State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMEN T OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED

RULEMAKING



## Technical Status and Revisions to Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for Heavy-Duty Engines (HD OBD) and Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II)

Date of Release: July 5, 2012 Scheduled for Consideration: August 23, 2012

Mobile Source Control Division

9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731 www.arb.ca.gov

This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources Board and approved for publication. Approval does not si gnify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources B oard, nor does menti on of trade names or commercial products constitute endorse ment or recommendation for use.3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY OF STAFF PROPOSAL A ND RELATED POLI CY ISSUES ........................ 5

II. TECHNICAL STATUS UPDATE A ND PROPOSED AM ENDMENTS .......................... 12

A. HEAVY-DUTY HYBR ID VEHIC LES ............................................................................ 12

B. ALTERNATE-FUELE D ENGINES ............................................................................... 16

C. DEFINIT IONS ............................................................................................................. 18

D. MIL ILLUMINATION AND FAULT CODE STORAGE PROTOCOL ............................ 20

E. STANDARDIZED METHOD TO MEASU RE REAL WORLD MONITORING

PERFORMAN CE ............................................................................................................. 21

F. DIESEL MISFIRE MO NITORING ................................................................................ 24

G. DIESEL EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR) SYSTEM MONITORING ............ 26

H. DIESEL NON-METHANE HYDROCARBON (NMHC) CONVERTING CATALYST

MONITORI NG .................................................................................................................. 2 7

I. DIESEL OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NOx) CONVERTING CATALYST

MONITORI NG .................................................................................................................. 2 9

J. DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER (P M) FILTER MONI TORING ................................ 32

K. DIESEL NOx SENSOR MONITORI NG ....................................................................... 35

L. GASOLINE MISFIRE MONITORI NG .......................................................................... 37

M. GASOLINE SECONDARY AIR SYSTEM MONI TORING ........................................... 37

N. ENGINE COOLING SYSTEM MONITORING ............................................................. 38

O. COMPREHENSIVE COMPON ENT MONITO RING .................................................... 38

P. STANDARDIZATION REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 40
Q. CERTIFICATION DEMONSTRATION TESTING REQUIR EMENTS .......................... 44

R. DEFICIENCI ES ........................................................................................................... 45

S. OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMEN TS ........................................................................ 47

T. HD OBD AND OBD II ENFORCM ENT REGULA TIONS ............................................. 48

III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC T ANALYS IS ...................................................................... 51

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ....................................................................................... 54

V. ECONOMIC IMPACT ................................................................................................... 54

A. LEGAL REQUIR EMENTS ........................................................................................... 55

B. COST AND COST E FFECTIVEN ESS ........................................................................ 55

C. AFFECTED BUSINESSES AND POTENTIAL IM PACTS ........................................... 57

D. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON VEHICLE OPER ATORS ................................................. 58

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BUSI NESS COMPETIT IVENESS ................................... 58

F. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON EMPLOYME NT ............................................................... 59

G. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON BUSINESS CREATION, ELIMINATION, OR

EXPANSI ON .................................................................................................................... 59

VI. ANALYSIS OF AL TERNATIVE S .................................................................................. 60

VII. SUMMARY AND RATIONALE FOR PR OPOSED AMENDM ENTS ............................. 60

DOCUMENTS INCOPORATE D BY REFERE NCE ............................................................. 82

REFERENC ES .................................................................................................................... 834 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Proposed Regulati on Order: Title 13, Californi a Code of Regulations, Section 1971.1, On-Board Diagnostic S ystem Requirements – 2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines

Appendix B: Proposed Regulati on Order: Title 13, Californi a Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunct ion and Diagnostic System Requirements – 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars , Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines

Appendix C: Proposed R egulation Order: Title 13, Calif ornia Code of Regulations, Section 1971.5, Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines

Appendix D: Proposed R egulation Order: Title 13, Calif ornia Code of Regulations, Section 1968.5, Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and MediumDuty Vehicles and Engines5 I. SUMMARY OF STAFF PROPOSAL AND RELATED POLICY ISSUES

