend the allowance of California OBD II as satisfying

federal OBD. Commenters stated that this option allows flexibility and

decreases the certification burdens associated with dual certification.

However, a comment from automotive aftermarket associations,

primarily builders of aftermarket parts, expressed concern that the

Agency is abdicating its federal emissions rulemaking and certification

authority by accepting CARB OBD II as meeting federal OBD for any time

period. The comment claims that EPA is inappropriately delegating its

authority and violating section 177 of the Clean Air Act. This comment

strongly objects to a provision that would extend the existing

provision indefinitely, suggesting that, by allowing optional

compliance with California OBD II requirements, EPA will ensure that

such vehicles will be equipped with anti-tampering devices that are

allowed under the CARB OBD II regulations. The comment goes on to

suggest that simply removing the anti-tampering provision from the

federal OBD regulations in effect does little, because it still permits

manufacturers to install anti-tampering devices on their vehicles. The

aftermarket associations represented in the comment believe that anti-

tampering devices violate sections 202(m) and 207 of the Clean Air Act

and that the federal OBD regulations should prohibit anti-tampering

devices altogether. The comment claims that the ability to reprogram

the computer is an important feature of vehicle service and repair, and

that the access to reverse engineer and ability to reprogram must be

made available to the automotive aftermarket.

The comment also objects to EPA's decision to extend this

compliance option beyond the 1998 model year while the commenters'

challenge to an earlier rule dealing with this issue is being heard by

the federal court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Further, the comment

objects to EPA's note in the proposal that EPA would use the final

version of California's OBD II regulations in its final rule, if the

version of the California regulations is judged appropriate. The

comment states that it would not have an effective opportunity to

comment on the final rule.

The comment also alleges that EPA will adopt any changes that CARB

may make in the future, without allowing commenters to participate in

any such rulemaking. In particular, the comment notes that California's

regulations may not promote access and ease of use of OBD systems. The

comment also questions whether consumers will be more satisfied with

vehicles certified to the California OBD II threshold option, rather

than to the federal OBD thresholds.

The aftermarket associations provided a later comment providing

four alleged incidences where false MIL illumination problems were

encountered in the automotive aftermarket. These incidences allegedly

support their claim that tampering protection devices may prevent

aftermarket service providers from installing aftermarket parts. The

associations state that EPA must either prohibit anti-tampering devices

that prevent parts manufacturers from reverse engineering, or must

require automobile manufacturers to provide the information necessary

to build the aftermarket parts.

In response to CARB's December 1996 proposed revisions to their OBD

II requirements, Mr. Jack Heyler expressed concerns over the ability of

independent repair shops to reprogram vehicle computers (EPA Air Docket

A-96-32, Document IV-H-14). Mr. Heyler also expressed concern over the

ability of automotive aftermarket to design and manufacture parts and

diagnostic tools. The California Automotive Wholesalers' Association

(CAWA) expressed concerns over the potential economic impact on the

thousands of businesses within California's automotive aftermarket

repair industry due to the lack of diagnostic and service information

availability requirements under the California OBD II regulation and

the anti-tampering provisions of that regulation. In a joint statement

made on behalf of several aftermarket associations, the Motor Equipment

Manufacturers Association (MEMA) expressed strong support of the staff

recommendation to eliminate the anti-tampering requirements applicable

to electronically reprogrammable vehicles with OBD II. Mr. Haluza went

on to suggest that all of Section 1968.1(d) on anti-tampering

provisions should be eliminated from the OBD II regulation. Further,

Mr. Haluza suggested that California ``must take affirmative steps to

not grant certification to vehicles which contain any tampering

protection which would prevent or restrict access to OBD data or system

in violation of section 202 of the U.S. Clean Air Act.''

AAMA provided comments supporting the extension of the California

OBD II compliance option. AAMA stated that the extension would allow

manufacturers to focus their energies on developing and perfecting a

single OBD system, rather than diverting resources to meet two sets of

OBD thresholds. In its comments, AAMA expressed its view that the

aftermarket comments are not grounded on any statutory or evidentiary

basis. AAMA argued that EPA is not abdicating its responsibility under

the Clean Air Act or violating any section of the Act.

3. Response to Comments

The Agency will finalize a provision to allow for indefinite

acceptance of the California OBD II requirements as outlined in CARB

Mail-Out #97-24 as meeting federal OBD requirements. The adverse

comments regarding the indefinite extension of allowing California OBD

II regulations as satisfying federal OBD are focused on two main

issues. The first issue regards EPA's alleged abdication of federal

authority to California in the establishment of emissions regulations.

The adverse comments argue that allowing manufacturers to optionally

certify vehicles to the California OBD II regulations to satisfy

federal OBD requirements is an abdication of federal

[[Page 70687]]

authority to set air quality standards. The Agency has consistently

stated that allowing manufacturers to satisfy federal OBD requirements

by demonstrating compliance with California OBD II requirements is

simply a compliance option, not an abdication of federal authority.

This option allows manufacturers to implement one OBD system nationwide

that fully meets the intent of the Clean Air Act and its amendments.

The Agency has clearly not abdicated its authority. EPA has followed

proper regulatory procedures in considering the acceptability of the

California regulations in satisfying federal OBD.

EPA has provided notice and opportunity to comment on the

appropriateness of allowing compliance with California's OBD II

regulations to be used as a federal compliance option, and EPA has

provided its responses to any adverse comments. EPA has also followed

appropriate rulemaking procedures in considering whether revisions to

California OBD II regulations are appropriate for federal compliance

purposes, and EPA will continue to do so if, in the future, it

determines that it is appropriate to allow compliance with later

revisions of California's OBD II regulations.

EPA independently reviews California OBD II regulations to

determine their appropriateness. Any decision to include such

regulations is premised on such regulations being consistent with and

appropriate under the Clean Air Act. EPA has found that California's

OBD II regulations appropriately implement the requirements of section

202(m) and that allowing compliance with such regulations as a

compliance option is an appropriate policy, promoting national

consistency with no loss of environmental protection. EPA notes that,

in the case of certain subparts of California's OBD II regulations

(e.g. California's anti-tampering regulations and California's 0.02

inch evaporative leak detection monitoring regulations) EPA has, in its

discretion, decided not to require compliance with such subparts for

the purposes of compliance with federal regulations. EPA also notes

that, with regard to the California regulations actually included in

this compliance option, the commenters have not provided any argument

or evidence that such regulations are illegal or inappropriate. EPA

operates its own OBD certification and compliance program and makes all

determinations regarding whether vehicles may be certified as complying

with federal OBD regulations.

Regarding the comment that extending the compliance option is

contrary to section 177, EPA fails to see how its action has any effect

on states' ability to choose to adopt California's emission standards.

EPA has neither required nor forbidden states from adopting such

standards. The Virginia v. EPA case referenced in the comment is

inapposite, as that case dealt with EPA specifically requiring states

to implement the California LEV standards, though EPA could not itself

promulgate such standards under its own authority under section 202 of

the Act. Unlike that case, here EPA is promulgating regulations under

its own acknowledged authority to promulgate OBD regulations under

section 202(m) of the Act. This final action places no obligation on

states to promulgate any regulations. EPA refers to its responsive

brief in MEMA v. EPA, No. 96-1397 (D.C. Cir), for further discussion

(EPA Air Docket A-96-32, Document IV-H-12.)