Background

On-board diagnostic (OBD) systems are compris ed mainly of software designed into the vehicle’s on-board computer to detect emis sion control system malfunctions as they occur by monitoring virtually every component and system that can cause increases in

emissions. When an emission-related malfunc tion is detected, t he OBD system alerts the vehicle owner by illuminat ing the malfunction indicator light (MIL) on the instrument panel. By alerting the owner of malfunction s as they occur, repairs can be sought promptly, which results in fewer emissions from the vehicle. Additionally, the OBD system stores important information, in cluding identifying the faulty component or system and the nature of the fault, which allow for quick diagnosis and proper repair of the problem by technicians. This helps owners achieve less expensive repairs and promotes repairs done correct ly the first time. The us e and operation of OBD systems

ensure reductions of in-use motor vehicle an d motor vehicle engine emissions through improvements in emission syst em durability and performance.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) originally adopted comprehensive OBD regulations in 1989, requiring a ll 1996 and newer model year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty v ehicles and engines to be equipped with OBD systems (referred to as OBD II) . ARB subsequently updated the OBD II regulations with the adoption of California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.), title 13, sections 1968.2 and 1968.5, which esta blished OBD II requirements and OBD IIspecific enforcement requirements fo r 2004 and subsequent model year passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles and engines. In 2004, ARB adopted the Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic system (EMD ) regulation (Cal. Code Regs., title 13, section 1971), which requires manufacturers of heavy-duty engines and vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a gross vehicle weight ra ting greater than 14,000 pounds) to implement diagnostic systems on all 2007 and subsequent model year on-road heavy-duty Ottocycle (gasoline) and diesel engines. Howe ver, the EMD regulation is much less comprehensive than the OBD II regulation, r equiring the monitoring of only a few major emission control technologies and cont aining no standardized requirements. Essentially, the EMD regulation was developed to require heavy-duty engine

manufacturers to achieve a minimum level of diagnostic capability while focusing most of their resources on meeting the new 2007 exhaust emission standards. In 2005, ARB adopted Cal. Code Regs., title 13, section 1971.1, which established comprehensive OBD requirements (HD OBD) for 2010 and s ubsequent model year heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and an HD OBD-specific enforce ment regulation, section 1971.5, was subsequently adopted in 2009.

Since amendments were last adopted for the heavy-duty OBD regulations in 2009, ARB

staff has met with manufacturers to revi ew progress in meeting the regulatory requirements and identify the need for revisions. Staff believes that modifications to the regulations are warranted and is proposing amendments to the HD OBD regulation6 section 1971.1, which can be found in Appendix A. Staff is also proposing similar amendments to the OBD II regulation sect ion 1968.2 (included in Appendix B) for medium-duty diesel engines and vehicles to harmonize the requi rements of the two regulations. The proposed regulation order for section 1968.2 also contains minor amendments that were recently approved by the Board at the January 23, 2012 Board hearing but have not been formally adopted to date. These amendments are designated by single underline to indicate additions and single strikeout to indicate deletions from the existing regulatory te xt, while the amendments proposed during this rulemaking are shown in double underline to i ndicate additions and double strikeout to indicate deletions. Lastly, staff is pr oposing to amend the associated enforcement regulations, sections 1971.5 and 1968.5 (included as Appendices C and D, respectively), to align these regulations with the new or modifi ed OBD requirements. Within section 1971.1, which initially appl ied to 2010 model year engines, some requirements include specific implementation model year dates that dictate exactly when manufacturers are expected to meet a requirement; require ments that do not reference an implementation date were requir ed to be initially be implemented for 2010 and subsequent model year engines.

Summary of Proposed Amendments

A summary of the main issues and techni cal amendments are provided below while detailed explanations of each of these issues are provided in section II. Summaries and rationales of the proposed chan ges are provided in section V II of this report. Of the proposed amendments to the HD OBD regulation, many have been discussed with manufacturers and have raised little issue or have mostly been settled. They include:

 Clarifying the purpose and objecti ves of the OBD regulations.

 Adding a definition for “a lternate-fueled engines.”

 Adding a definition of “emission standar d” as it applies to OBD systems.

 Adding definitions of “exhaust emi ssion standards” and “evaporative emission

standards.”

 Adding definitions and revising the pe rmanent fault code storage and erasure protocol and in-use monitoring perform ance requirements applicable to hybrid

vehicles.

 Revising the freeze frame st orage and erasure protocol.

 Revising the in-use monitoring perform ance requirements for the PM filter and

PM sensor monitors.

 Revising the diesel misfire monitoring requirements to no l onger require emission

threshold-based malfunction criteria and to require expanded monitoring

conditions.