The second major issue argued in the adverse comments regards anti-

tampering devices. The adverse comments suggest that the Agency's

unwillingness to promulgate provisions that prohibit auto manufacturers

from installing anti-tampering devices violates the intent of section

202(m) of the Clean Air Act. The Agency believes that sections 202(m)

(4) and (5) of the Act were designed to ensure that independent repair

shops would be able to (1) access fault codes and other output

generated by a vehicle's OBD system through a generic scanning device,

(2) understand what the output means without the need of a special

decoding device available only from the manufacturer, and (3) receive

nonproprietary information regarding repairing OBD and emission-related

malfunctions, including the information vehicle manufacturers provide

to their dealers. The Agency has consistently argued that these

sections of the Act were not intended to require manufacturers to give

away proprietary information concerning the internal computer codes

within the vehicle's computer. California's anti-tampering provisions,

as well as anti-tampering measures that manufacturers voluntarily

install in vehicles, protect these proprietary codes and thus do not

violate the requirements of section 202(m). Moreover, such codes are

not the type of information contemplated under section 202(m) (4) and

(5), as they are internal to the vehicle, and are not useful for

automotive repair, as opposed to the manufacture of automotive parts.

The Agency has promulgated separate regulations on the availability of

service information (60 FR 55521) that outline what types of

information manufacturers must make available to interested parties.

These regulations, among other things, require manufacturers to provide

independent repair shops with the same ability to reprogram that the

manufacturers provide to their own dealers. These regulations are not

affected by this rulemaking. The Agency is satisfied that the existing

regulations, as well as the regulations being finalized today, meet the

full intent of the Clean Air Act.

Regarding whether California's OBD II regulations promote access

and ease of use of OBD systems, California's OBD II regulations have

always contained provisions ensuring uncontrolled access to, and ease

of use of, the OBD system using generic tools. These regulations are

very similar to EPA's own access regulations. Moreover, though

California's OBD II regulations do not contain service information

availability requirements, EPA's service information regulations are

equally applicable to vehicles choosing either the California

thresholds compliance option or the federal thresholds compliance

option.

The D.C. Circuit recently issued its decision upholding EPA's

interpretation of section 202(m)(4) and (5), as it pertained to two

earlier EPA actions related to its and California's OBD regulations.

MEMA v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449 (D.C. Circuit, 1998).

Furthermore, as EPA has found on several earlier occasions, the

anti-tampering provisions do not violate any of the provisions of

section 207 of the Act. EPA's determination that anti-tampering

provisions do not violate the Act does not contravene manufacturers'

obligations to abide by section 207. Section 207(b)'s requirement that

manufacturers may not invalidate a warranty based on the use of a

certified aftermarket part is not affected by the use of anti-tampering

strategies; nor is section 207(c)'s requirement that manufacturer

manuals contain language indicating that service of the vehicles may be

performed by any repair operation using any certified part. This rule

does not change manufacturers' continuing obligation to provide

aftermarket service providers with all information provided to

dealerships regarding emission related repair, including the ability to

reprogram computers.

EPA refers to its previous discussions of these issues in the

Service Information Availability rule and the OBD waiver decision (61

FR 53371), as well as its responsive briefs and the decision of the

court in the D.C. Circuit

[[Page 70688]]

case recently decided. (The Response to Comments document for the

Service Information Availability rule, the Decision Document for the

OBD waiver decision, and the responsive briefs have all been placed in

the docket for this rulemaking, Air Docket A-96-32.)

Regarding the comments providing examples of MIL illuminations that

have been encountered by the automotive aftermarket (IV-G-05), EPA does

not believe these examples provide any basis for revising its proposal.

The first example is an Internet conversation from 1995 which,

though difficult to decipher, appears to indicate the parties having

difficulty in installing aftermarket performance parts that cause the

MIL to illuminate on a particular vehicle. The second example is a

February 9, 1995 correspondence from a fuel systems manufacturer to the

California Air Resources Board suggesting that, if the manufacturer

does not receive privileged OBD system parameters, the manufacturer

will have to discontinue manufacturing and selling its systems.

Both of these examples refer to the same issue: that of the need

for aftermarket parts manufacturers to build their parts to be

compatible with OBD systems. There is little question that the advent

of vehicle OBD systems has required some aftermarket parts

manufacturers to work within tighter constraints in building their

parts. Certainly, some manufacturers will need to perform more testing

or do further analysis in designing their parts. However, the Agency

fully believes that aftermarket parts manufacturers, who have had to

continue revising their parts as vehicles have become more

sophisticated, will continue to be able to build such parts in the

future. The Agency believes that fully compliant systems can be

designed via reverse engineering of the original equipment

configuration, or more thorough testing protocols. Though manufacturer

anti-tampering subprograms may make reverse engineering somewhat more

difficult, reverse engineering is not impossible nor do these

regulations make such activities illegal. Additionally, parts

manufacturers may receive proprietary information through licensing

agreements with OEMs. The Agency has discussed the latter

correspondence with CARB and CARB suggests that this aftermarket parts

manufacturer, without OBD system parameters, has made good progress in

meeting CARB's OBD II regulations without negative impacts on their

business.

In any case, these additional constraints will occur whether

manufacturers comply with the federal OBD requirements (even prior to

this regulatory revision) or California's OBD II requirements. There is

nothing unique to California's OBD II hardware requirements that

particularly disadvantages aftermarket parts manufacturers. Regarding

anti-tampering mechanisms, as discussed above, these mechanisms protect

information that is proprietary in nature and that is not required to

be made available under section 202(m)(5). All information that is

subject to section 202(m)(5) must now be made available under the

Service Information Rule, which had not been promulgated at the time of

these correspondences.

The next example involves a series of letters between the

California Air Resources Board and an aftermarket parts manufacturer

requesting data and information from that manufacturer as to how their

aftermarket parts impact OBD systems in order to receive a waiver under

California's aftermarket parts regulations. In their letter of

response, the parts manufacturer stated that this data cannot be

provided unless the parts manufacturer had access to specific OBD

technical and operational data. EPA does not operate a mandatory parts

certification program, so this example is not pertinent.

One final example is a letter that deals with the issue of false

MIL illuminations; in particular, one associated with changing tire

diameter from 16'' to 19,'' and the other associated with installing a

generator on a Class C motor home. The comment claims that these

modifications did not impact emission performance in any manner,

implying that the resultant MIL illumination is consequently false. In

the example of changing tire diameter, it is conceivable that changing

tire diameter could be interpreted by the OBD system in such a way

that, for example, may alter the fueling strategy of the vehicle which

in turn may cause emissions to increase. However, since no emission

data were provided with the example, the implication is impossible to

verify. In the example of the Class C motor home, the Agency believes

that such a vehicle would be outside the scope of this rulemaking,

which applies only to light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. As

stated above, there is little question that the advent of vehicle OBD

systems has required some market parts manufacturers to work within

tighter constraints in building their parts. The Agency believes that

fully compliant systems can be designed via reverse engineering of the

original equipment configuration, or more thorough testing protocols.

Additionally, parts manufacturers may receive proprietary information

through licensing agreements with OEMs. In any event, as discussed

above, nothing in Sec. 202(m)(5) requires that aftermarket parts

manufacturers be entitled to information for making parts. See MEMA v.

Nichols, 142 F.3d at 465. Nor does section 202(m)(5) indicate that EPA

should require automobile manufacturers to give away their proprietary

information. In fact, Sec. 202(m)(5) suggests the opposite, that EPA's

regulations be limited by CAA restrictions on the release of trade

secrets.

Another example provided by this letter suggests that false MIL

illumination has occurred following installation of high-powered

aftermarket sound systems. This example suggests that these amplifiers

cause battery voltage to drop and that OBD system parameters would be

needed by the aftermarket to avoid the false MIL. No data was supplied

to support this example and it is unclear to the Agency why a properly

installed sound system with the appropriate rating for the particular

vehicle would draw battery voltage down so low. Further, it is

difficult to understand how the availability of OBD parameters would

rectify the situation given that battery voltage being drawn so low is

very likely to create an excessive draw on the alternator which is

likely to have adverse emission impacts; MIL illumination would seem

appropriate in such a circumstance.

Regarding Mr. Heyler's concerns that information needed for repairs

has not been made available to independent repair facilities under

California's OBD II regulations, and that language be added to those

regulations indicating that ``information--which is made available to

dealer-owned repair facilities--be made available to all independents

on a contractual basis at a reasonable cost,'' EPA's Service

Information regulations were promulgated for the purpose of ensuring

that independent service facilities have access, at a reasonable cost,

to the same information to which dealer-owned facilities have access.

As of December 1, 1997, manufacturers are required to make available to

independent service providers reprogramming capability for all

emission-related programming events for vehicles beginning with model

year 1994. Regarding Mr. Heyler's comments on the manufacture of

independent parts, see the response to the aftermarket comments

provided above.

Regarding CAWA's comments, EPA notes that its service information

[[Page 70689]]

requirements are applicable in California, as EPA made clear in its OBD

waiver proceeding.

EPA notes that this rule will have no effect on the likelihood or

ability of manufacturers to incorporate anti-tampering strategies;

however, EPA notes that the version of the California OBD II

regulations being referenced in today's rulemaking actually contain

less stringent and less specific anti-tampering provisions than the

version to which EPA had previously referred. This is consistent with

the statement of Mr. Haluza regarding the draft regulation.

Additionally, on March 23, 1995, EPA published a direct final

rulemaking (60 FR 55521) that removed any requirement for manufacturers

to install anti-tampering strategies on federal vehicles, including

vehicles certified under the option allowing compliance with California

OBD II.

Regarding the issue of whether EPA should extend this compliance

option beyond the 1998 model year while the commenters' challenge to

the earlier rule is before the D.C. Circuit, the D.C. Circuit has, as

noted above, issued an opinion upholding EPA's earlier actions.

Regarding the comment's objection to EPA using the final version of

California's regulations without opportunity to comment, on February

19, 1998, EPA published in the Federal Register a notice that the final

California regulations were completed and available in the docket for

this rulemaking. EPA provided a thirty day comment period (until March

23, 1998) to allow for comment on California's final regulations. EPA

received no further comments in response to the February 19, 1998

notice.

D. Deficiency Provisions

1. Summary of Proposal

The Agency proposed to extend the current flexibility provisions

(i.e. ``deficiency provisions'') contained in 86.094-17(i)

indefinitely, rather than being eliminated beyond the 1998 model year.

Additionally, the Agency clarified its policy regarding deficiencies

and their carryover from one model year to the next.

2. Summary of Comments

Most comments received were in support of the indefinite extension

of the deficiency provision. The Agency also received comments

expressing concerns regarding a limit on the number of deficiencies

that can be granted and not allowing carryover of deficiencies from one

model year to the next, except where unreasonable hardware

modifications would be necessary. The Agency also received comments

suggesting that the complete lack of a diagnostic monitor should be

allowed under the deficiency provision.

3. Response to Comments

As stated in the NPRM, the Agency believes that, despite the best

attempts by manufacturers to comply with the complex OBD requirements,

there will still be unanticipated instances that cannot be remedied in

time to meet production schedules. Given the newness and considerable

complexity of designing, producing, and installing the components and

systems that make up the OBD system, manufacturers have expressed and

demonstrated difficulty in complying with every aspect of the OBD

requirements, and such difficulty appears likely to continue in future

model years. The Agency has already, on February 17, 1998, finalized a

provision to extend the EPA's allowance of deficiencies through the

1999 model year. (63 FR 7718.) In today's action, the Agency is

finalizing a provision to indefinitely allow for deficiencies beyond

the 1999 model year.

With regards to allowing more than one deficiency, as stated in the

NPRM, EPA does not intend to certify vehicles that have more than one

OBD system deficiency unless it can be demonstrated that correction of

the deficiency requires hardware and/or software modifications that

absolutely cannot be accomplished in the time available, as determined

by the Administrator. These limitations should prevent a manufacturer

from using a deficiency allowance as a means to avoid compliance or

delay OBD implementation.

With regards to the carryover of deficiencies from one model year

to the next, the Agency will finalize a provision to allow for the

carryover of a deficiency from one model year to the next where

unreasonable hardware or software modifications would otherwise be

necessary to eliminate the deficiency. The Agency agrees with comments

that there may be instances where deficiencies may not be discovered

until late in the development process and there may not be enough time

to develop software changes, new calibrations and validation testing to

ensure a reliable software change.

The Agency does not intend that the deficiency provisions be used

as a long term planning tool by the manufacturers, but rather as a

flexibility to address last minute problems. Requests for the carryover

of deficiencies must be approved by the Administrator well in advance

of certification with ample demonstration by the manufacturer that

correction of the deficiency requires hardware and/or software

modifications that absolutely cannot be made in time to meet production

schedules.

Furthermore, EPA will not accept any deficiency requests that

include the complete lack of a major diagnostic monitor (``major''

diagnostic monitors being those for the catalyst, oxygen sensor, engine

misfire, and evaporative leaks), with the possible exception of the

special provisions for alternate fueled vehicles discussed below. With

regards to the allowing of deficiencies for ``major'' diagnostic

monitors, the Agency does not have the authority to certify a vehicle

that does not meet the minimum requirements of the Clean Air Act (i.e.,

oxygen sensor monitor, catalyst monitor, and standardization features).

Given that oxygen sensor monitors and catalyst monitors are now

standard equipment on gasoline-fueled vehicles, it is not arguable that

such monitors cannot be installed in such vehicles. Furthermore, the

Agency considers these and other major monitors to be critical aspects

of a working OBD system. Without these monitors, or any subset of these

monitors, the OBD system does not meet the minimum requirements that

EPA believes is necessary for a viable OBD system.

E. Diagnostic Readiness Codes

1. Summary of Proposal

In the proposal, EPA provided clarification on the issue of

diagnostic readiness codes, rather than proposing anything new, and

requested comment on the clarification. The purpose behind the

readiness code is to allow an inspection and maintenance (I/M) official

to determine whether or not a vehicle has undergone sufficient

operation to allow the OBD system to fully evaluate the emission

control system. Readiness codes allow the I/M official to be certain

that the lack of OBD diagnostic trouble codes means that the vehicle is

operating cleanly, rather than perhaps being an indication that the OBD

system simply had not had time to fully evaluate the vehicle. The I/M

readiness codes, for those monitors that have associated I/M readiness

codes, should be set to ``ready'' status only after sufficient vehicle

operation such that the monitor has been properly exercised and a valid

determination can be made as to component's or system's operational

status.