 Delaying some monitoring requirements for catalyzed PM filters and diesel NMHC converting catalysts to the 2015 model year and adding test-out criteria.

 Revising the cooling system monitoring requirements to clarify when monitor

enablement can occur.

 Updating the Society of Automotive E ngineers (SAE) and International Standards Organization (ISO) document references.7  Revising the readiness status requirem ents to clarify which monitors are specifically to be included in determining readiness.

 Clarifying the calibration verifi cation number (CVN) requirements.

 Revising the certification demonstration testing requirements to clarify how to perform the testing for gasoline air-fuel ratio cylinder imbalance monitoring and exhaust gas sensor monitoring, to exempt manufacturers from testing the diesel misfire monitor, and to clarify the test requirements for catal yst faults and other

faults where default actions are taken.

 Adding items required to be submitted as part of the certif ication application.

The purpose of the HD OBD and OBD II regulat ions is to reduce motor vehicle and motor vehicle engine emissions by est ablishing emission standards and other requirements for OBD systems t hat are installed on motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines certified for sale in California. The use and operation of OBD systems ensure

reductions of in-use motor vehicle and motor vehicle engine emissions through improvements in emission syst em durability and performance. The regulations ensure

that emission reductions forecasted under Calif ornia’s various motor vehicle and engine exhaust and evaporative emission regulations are effectively achieved by monitoring the emission-control systems of individual vehicl es during every day in-use operation. Without functional diagnosti c systems, there would be no way to ensure that every individual component installed on a motor vehi cle is working properly and that every

malfunction is detected and corrected ex peditiously. Such emission reduction objectives and benefits are dist inct from those derived fr om ARB’s in-use vehicle enforcement test procedures (title 13, Cal. Code Regs., section 2136 et seq.), which are directed at ensuring that ce rtified vehicles and engines , on average, do not exceed certification exhaust and evaporative em ission standards. The proposed amendments to sections 1968.2(a) and 1971.1(a) are to reaffirm and make more explicit these longstanding and intended purposes of the OBD regulations.

Regarding the proposed amendment s to the diesel monito ring requirements, the HD OBD regulation establishes monitoring requirements for approximately 10 major emission control components/ systems and another 20 or more minor comprehensive components on a typical diesel engine. For each major component/system, the regulation contains several diffe rent monitoring requirements t hat target specific aspects of each component/system that can have an emission impact when not functioning properly, which collectively represent s about 40 to 50 different monitoring requirements. For each minor comprehensiv e component, the regulation also requires separate monitors for individual failures to enable pinpointing of the likely malfunction for repair technicians, which collectively represents another 80 or more monitoring requirements. In total, staf f is proposing significant c hanges to seven requirements, with two of these changes (for diesel misfire monitoring and PM filter feedgas monitoring) making the current requirements more stringent and the other five relaxing the requirements for the 2013 through 2015 model years.

Concurrently, the staff is proposing to updat e the medium-duty vehicle diesel-related requirements in the medium-duty OBD II re gulation (section 1968.2) to be consistent8 with some of the proposed diesel-relat ed amendments to the HD OBD regulation. These proposed changes for medium-duty vehicles include diesel monitoring requirements and diesel-related in-use monito r performance requirements. This would

allow manufacturers of both heavy-duty and medium-duty diesel engines to design to and meet essentially the same requirements. Staff is also proposing changes that would establish specific monitoring require ments and thresholds fo r future medium-duty vehicles certified to a chassis dynamomet er tailpipe emission standard in lieu of manufacturers requesting ARB approval of their proposed thresholds.

Further, the staff is pr oposing amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II enforcement regulations (sections 1971.5 and 1968.5, respecti vely) to align with the proposed dieselrelated changes to the HD OBD and OBD II r egulations, specifica lly the selection criteria of engines/vehicles for the te st sample group and the mandatory recall provisions for diesel engines.