2. Summary of Comments

AAMA recommended that the Agency put in place a provision that

would

[[Page 70690]]

allow for the clearing of OBD readiness codes for affected monitors if

monitoring is disabled for a number of driving cycles due to extreme

operating conditions. For example, the evaporative leak detection

monitor is typically disabled at temperatures below 40 deg.F to avoid

false MILs due to freezing vapors in the fuel lines. The comment argues

that it would be unfair if a vehicle failed to pass an I/M inspection

because it had stayed in extreme conditions during the time between a

maintenance that included disconnecting the battery (which clears I/M

readiness codes) and the I/M inspection.

3. Response to Comments

The Agency agrees that there may be conditions under which certain

monitors will not and should not run. In particular, the Agency is

aware that evaporative system monitors, when exposed to extremely low

ambient temperatures, will not be able to run because any water vapor

in the fuel lines can freeze. Such freezing is not unusual, but it does

make attempts at leak detection very difficult and increases the

likelihood of false failure determinations. Because these readiness

codes are intended to assist in Inspection and Maintenance programs,

the Agency is sensitive to the possibility that consumers may bring

their vehicles in for inspection with readiness codes that are set to

``not ready'' because a particular monitor was not able to run.

Therefore, the Agency is today finalizing a provision that will

allow for readiness flags to be set to ``ready'' if monitoring is

disabled for at least two driving cycles due to the continued presence

of extreme operating conditions (such as ambient temperatures below 40

deg.F, or altitudes above 8000 feet). Administrator approval must be

obtained in advance and shall be based on the conditions for monitoring

system disablement and the number of driving cycles specified without

completion of monitoring before readiness is indicated.

F. Provisions for Alternate Fuel Vehicles

1. Summary of Proposal

The Agency proposed a flexibility provision for alternate fuel

vehicles through the 2004 model year. Currently, alternate fuel

vehicles must fully comply with federal OBD requirements beginning in

the 1999 model year. Under the proposed provision, alternate fuel

vehicles must fully comply with federal OBD requirements during

gasoline operation beginning in the 1999 model year. However, during

alternate fuel operation, some monitors may be deactivated where

technological infeasibility can be demonstrated and the Administrator

has provided approval.

2. Summary of Comments

The Agency received several comments in support of the proposed

alternate fuel provision through the 2004 model year. The arguments

made by commenters suggest that significant technological hurdles still

face the alternate fuel industry in fully complying with the federal

OBD requirements. For example, the catalyst is designed for control of

emissions from gasoline fuels. The auto manufacturers have generated

large amounts of data on the durability of catalysts during gasoline

operation. Such is not the case for catalyst durability during

alternate fuel operation. As a result, it appears that no manufacturer

can currently calibrate a catalyst monitor for proper malfunction

detection at high mileages since so little data exists showing the

emission durability after 100k miles of alternate fuel operation.

Therefore, commenters recommend that more lead time be given to fully

explore this and other technological hurdles still facing OBD

implementation on alternate fuel vehicles.

3. Response to Comments

The Agency agrees with the commenters that technological

feasibility remains an issue for OBD systems on alternate fuel

vehicles. As the Agency stated in the proposal, it is supportive of the

use of alternate fuel vehicles and is committed to seeing larger

volumes of EPA certified alternate fueled vehicles produced and sold.

Therefore, the Agency will finalize a provision to allow flexibility in

the OBD monitoring requirements during alternate fuel operation. This

provision is intended to provide additional leadtime for alternate fuel

OBD development. The provision extends through the 2004 model year

only; it requires a demonstration of technological infeasibility and

Administrator approval; and, it does not apply to alternate fuel

vehicles while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel (for diesel cycle

engines). To clarify, this flexibility is intended to apply only during

operation on an alternate fuel and even then the flexibility applies

only to the extent manufacturers can show that diagnostic strategies

for alternate fuel operation are technologically infeasible.

Manufacturers will be required to include monitoring strategies to the

extent feasible, but will not be required to include monitoring

strategies the reliability of which is still doubtful for alternate

fuel operation. Further, EPA will expect that vehicles designed for use

on more than one fuel (i.e. flexible fuel vehicles) have fully

operating OBD systems upon initial sale. Should a non-gasoline fuel

then be introduced, the monitors affected by the alternate fuel could

be deactivated to the extent the manufacturers can show that reliable

diagnostic strategies are not feasible.

G. Update of Materials Incorporated by Reference

1. Summary of Proposal

The Agency proposed to Incorporate by Reference a series of

standardized Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and International

Standards Organization (ISO) procedures. The SAE documents are SAE

J1850, SAE J1877, SAE J1892, SAE J1962, SAE J1979, and SAE J2012. The

ISO documents proposed to be Incorporated by Reference were ISO 9141-2

and ISO 1423-4.

2. Summary of Comments

The Agency received no adverse comment on the Incorporation by

Reference of the SAE and ISO standardized procedures. One commenter

suggested the incorporation by reference of the ISO engine symbol for

the malfunction indicator light (MIL) to use in place of the wording

``check engine'' or ``service engine soon''.

3. Response to Comments

The Agency will Incorporate by Reference all of the SAE and ISO

standardized procedures with the exception of ISO 14230-4. This

document has not been finalized by the International Standards

Organization and therefore cannot be Incorporated by Reference in

Agency regulations. Regarding the use of the ISO engine symbol for the

malfunction indicator light, the Agency agrees with such a policy and

has approved such MIL designs whenever they have been requested. To

eliminate the need for the manufacturer to request Administrator

approval of such MIL designs, and because the Agency believes that

engine symbols are universally recognized without the need to

understand the English phrases ``Service Engine Soon'' or ``Check

Engine,'' the final regulations contain a provision allowing use of a

universally recognized engine symbol.

[[Page 70691]]

H. Diesel Cycle Vehicles

1. Summary of Proposal

In the regulatory language of the NPRM, the Agency incorrectly

referred to sections of the regulatory language that did and did not

apply to diesel cycle vehicles and trucks. The proposed regulatory

language stated that Sec. 86.099-17 paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) did

not apply to diesels, and that only Sec. 86.099-30 paragraph (f)(4) did

apply to diesels.

2. Summary of Comments

Comments received from AAMA suggested that there were several

oversights as to which paragraphs of these sections did not apply to

diesel cycle engines.

3. Response to Comments

The Agency agrees that there were oversights as to which of the

paragraphs contained in the sections noted above apply to diesel cycle

engines. In section Sec. 86.099-17, paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) do

not apply to diesel cycle engines. In section Sec. 86.099-30,

paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) do not apply to diesel cycle engines.

I. Certification Requirements

1. Summary of Proposal

The Agency did not propose any changes to the federal OBD

certification requirements.

2. Summary of Comments

The Agency received comments from AAMA regarding their concern that

the NPRM regulatory language does not provide opportunities for

manufacturers to provide engineering reports or other information that

may alleviate problems on an emission data vehicle or other test

vehicle before the vehicle is produced for sale. AAMA contends that

last minute OBD calibration changes are often required after the

emission certification calibrations have been established and that the

emission data vehicle may not contain a finalized OBD calibration. AAMA

contends that this opportunity is currently allowed by the Agency for

other emission related changes made by the manufacturer and should be

permitted for OBD systems as well.

AAMA also expressed concern with regards to EPA inducing component

faults that could potentially damage official certification vehicles.

AAMA contends that such testing should be done only on development

vehicles which would avoid the risk of damaging their certification

vehicles while still providing the data needed by EPA.

3. Response to Comments

The Agency's running change regulations codified in 40 CFR 86.079-

32, 86.079-33, and 86.079-34, allow the manufacturer to be given the

opportunity to provide an engineering report or description of any

follow-up actions that will alleviate any OBD concerns discovered on

emissions or fuel economy data vehicles.

With regards to concerns over inducing component-damaging faults on

official certification vehicles, since it is not the Agency's intent to

damage such vehicles, EPA agrees to consult with the manufacturer to

ensure that appropriate test vehicles are used for such purposes.

J. Comments on Cost Effectiveness and Environmental Impact

1. Summary of Proposal

In the preamble to the NPRM, the Agency stated that the proposed

changes to the federal OBD program would not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more, nor would they adversely affect in

a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,

local, or tribal governments or communities.

With regards to environmental impact, the Agency proposed no

changes that were expected to impact the originally estimated emissions

reductions or air quality impact analyses finalized in the February

1993, federal OBD regulations (58 FR 9468).

2. Summary of Comments

The Agency received one unsubstantiated comment from an individual

who stated that this regulation would have an effect on the economy

that would exceed $100 million annually. The commenter suggests that

OBD technology is changing the vehicle repair industry and forcing

service facilities to adopt expensive and unreliable state-of-the art

technologies that add substantial costs to the diagnosis and repair of

OBD equipped vehicles. This commenter goes on to state that the

proposed regulations would have minimal effect on the environment.

3. Response to Comments

Regarding the concern that OBD technology is imposing significant

cost on the repair industry, the Agency's Service Information

Availability regulations (60 FR 55521) require that emission related

vehicle repair information and the necessary tools to access the OBD

system be made available by the auto manufacturer to the service and

repair industry, and that it be available at competitive prices. The

Agency disagrees that the provisions being finalized today or the

issues raised by the commenter will have an annual impact on the

economy greater than $100 million (See Section V.--Cost Effectiveness).

Regarding comments that the proposed regulations will provide no

environmental benefit to the public, the Agency does not agree. The

changes proposed in the NPRM and being finalized today neither increase

nor decrease the emission reductions expected from the OBD program.

However, the Agency disagrees that OBD systems in general will provide

no benefits. EPA provided emissions and air quality analyses in the

initial federal OBD regulations (58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993)

illustrating substantial emission reductions associated with OBD.

V. Cost Effectiveness

This final rulemaking alters an existing provision by revising the

current federal OBD malfunction thresholds. These revisions will result

in essentially equivalent stringency for the major emission control

system monitors, while slightly relaxing stringency in certain cases

for some more minor emission control system monitors. Because most of

industry has requested that EPA harmonize emission thresholds with the

California OBD II thresholds as a means to minimize resource

requirements, EPA believes that the regulations being finalized today

will provide cost savings by eliminating the need to incur significant

recalibration and/or retesting costs and efforts associated with having

two sets of OBD regulations with which to comply.

However, EPA is aware that some OEMs, particularly extremely small

volume import manufacturers, may have concentrated their efforts on the

unique federal OBD malfunction thresholds. EPA believes that the

primary cost imposed on these particular OEMs associated with the

regulations being finalized today would be for the mandatory

evaporative system leak detection monitoring. These systems have been

estimated by EPA to cost $18 per vehicle (58 FR 9483). The Agency

estimates that the total potential additional cost of this regulation

resulting from mandating the evaporative leak detection monitor will be

substantially less than $20 million annually beginning in model year

2001. In addition, the Agency believes that mandating the evaporative

system leak detection monitor would not increase

[[Page 70692]]

the total cost of the federal OBD program. The cost of this monitor was

taken into consideration in the original federal OBD regulations (58 FR

9468) even though this monitor was originally optional. Additionally,

extremely small volume import manufacturers that are set for compliance

with the current federal OBD thresholds will be required to reevaluate

their OBD calibrations and would require potential rework to comply

with the thresholds finalized today. Because this recalibration effort

could be resource intensive, the Agency requested comments on the level

of burden and potential means of resolving this concern should it be

warranted based on the burden imposed. The Agency received comments

indicating that it would be appropriate to allow manufacturers that

have been set for compliance with the current federal OBD thresholds to

meet such thresholds for two additional years. EPA has agreed to allow

this in the final rule.

The automotive aftermarket industry has argued that the provisions

of the regulations being finalized today will impose heavy economic

burdens on that industry. The automotive aftermarket has made claims of

heavy economic burdens during development of the California OBD II

regulations and the ensuing waiver process during which California

requested a waiver from federal preemption for the purpose of enforcing

their unique OBD program. The aftermarket has also argued that

excessive costs will be incurred because the anti-tampering measures

required under the California OBD II regulations will present more

difficulty for the automotive aftermarket in carrying out their

business of reverse engineering original equipment manufacturer (OEM)

parts and designing replacement or specialty parts. However, EPA is not

including CARB's anti-tampering provisions in its incorporation of

California's regulations. Failure to incorporate these provisions still

allows OEMs to voluntarily implement anti-tampering measures, but such

is also the case under the current federal OBD regulations. Any costs

associated with these anti-tampering devices are not a result of this

rule, but of independent actions by manufacturers. Moreover, CARB has

eliminated the anti-tampering provisions considered most egregious by

the aftermarket.4 Therefore, EPA believes that the

provisions of this final rulemaking are not responsible for increased

costs on the automotive aftermarket.

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

\4\ CARB Mail-Out #97-24, amendments to the California Code of

Regulations section 1968.1, paragraph (d).

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

The costs and emission reductions associated with the federal OBD

program were developed for the February 19, 1993, final rulemaking. The

changes being finalized today do not affect the costs or emission

reductions published as part of that rulemaking, with the possible

exception of decreasing costs for larger volume manufacturers.

VI. Public Participation

The Agency held a public hearing on July 9, 1997 for public

testimony on the proposed revisions. Those comments and the additional

comments received during the public comment period are available in Air

Docket A-96-32. The comments received on the proposed revisions are

discussed and addressed in section IV. of this final rulemaking.

VII. Administration Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the

Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''

and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the

Executive Order.

The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is

likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or, (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of

legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth

in the Executive Order.

This action was submitted to OMB for review pursuant to Executive

Order 12866.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Today's action does not impose any new information collection

burden. The modifications proposed above do not change the information

collection requirements submitted to and approved by OMB in association

with the OBD final rulemaking (58 FR 9468, February 19, 1993; and, 59

FR 38372, July 28, 1994). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

previously approved the information collection requirements contained

in 40 CFR 86.084-17 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-

0104 (EPA ICR No. 783.36).

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and

verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Copies of the Information Collection Request (ICR) document may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at OP Regulatory Information

Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137) ; 401 St., S.W.

Washington DC 20640, by email at farmer.sandy epa mail.epa.gov.or by

calling (202) 260-2740. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless

it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control

number s for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR

Chapter 15.

C. Impact on Small Entities

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. This rule will

not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number

of small businesses. This rulemaking will provide regulatory relief to

both large and small volume automobile manufacturers by maintaining

consistency with California OBD II requirements. It will not have a

substantial impact on such entities. This rulemaking will not have a

significant impact on businesses that manufacture, rebuild, distribute,

or sell automotive parts, nor those involved in automotive service and

repair, as the revisions affect only requirements on automobile

manufacturers. See United Distribution Companies v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1005,

1170 ( D.C. Cir. 1996).