Stakeholders have recently argued that OBD syst em requirements are not emission standards or test procedures and that ARB does not have authority to order

manufacturers to recall motor vehicles or engines if ARB were to determine that an installed OBD system was found to be in non compliance with the HD OBD regulation. Staff is proposing a new definition of “emi ssion standard” to clarify any confusion and misunderstanding as to whether the OBD r equirements include emission standards. The proposed definition conforms with the federal definition applied to Title II of the Clean Air Act by the U.S. Supreme Court in Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2004) 541 U.S. 246, 253, 124 S.Ct. 1756, 1762 ( EMA) . There the Court clarif ied that an emission standar d, with respect to motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, is a standard that relates to the emission characteristics of a vehicle or engine and that, for compliance purposes, requires a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine to em it no more than a certain amount of a given pollutant, be equipped with a ce rtain type of pollution-control device, or have some other design feature related to t he control of emissions. ( Id . at 253.) The proposed

amendments are intended to make clear t hat the definition of emission standard as used in the OBD regulations conforms to th e federal definition as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

In addition to the proposed amendments me ntioned above, there are a few issues where ARB staff and industry differed significant ly as to the necessity or the stringency of a requirement. In a ddition to proposed amendments t hat require more stringent requirements that manufactur ers objected to, ARB staff also proposed many changes that would relax some requirements based on manufacturers’ concerns, though the proposal does not go as far as manufacture rs have requested. The requirements of

concern to the affected manufacturers include:9 Heavy-Duty and Medium-Duty Diesel Monitors

Manufacturers have expressed concerns about meeting some of t he required diesel monitoring emission malfunction thresholds during the 2013 thr ough 2015 model years, particularly for NOx catalyst/N Ox sensor monitoring and PM filter monitoring. The HD OBD and OBD II regulations currently requi re manufacturers to detect conversion efficiency faults before NOx emissions ex ceed the applicable NOx standard plus 0.2 grams per brake-horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) for the 2013 and subsequent model years. For PM filter monitoring, manufacturers are required to detect faults before PM

emissions exceed a threshold ranging from 0.03 to 0.05 g/ bhp-hr for the 2013 through 2015 model years with a final threshold of 0.03 g/bhp-hr for all 2016 and subsequent model year engines and vehicles. Manuf acturers have argued that meeting these

thresholds is difficult or not feasible in the required timeframe. Concerning the NOx catalyst and NOx sensor monitor thresholds , manufacturers have indicated that the dynamics of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system and its control, including the

NOx sensors and the reductant delivery system, have made it difficult to meet the thresholds. Concerning the PM filter monitor thresholds, manufacturers have indicated that PM sensors, which many believe will be the only viable way to meet the thresholds,

will not be available in time for the 2013 model year. Accord ingly, they proposed that engines continue to use the higher malfuncti on thresholds required before the 2013 model year. While staff believes these threshol ds are technically feasible to meet, staff agrees some relaxation is necessary for th e near-term model years, though it disagrees

with manufacturers about t he extent of the relaxati on needed. For both the NOx catalyst/sensor monitors and the PM filter monitors, staff is proposing higher interim thresholds during the 2013 through 2015 model year s, with the final stringent thresholds delayed until the 2016 model year. Addition ally, for the PM filter and PM sensor monitors, staff is also proposing free deficienc ies related to these monitors for the 2013 through 2015 model years to acknowledge t he risk manufacturers are taking when implementing new PM sensor s and ensure that they are not penalized for doing so.

Heavy-Duty SAE J1939 Protocol

Part of the HD OBD requirem ents includes standardization of data to be output from the engine and vehicle to off-board tools us ed by technicians and inspectors. The regulation currently allows engines to use SAE J1939 as the standard for the communication protocol and the diagnosti c connector specifications. When the requirement was first adopted, SAE J1939 only had a single (250 kilobits per second (kbps)) baud rate and a single co nnector, so there was no n eed to identify a specific baud rate or connector version in the regulat ion. However, since then, SAE J1939 has added an additional baud rate (500 kbps) and a second connector variant to handle the new baud rate. Thus, to ensure that all manuf acturers were using the same baud rate and connector, staff originally proposed to clarify that only the original baud rate and connector versions (i.e., the 250 kbps baud rate version) were allowed for standardized OBD communication. However, manufacturers have indicated that most of industry was already moving towards using the 500 kbps baud rate version to handle an increased number of messages and data and requested that they be allo wed to use either the 25010 kbps or the 500 kbps version indefinitely. While staff agrees that some changes are needed to account for the industry trend towards the 500 kbps version, staff does not

believe both baud rate versions should be al lowed as options indefinitely given the potential problems of allowing mu ltiple communication variants in the field. Thus, staff is proposing to amend the HD OB D regulation to use either variant and their associated connector up through the 2015 model year and would allow only the 500 kbps variant for all 2016 and subsequent m odel year heavy-duty engines.