[[Page 70693]]

In the absence of this final rule, the expiration of the

Sec. 86.094-17(j) provision allowing optional demonstration of

compliance with California OBD II requirements to suffice for EPA

certification purposes would necessitate full vehicle manufacturer

compliance with the current federal OBD requirements at Sec. 86.094-

17(a) through (h), beginning with the 1999 model year. Most

manufacturers have thus far chosen to reduce their costs by producing

vehicle OBD systems to California specifications, thereby avoiding the

necessity of developing significantly different OBD calibrations

meeting the existing federal specifications, for the non-California

market. Because the final rule modifies federal requirements to capture

many benefits of the California option, EPA believes that it reduces

manufacturer costs over a no-action baseline for 1999 and later model

years.

Further, figures provided by the U.S. Departments of Labor and

Commerce show the estimated cost of vehicle changes to meet 1996 model

year OBD II requirements to be less than 1% of total vehicle cost.

Because these changes already incorporate increased monitoring that is

required to meet California OBD II requirements and is also required by

the final rule, the rule is not expected to significantly increase OBD

system cost beyond the estimate given.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

the private sector of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must

select the most cost effective and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the action finalized today would not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector.

E. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection

of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately

affect children.

G. Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by stature and that creates a mandate upon a State, local

or tribal government, unless the federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representative of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representative of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

This rule will be implemented at the federal level and imposes

compliance obligations only on private industry. The rule thus creates

no mandate on State, local or tribal governments, nor does it impose

any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements

of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

H. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal

governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and

other representative of Indian tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies

on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities

of Indian tribal governments. As noted above, this rule will be

implemented at the federal level and imposes compliance obligations

only on private industry. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive

Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information, Incorporation by reference,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: November 25, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 86 of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

AND ENGINES

1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

2. Section 86.1 is amended by adding the following entries in

numerical order

[[Page 70694]]

to the table in paragraph (b)(2) and by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read

as follows:

Sec. 86.1 Reference materials.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * *

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

40 CFR part

Document No. and name 86

reference

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

* * * * *

SAE J1850, July 1995, Class B Data Communication Network

Interface................................................. 86.099-17

SAE J1877, July 1994, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded

Vehicle Identification Number Label....................... 86.095-35

SAE J1892, October 1993, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded

Vehicle Emission Configuration Label...................... 86.095-35

SAE J1962, January 1995, Diagnostic Connector.............. 86.099-17

SAE J1979, July 1996, E/E Diagnostic Test Modes............ 86.099-17

SAE J2012, July 1996, Recommended Practices for Diagnostic

Trouble Code Definitions.................................. 86.099-17

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

(5) ISO material. The following table sets forth material from the

International Organization of Standardization that has been

incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name

of the material. The second column lists the section(s) of this part,

other than Sec. 86.1, in which the matter is referenced. The second

column is presented for information only and may not be all inclusive.

Copies of these materials may be obtained from the International

Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20,

Switzerland.

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

40 CFR part

Document No. and name 86

reference

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

ISO 9141-2, February 1994, Road vehicles--Diagnostic

systems Part 2............................................ 86.099-17

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

Sec. 86.094-21 [Amended]

3. Section 86.094-21 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph

(i).

4. Section 86.095-35 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read

as follows:

Sec. 86.095-35 Labeling.

* * * * *

(i) All light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall comply with

SAE Recommended Practices J1877 July 1994, ``Recommended Practice for

Bar-Coded Vehicle Identification Number Label,'' and J1892 October

1993, ``Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded Vehicle Emission

Configuration Label.'' SAE J1877 and J1892 are incorporated by

reference. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director

of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

Part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Society of Automotive

Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.

Copies may be inspected at Docket No. A-90-35 at EPA's Air Docket (LE-

131), room 1500M, 1st Floor, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

5. Section 86.098-17 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)

through (j) to read as follows:

Sec. 86.098-17 Emission control diagnostic system for 1998 and later

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.

* * * * *

(b)(2) through (i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-17.

(j) Demonstration of compliance with California OBD II requirements

(Title 13 California Code Sec. 1968.1), as modified pursuant to

California Mail Out #97-24 (December 9, 1997), shall satisfy the

requirements of this section, except that compliance with Title 13

California Code Secs. 1968.1(b)(4.2.2), pertaining to evaporative leak

detection, and 1968.1(d), pertaining to tampering protection, are not

required to satisfy the requirements of this section.

6. A new Sec. 86.099-17 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 86.099-17 Emission control diagnostic system for 1999 and later

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.

(a) All light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall be equipped

with an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system capable of monitoring, for

each vehicle's useful life, all emission-related powertrain systems or

components. All systems and components required to be monitored by

these regulations shall be evaluated periodically, but no less

frequently than once per Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule as defined

in Appendix I, paragraph (a), of this part, or similar trip as approved

by the Administrator.

(b) Malfunction descriptions. The OBD system shall detect and

identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain

systems or components according to the following malfunction

definitions as measured and calculated in accordance with test

procedures set forth in subpart B of this part, excluding those test

procedures described in Sec. 86.158-00. Paragraph (b)(1) of this

section does not apply to diesel cycle light-duty vehicles or diesel

cycle light-duty trucks, except where the catalyst is needed for NMHC

control. Paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) of this section do not

apply to diesel cycle light-duty vehicles or diesel cycle light-duty

trucks.

(1) Catalyst deterioration or malfunction before it results in an

increase in NMHC emissions 1.5 times the NMHC standard, as compared to

the NMHC emission level measured using a representative 4000 mile

catalyst system.

(2) Engine misfire resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5

times the applicable standard for NMHC, CO or NOX; and any

misfire capable of damaging the catalytic converter.

(3) Oxygen sensor deterioration or malfunction resulting in exhaust

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standard for NMHC, CO or

NOX.

(4) Any vapor leak in the evaporative and/or refueling system

(excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve and the

intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused by

a 0.040 inch diameter orifice; any absence of evaporative purge air

flow from the complete evaporative emission control system. On vehicles

with fuel tank capacity greater than 25 gallons, the Administrator may,

following a request from the manufacturer, revise the size of the

orifice to the smallest orifice feasible, based on test data, if the

most reliable monitoring method available cannot reliably detect a

system leak equal to a 0.040 inch diameter orifice.

(5) Any deterioration or malfunction occurring in a powertrain

system or component directly intended to control emissions, including

but not necessarily limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)

system, if equipped, the secondary air system, if equipped, and the

fuel control system, singularly resulting in exhaust emissions

exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard for NMHC, CO or

NOX For vehicles equipped with a secondary air system, a

functional check, as described in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, may

satisfy the requirements of this paragraph provided the manufacturer

can demonstrate that deterioration of the flow distribution system is

unlikely. This demonstration

[[Page 70695]]

is subject to Administrator approval and, if the demonstration and

associated functional check are approved, the diagnostic system shall

indicate a malfunction when some degree of secondary airflow is not

detectable in the exhaust system during the check. For vehicles

equipped with positive crankcase ventilation (PCV), monitoring of the

PCV system is not necessary provided the manufacturer can demonstrate

to the Administrator's satisfaction that the PCV system is unlikely to

fail.

(6) Any other deterioration or malfunction occurring in an

electronic emission-related powertrain system or component not

otherwise described above that either provides input to or receives

commands from the on-board computer and has a measurable impact on

emissions; monitoring of components required by this paragraph shall be

satisfied by employing electrical circuit continuity checks and

rationality checks for computer input components (input values within

manufacturer specified ranges), and functionality checks for computer

output components (proper functional response to computer commands)

except that the Administrator may waive such a rationality or

functionality check where the manufacturer has demonstrated

infeasibility; malfunctions are defined as a failure of the system or

component to meet the electrical circuit continuity checks or the

rationality or functionality checks.

(7) Oxygen sensor or any other component deterioration or

malfunction which renders that sensor or component incapable of

performing its function as part of the OBD system shall be detected and

identified on vehicles so equipped.

(8) Alternatively, for model years 1999 and 2000, engine families

may comply with the malfunction descriptions of Sec. 86.098-17(a) and

(b) in lieu of the malfunction descriptions in paragraphs (a) and (b)

of this section. This alternative is not applicable after the 2000

model year.

(c) Malfunction indicator light. The OBD system shall incorporate a

malfunction indicator light (MIL) readily visible to the vehicle

operator. When illuminated, it shall display ``Check Engine,''

``Service Engine Soon,'' a universally recognizable engine symbol, or a

similar phrase or symbol approved by the Administrator. A vehicle shall

not be equipped with more than one general purpose malfunction

indicator light for emission-related problems; separate specific

purpose warning lights (e.g. brake system, fasten seat belt, oil

pressure, etc.) are permitted. The use of red for the OBD-related

malfunction indicator light is prohibited.

(d) MIL illumination. The MIL shall illuminate and remain

illuminated when any of the conditions specified in paragraph (b) of

this section are detected and verified, or whenever the engine control

enters a default or secondary mode of operation considered abnormal for

the given engine operating conditions. The MIL shall blink once per

second under any period of operation during which engine misfire is

occurring and catalyst damage is imminent. If such misfire is detected

again during the following driving cycle (i.e., operation consisting

of, at a minimum, engine start-up and engine shut-off) or the next

driving cycle in which similar conditions are encountered, the MIL

shall maintain a steady illumination when the misfire is not occurring

and shall remain illuminated until the MIL extinguishing criteria of

this section are satisfied. The MIL shall also illuminate when the

vehicle's ignition is in the ``key-on'' position before engine starting

or cranking and extinguish after engine starting if no malfunction has

previously been detected. If a fuel system or engine misfire

malfunction has previously been detected, the MIL may be extinguished

if the malfunction does not reoccur during three subsequent sequential

trips during which similar conditions are encountered (engine speed is

within 375 rpm, engine load is within 20 percent, and the engine's

warm-up status is the same as that under which the malfunction was

first detected), and no new malfunctions have been detected. If any

malfunction other than a fuel system or engine misfire malfunction has

been detected, the MIL may be extinguished if the malfunction does not

reoccur during three subsequent sequential trips during which the

monitoring system responsible for illuminating the MIL functions

without detecting the malfunction, and no new malfunctions have been

detected. Upon Administrator approval, statistical MIL illumination

protocols may be employed, provided they result in comparable

timeliness in detecting a malfunction and evaluating system

performance, i.e., three to six driving cycles would be considered

acceptable.

(e) Storing of computer codes. The emission control diagnostic

system shall record and store in computer memory diagnostic trouble

codes and diagnostic readiness codes indicating the status of the

emission control system. These codes shall be available through the

standardized data link connector per SAE J1979 specifications

incorporated by reference in paragraph (h) of this section.

(1) A diagnostic trouble code shall be stored for any detected and

verified malfunction causing MIL illumination. The stored diagnostic

trouble code shall identify the malfunctioning system or component as

uniquely as possible. At the manufacturer's discretion, a diagnostic

trouble code may be stored for conditions not causing MIL illumination.

Regardless, a separate code should be stored indicating the expected

MIL illumination status (i.e., MIL commanded ``ON,'' MIL commanded

``OFF'').

(2) For a single misfiring cylinder, the diagnostic trouble code(s)

shall uniquely identify the cylinder, unless the manufacturer submits

data and/or engineering evaluations which adequately demonstrate that

the misfiring cylinder cannot be reliably identified under certain

operating conditions. The diagnostic trouble code shall identify

multiple misfiring cylinder conditions; under multiple misfire

conditions, the misfiring cylinders need not be uniquely identified if

a distinct multiple misfire diagnostic trouble code is stored.

(3) The diagnostic system may erase a diagnostic trouble code if

the same code is not re-registered in at least 40 engine warm-up

cycles, and the malfunction indicator light is not illuminated for that

code.

(4) Separate status codes, or readiness codes, shall be stored in

computer memory to identify correctly functioning emission control

systems and those emission control systems which require further

vehicle operation to complete proper diagnostic evaluation. A readiness

code need not be stored for those monitors that can be considered

continuously operating monitors (e.g., misfire monitor, fuel system

monitor, etc.). Readiness codes should never be set to ``not ready''

status upon key-on or key-off; intentional setting of readiness codes

to ``not ready'' status via service procedures must apply to all such

codes, rather than applying to individual codes. Subject to

Administrator approval, if monitoring is disabled for a multiple number

of driving cycles (i.e., more than one) due to the continued presence

of extreme operating conditions (e.g., ambient temperatures below

40 deg.F, or altitudes above 8000 feet), readiness for the subject

monitoring system may be set to ``ready'' status without monitoring

having been completed. Administrator approval shall be based on the

conditions for monitoring system disablement, and the number of driving

[[Page 70696]]

cycles specified without completion of monitoring before readiness is

indicated.

(f) Available diagnostic data. (1) Upon determination of the first

malfunction of any component or system, ``freeze frame'' engine

conditions present at the time shall be stored in computer memory.

Should a subsequent fuel system or misfire malfunction occur, any

previously stored freeze frame conditions shall be replaced by the fuel

system or misfire conditions (whichever occurs first). Stored engine

conditions shall include, but are not limited to: engine speed, open or

closed loop operation, fuel system commands, coolant temperature,

calculated load value, fuel pressure, vehicle speed, air flow rate, and

intake manifold pressure if the information needed to determine these

conditions is available to the computer. For freeze frame storage, the

manufacturer shall include the most appropriate set of conditions to

facilitate effective repairs. If the diagnostic trouble code causing

the conditions to be stored is erased in accordance with paragraph (d)

of this section, the stored engine conditions may also be erased.

(2) The following data in addition to the required freeze frame

information shall be made available on demand through the serial port

on the standardized data link connector, if the information is

available to the on-board computer or can be determined using

information available to the on-board computer: Diagnostic trouble

codes, engine coolant temperature, fuel control system status (closed

loop, open loop, other), fuel trim, ignition timing advance, intake air

temperature, manifold air pressure, air flow rate, engine RPM, throttle

position sensor output value, secondary air status (upstream,

downstream, or atmosphere), calculated load value, vehicle speed, and

fuel pressure. The signals shall be provided in standard units based on

SAE specifications incorporated by reference in paragraph (h) of this

section. Actual signals shall be clearly identified separately from

default value or limp home signals.