Heavy-Duty Hybrid Vehicles

The HD OBD regulation has required moni toring of hybrid components since the regulation was first adopted in 2005. While updating the regulation in 2009, staff added language that provided general guidelines for monitoring of the hybrid system and required manufacturers to submit a monito ring plan for ARB’s review and approval. Affected manufacturers, however, have co mplained about the burden of having to comply with the HD OBD requirements and have argued that because the heavy-duty industry is horizontally-integrated and heavy-duty engine manufacturers only manufacture the engine while hy brid system manufacturers are only responsible for the hybrid components, it is very difficult to design compliant diagnostics that would account for the wide range of engine-hyb rid applications. Citing that hybrid vehicles only constituted a very small part of the heavy- duty market and are only economically viable because of sizable government funding subsid ies and incentives to purchasers, hybrid system manufacturers have requested exem ption from having to implement OBD systems on heavy-duty hybrid vehicles until a later model year (e.g., 2018 model year). Concurrently, engine manufacturers have re quested that they be relieved from any liability for engine diagnostics that are adver sely affected by the hybrid system. While ARB staff believes revisions are needed given these circumstances, it disagrees with the amount of lead time requested, given t hat these monitoring requirements have been in the regulation for many year s. Staff believes that further delays in hybrids becoming compliant should be avoided and will better ensure that near term hybr id vehicles (that are largely subsidized by ARB through ARB’s hybrid and zero-emission truck and bus voucher incentive project) achieve and main tain emission benefits ov er the life of the vehicle. Thus, staff is proposing one ex tra year (the 2013 model year) in which manufacturers are allowed the option of comp lying with alternative, much less stringent requirements. In addition, st aff is proposing changes to the deficiency provisions which allow for certification of HD OBD systems with minor implementation problems that don’t fully meet the HD OBD requirements. Specif ically, staff is proposing two additional free

deficiencies in the 2013 th rough 2015 model years (for a maximum of four free deficiencies) for hybrid-related issues to help manufacturers certify their HD OBD
systems.

Heavy-Duty Alternate-Fueled Engines

The regulation currently requires manufacture rs to implement “full” HD OBD systems on alternate-fueled engines star ting in the 2020 model year. When first adopting this requirement, ARB staff had antic ipated alternate-fueled engines to constitute a very low11 percentage of the heavy- duty market. This assumption, however, is no longer expected to hold true, with several manufacturers indica ting plans to offer more alternate-fueled engines in the near future. Considering t he importance of ensuring the durability and emission benefits of these engi nes, staff initially proposed to move up the start date

from the 2020 to the 2016 m odel year. Alternate-fuel ed engine manufacturers, however, have argued about the difficulty in meeting this proposal, and some proposed a phase-in plan to come into compliance starting in the 2016 model year, with 100 percent of 2018 model year engines meeting the HD OBD r equirements. Based on further discussions with manufacturers, staff ultimately revised its proposal to require HD OBD system implementation on alternate-f ueled engines starting in the 2018 model year. This would result in alternate-f ueled engines complying two years earlier than currently required and minimize the chance fo r inequities in the phase-in years between manufacturers that offer many different al ternate-fueled engines and those that have only one or two offerings. Staff, however, is anticipating some alternate-fueled engine manufacturers to oppose this revised proposal.

Emission and Cost Impacts

The proposed amendments ar e not expected to have an adverse impact on the environment. Overall, the proposed am endments to the HD OBD and OBD II regulations would result in cleaner vehicles than those currently produced, since the requirements for later model years will stil l be more stringent than those for current model year, and are not expected to signific antly alter previously calculated emission benefits or findings. During the 2009 HD OB D regulatory proce ss, the lifetime cumulative emission reductions for HD OBD, on a per engine basis calculated with the

most recent version of the base emission inv entory model (EMFAC), were calculated to be 165 pounds of reactive organic gases (ROG), 2000 pounds of NOx, and 14 pounds of PM. For OBD II, during the 2002 OBD II regulatory update, staff calculated a

combined benefit for OBD II and LEV II of 57 tons per day of ROG + NOx in the South

Coast Air Basin alone. These benefits calculations have not changed since.

The additional costs to manuf acturers to meet the propo sed amendments are expected to be negligible. Staff calculated the cost effectiveness of this proposed rulemaking to be $13.13 per pound of PM and $0.08 per pound of ROG + NOx. Further details of the emission benefit, costs, and cost-effectiveness are included in sections III. and V.