(3) For all emission control systems for which specific on-board

evaluation tests are conducted (catalyst, oxygen sensor, etc.), the

results of the most recent test performed by the vehicle, and the

limits to which the system is compared shall be available through the

standardized data link connector per SAE J1979 specifications

incorporated by reference in paragraph (h) of this section.

(4) Access to the data required to be made available under this

section shall be unrestricted and shall not require any access codes or

devices that are only available from the manufacturer.

(g) The emission control diagnostic system is not required to

evaluate systems or components during malfunction conditions if such

evaluation would result in a risk to safety or failure of systems or

components. Additionally, the diagnostic system is not required to

evaluate systems or components during operation of a power take-off

unit such as a dump bed, snow plow blade, or aerial bucket, etc.

(h) Incorporation by reference materials. The emission control

diagnostic system shall provide for standardized access and conform

with the following Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and/

or the following International Standards Organization (ISO) standards.

The following documents are incorporated by reference. This

incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies

may be inspected at Docket No. A-90-35 at EPA's Air docket (LE-131),

room 1500 M, 1st Floor, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(1) SAE material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from

the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive,

Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.

(i) SAE J1850 July 1995, ``Class B Data Communication Network

Interface,'' shall be used as the on-board to off-board communications

protocol. All emission related messages sent to the scan tool over a

J1850 data link shall use the Cyclic Redundancy Check and the three

byte header, and shall not use inter-byte separation or checksums.

(ii) Basic diagnostic data (as specified in Sec. 86.094-17(e) and

(f)) shall be provided in the format and units in SAE J1979 July 1996,

E/E Diagnostic Test Modes.

(iii) Diagnostic trouble codes shall be consistent with SAE J2012

July 1996, ``Recommended Practices for Diagnostic Trouble Code

Definitions.''

(iv) The connection interface between the OBD system and test

equipment and diagnostic tools shall meet the functional requirements

of SAE J1962 January 1995, ``Diagnostic Connector.''

(2) ISO materials. Copies of these materials may be obtained from

the International Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56,

CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.

(i) ISO 9141-2 February 1994, ``Road vehicles--Diagnostic systems--

Part 2: CARB requirements for interchange of digital information,'' may

be used as an alternative to SAE J1850 as the on-board to off-board

communications protocol.

(ii) [Reserved]

(i) Deficiencies and alternate fueled vehicles. Upon application by

the manufacturer, the Administrator may accept an OBD system as

compliant even though specific requirements are not fully met. Such

compliances without meeting specific requirements, or deficiencies,

will be granted only if compliance would be infeasible or unreasonable

considering such factors as, but not limited to, technical feasibility

of the given monitor, lead time and production cycles including phase-

in or phase-out of engines or vehicle designs and programmed upgrades

of computers, and if any unmet requirements are not carried over from

the previous model year except where unreasonable hardware or software

modifications would be necessary to correct the non-compliance, and the

manufacturer has demonstrated an acceptable level of effort toward

compliance as determined by the Administrator. Furthermore, EPA will

not accept any deficiency requests that include the complete lack of a

major diagnostic monitor (``major'' diagnostic monitors being those for

the catalyst, oxygen sensor, engine misfire, and evaporative leaks),

with the possible exception of the special provisions for alternate

fueled vehicles. For alternate fueled vehicles (e.g., natural gas,

liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, ethanol), beginning with the model

year for which alternate fuel emission standards are applicable and

extending through the 2004 model year, manufacturers may request the

Administrator to waive specific monitoring requirements of this section

for which monitoring may not be reliable with respect to the use of the

alternate fuel. At a minimum, alternate fuel vehicles shall be equipped

with an OBD system meeting OBD requirements to the extent feasible as

approved by the Administrator.

(j) Demonstration of compliance with California OBD II requirements

(Title 13 California Code Sec. 1968.1), as modified pursuant to

California Mail Out #97-24 (December 9, 1997), shall satisfy the

requirements of this section, except that compliance with Title 13

California Code Secs. 1968.1(b)(4.2.2), pertaining to evaporative leak

detection, and 1968.1(d), pertaining to tampering protection, are not

required to satisfy the requirements of this section, and the

deficiency fine provisions of 1968.1(m)(6.1) and (6.2) shall not apply.

[[Page 70697]]

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

Sec. 86.099-30 Certification.

This Sec. 86.099-30 includes text that specifies requirements that

differ from Sec. 86.094-30, Sec. 86.095-30, Sec. 86.096-30, or

Sec. 86.098-30. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.094-30, Sec. 86.095-30,

Sec. 86.096-30, or Sec. 86.098-30 is identical and applicable to

Sec. 86.099-30, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding

paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-

30.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-30.'' or

``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-30.'' or ``[Reserved]. For

guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.''.

(a)(1) and (a)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(a)(3)(i)[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.

(a)(3)(ii) and (a)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-

30.

(a)(4)(iii) introductory text through (a)(4)(iii)(C)[Reserved]. For

guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(a)(4)(iv) introductory text [Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.095-30.

(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (a)(9)[Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.094-30.

(a)(10)(i) through (a)(11)(ii)(C)[Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.098-30.

(a)(12) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(a)(13) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.095-30.

(a)(14) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(a)(15) through (a)(18) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.096-

30.

(a)(19) introductory text through (a)(19)(iii) [Reserved]. For

guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.

(b)(1) introductory text through (b)(1)(i)(B) [Reserved]. For

guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(b)(1)(i)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.

(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.094-30.

(b)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.

(b)(3) through (b)(4)(i) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-

30.

(b)(4)(ii) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.098-30.

(b)(4)(ii)(A) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(b)(4)(ii)(B) through (b)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For guidance see

Sec. 86.098-30.

(b)(5) through (e) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.094-30.

(f) For engine families required to have an emission control

diagnostic system (an OBD system), certification will not be granted

if, for any test vehicle approved by the Administrator in consultation

with the manufacturer, the malfunction indicator light does not

illuminate under any of the following circumstances, unless the

manufacturer can demonstrate that any identified OBD problems

discovered during the Administrator's evaluation will be corrected on

production vehicles. Only paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6) of this section

apply to diesel cycle vehicles and diesel cycle trucks where such

vehicles and trucks are so equipped.

(1) A catalyst is replaced with a deteriorated or defective

catalyst, or an electronic simulation of such, resulting in an increase

of 1.5 times the NMHC standard above the NMHC emission level measured

using a representative 4000 mile catalyst system.

(2) An engine misfire condition is induced resulting in exhaust

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standards for NMHC, CO or

NOX.

(3) Any oxygen sensor is replaced with a deteriorated or defective

oxygen sensor, or an electronic simulation of such, resulting in

exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standard for NMHC,

CO or NOX.

(4) A vapor leak is introduced in the evaporative and/or refueling

system (excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve

and the intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak

caused by a 0.040 inch diameter orifice, or the evaporative purge air

flow is blocked or otherwise eliminated from the complete evaporative

emission control system.

(5) A malfunction condition is induced in any emission-related

powertrain system or component, including but not necessarily limited

to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system, if equipped, the

secondary air system, if equipped, and the fuel control system,

singularly resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the

applicable emission standard for NMHC, CO or NOX.

(6) A malfunction condition is induced in an electronic emission-

related powertrain system or component not otherwise described above

that either provides input to or receives commands from the on-board

computer resulting in a measurable impact on emissions.

[FR Doc. 98-32570 Filed 12-21-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P