Recommendation

ARB staff recommends that the Boar d adopt the amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II regulations and associated enforcement regulations as proposed in the Initial

Statement of Reasons.12 II. TECHNICAL STATUS UPDATE AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

A. HEAVY-DUTY HYBRID VEHICLES

One issue of concern to heavy-duty engine, v ehicle, and hybrid system manufacturers is OBD monitoring of heavy-duty hybrid co mponents. The HD OBD regulation currently requires hybrid systems and components to be monitored for emission-related

malfunctions and to ensure the addition of such systems to a certified engine does not adversely affect the ability of the engine to comply with OBD requirements. Because hybrid systems vary greatly in terms of system architecture and capability, manufacturers are required to submit a moni toring plan for ARB’s review and approval for hybrid vehicles. Affected manufacturer s have argued that, unlik e the light-duty and medium-duty industry, the hea vy-duty industry is a horizonta lly-integrated industry in which the heavy-duty engine manufacturers onl y manufacture the engine and the hybrid system manufacturers are responsible for the hybrid components and neither have total integrated system responsibilit y or capability. Further, t hey argue the use of hybrid technology on heavy-duty vehicles is still emer ging, that they constitute a very small market share, and that they are only economically viable because of sizable government funding subsidies and incentives to purchasers and would be even less viable given additional expenses to incorporate OBD systems.

The hybrid system manufacturers have indi cated that, despite the requirements being adopted in the HD OBD regulatio n well in advance of the 2013 model year, they have not yet developed compliant diagnostics fo r their own components let alone attempted to understand their impact on the engine diagnos tics. This leads to the engine manufacturers representing that they cannot be responsible for designing their engine diagnostics to account for all of the various hybrid applicati ons that might get mated to one of their engines in the future. Additio nally, hybrid system manufacturers argue that because they have no knowledge of how th e engine diagnostics work on the various engines they work with, they cannot be re sponsible for ensuring compliant systems. Accordingly, the hybrid system manufactu rers have asked to be exempted from OBD requirements at least until the 2017 model year , which parallels the exemption recently granted by the U.S. EPA under the federal OBD regulation. Additionally, the engine manufacturers have requested relief for any of their engines that get mated to a hybrid, specifically proposing that they not be held liable for ensuring the engine diagnostics comply with the hybrid system components, and, where necessary, be allowed to desensitize or disable diagnostics that no longer work correctly when used in hybrid applications.

Fundamentally, an integrated approach needs to be used for engine and hybrid system

manufacturers to have a reasonable chance at meeting all of AR B’s requirements, including the OBD requirements and tailpip e standards. Modern engine and emission control systems are extremely complex and mu st balance many competing factors such as durability, performance, emissions, and fuel economy. Engine manufacturers expend significant resources to find a soluti on that simultaneously meets all of these requirements, so it should come as no surprise that major al terations to the system such13 as attaching a hybrid system that can turn the engine on and off and change the speeds and loads the engine is routinely operated at c an substantially compromise the ability of the engine to continue to meet all of the requirem ents. Further, an integrated approach has the advantage of likely being able to ma ximize hybrid operation and efficiency, thereby making the system more economically vi able for the long term. As such, staff is proposing an extra year of relaxation (the 2013 model yea r) before hybrid systems are required to be properly integrated and compliant with the OBD regulation.

In general terms, there are three areas w here hybrid systems need to comply with the OBD requirements. First, ther e are diagnostics of the added hybrid components/systems themselves. Such di agnostics are required to identify

malfunctions that lead to emi ssion increases or affect other diagnostics. These hybrid component/system diagnostics primarily fall under a section of the regulation that details monitoring requirements for comprehensive co mponents, which ensures all electronic input and output components/systems that can a ffect emissions are fully monitored. Hybrid components that would typically be monitored under such requirements include electric motors, inverters, sensors used for the battery pack, and the battery pack itself. While hybrid manufacturers readily acknowle dge that they already have a fair amount of diagnostics for their components to facilit ate service, these diagnostics do not fully cover all of the components and failure mode s required by the HD OBD regulation. Therefore, most hybrid syst ems will need added diagnostics (i .e., software routines and calibrations in the on-board computers) to cover the additional failure modes and components. It is expected t hat the hybrid system manufa cturer and suppliers that already provide some diagnostics for se rvice will also need to implement additional diagnostics to require such additional failur e notification since they know how these components work. Achieving this is prim arily a matter of dedicating sufficient engineering resources to develop, implement, and calibrate the additional diagnostics.

Second, there are the engine diagnostics themselves. While these diagnostics have largely been developed and calibrated to meet the stand-alone en gine requirements, the addition of a hybrid system can adversely impact some of these diagnostics. As a very simple example, an engine manufacture r may have designed a required diagnostic of an emission control component to run only at idle. However, when mated to a hybrid system that turns the engine off at every id le, that monitor would no longer be able to run and, consequently, would no longer be able to detect failures of that emission control component. A more complicated exam ple involves engine diagnostics that are calibrated to a tailpipe emission threshold su ch as EGR diagnostics that must detect malfunctions before tailpipe emissions exceed two times the tailpipe standards. Engine

manufacturers do iterative te sting on an engine dynamometer to determine the level of malfunction that equates to that tailpipe emission level and design a diagnostic that uses EGR parameters to detect such a level. However, when mated with a hybrid, the engine could be utilized in different s peeds and loads where it is more dependent on proper EGR operation and thus, have higher corresponding tailpipe emissions when a fault is detected. Engine manufacturers cl early cannot predict every possible hybrid system control strategy or feature and t hus cannot by themselves design an OBD system that will remain compliant regardless of how it is modified. Similarly, hybrid14 system manufacturers cannot by themselves be expected to know how every engine diagnostic works and make sure they design their system accordingly.

This leads to the only viable solution: hav ing an integrated system whereby one entity takes responsibility to ensure the system as a whole works properly. Such an approach is not unlike what engine manufacturers already do when coordinating with their suppliers that source the emission cont rol components on their engines to ensure that the end result actually works. Hybrid syst em manufacturers currently do the same with their systems that are comprised of compon ents from various suppliers. Coordination between the hybrid system manufacturer an d the engine manufacturer (and even other

entities like the transmission or vehicle m anufacturers) already happens to varying degrees to ensure some reasonable level of drivability and performance and to work out details such as warranty responsibility. Staff’s proposal would require further coordination between the hy brid system manufacturer and engine manufacturer and would ensure that some party takes ultima te responsibility to ensure that the OBD system, in total, works. In some cases, there are engine manufacturers that are more vertically integrated (e.g., that manufacture both the engine and the vehicle and perhaps even the hybrid system), with a few of those manufacturers already well on their way to an integrated design. In other cases, st aff expects hybrid system, engine, and even vehicle manufacturers to partner together to achieve an integrated solution. For some, staff expects the existing relationships to change very little other than more involvement between the entities and one of them taking overall responsibility for OBD system compliance. In any case, ultimately one par ty will be the ‘manufacturer’ applying for and receiving OBD certification for the integr ated hybrid system and engine and that party –

be it the manufacturer of t he hybrid system, the engine m anufacturer, or, in some cases, the vehicle integrator – will be the party the ARB re cognizes as the manufacturer of the system and liable for noncompliance.

Third, a more minor but still important elem ent of OBD is structure and standardization of the diagnostics. The OBD requirements la y out detailed rules for everything from types of statistical protocols that can be used for diagnostics to when and how fault information must be stored and communicated to the driver and repair technicians. While the engine diagnostics should already meet these requirem ents, the hybrid system diagnostics likely do not, so changes will ne ed to be made to the software in the on-board computers to be able to conform to the OBD requirements. For some of the requirements, industry standards such as SAE recommended practices are referenced and used, but some hybrid system manufacturers have expressed concern that sufficient standardization has not yet been def ined for all of the various hybrid components and systems. Staff, however, believes the hy brid manufacturers have overemphasized the need for some elements to be standardized. The SAE committees are accustomed to engine manufacturers and others adding new components and needing additional standardized designations and are usually able to accommodate such requests in a timely manner, and should be able to do that here as well. Where standardization is not likely to occur fast enough is in the area of messages for control of such systems (e.g., between the engine and hybrid system computers); however, such standardization is not required to comply with HD OBD or any other ARB15 requirements. Any integrat ed approach would, by definition, resolve such issues regardless of whether the so lution used standardized or proprietary control messages.

To address concerns raised by hybrid system and engine manufacturers, staff is proposing to modify the 2013 model year require ments to allow use of hybrid systems. Under the proposed modifications, a hybr id vehicle would be required to use a California-certified 2013 model year engine as the base engine and that any modifications made to the base engine’s cert ified OBD system be solely for the purpose of preventing false malfunction determinations that could otherwise occur as a result of the integration of the hybrid system hardware and software. If a hybrid vehicle is certified, the engine manufacturer would be exem pt from enforcement or liability for any noncompliance caused by the addition of the hybrid system. Finally, hybrid system and engine manufacturers would be exempted from having to monitor any of the hybrid system components. St aff believes it is necessary to modify the 2013 model year requirements given the current capabilities of both hybrid and engine manufacturers. Further, without providing clear and direct relief to engine manufacturers for engines that are used in hybrid vehicles, engine m anufacturers may be hesitant to allow their engines to be used in such applications at the risk of their engines becoming noncompliant. It should be noted, however, that this relaxation applies only to the HD OBD regulation and not any other applicable emission standard or regulation such as tailpipe standards.

Staff’s proposal to amend the requirem ents for the 2013 model year does not necessarily mean that all the systems will go from zero to fu ll compliance by 2014. The HD OBD regulation already provides for defic iencies – areas of the requirements where manufacturers make a good faith attempt to comply in full but fall short – and manufacturers can use the provisions to st ill get certified even though they do not meet every requirement. Approval of deficiencies is based on seve ral factors identified in the regulation including the overa ll compliance of the system, good faith effort on the part of the manufacturer to comply, and the manufactu rer’s plan to come into compliance as soon as possible. Staff expects that it is lik ely that some, if not many, hybrid systems in 2014 may fall short of some of the require ments, despite the best efforts of manufacturers to comply, yet the systems will st ill be eligible to be certified by using the deficiency provisions. Staff also expects that some hybrid system manufacturers may make a business decision to not expend the re sources for compliance in 2014, in which case they will not be able to offer hybrids fo r sale in California beyond 2013. For those

that do remain in the California market and are thus eligible for incentive funds, the integrated design approach requi red by the HD OBD regulation will likely lead to more capable hybrid systems having increased effici encies that meet a ll ARB requirements.

Hybrid manufacturers have in dicated that the proposed changes provided above are not enough, indicating that their lack of exper ience with designing OBD systems makes it difficult to meet the requir ed HD OBD implementation dates. They further indicated that hybrid vehicles comprise less than 1 perc ent of the heavy-duty ma rket, and that the requirements would impose a huge burden on t he hybrid manufacturers. Thus, they proposed delaying HD OBD compliance for heavy- duty hybrid vehicles beyond the 201316 model year. Staff, however, disagrees that more lead time is the appropriate solution. The requirements for hybrids to comply hav e been clearly identifi ed in the regulation since 2009 and little progress has been made sinc e then, so providing even more lead time is not likely to change the situation. In contrast, requiring manufacturers to begin compliance in the short-term to remain eligible for fundi ng through ARB’s hybrid and

zero-emission truck and bus voucher incent ive project (HVIP) will likely provide

sufficient motivation to manufactu rers to make real progress. Avoiding further delays in compliance will also better ensure that near-t erm hybrid vehicles (that are largely subsidized by ARB through the HVIP) actually achieve and maintain benefits over the

life of the vehicles.

Hybrid manufacturers also suggested that there would be a learning curve for them and

that while the deficiencies available in t he HD OBD regulation provide an avenue for them to get certified with less-than-fully co mpliant systems, there are fines for engines

certified with more than two deficiencies. K nowing that most hybrid engines certified in 2014 may fall short of some HD OBD requirement s, just like many engines certified in

2010 fell short of the initial HD OBD r equirements, hybrid manufacturers have requested that additional or unlimited free deficiencies be a llowed for the first several years of implementation. While engine m anufacturers were allowed unlimited free deficiencies in the 2010 through 2012 timeframe, engine manufacturers then were faced with a much more difficult task than hybr id system manufactur ers will be facing. Accordingly, staff does not agree that similar deficiency allowances be given. However, staff does acknowledge that most hybrid sy stems will likely have some deficiencies in the early years and thus is proposing an ad ditional two free deficiencies for hybrid systems in the 2013 through 2015 model years to help reduce the fines for

manufacturers that fall short. As is done with engines and is described above for hybrids, the party applying for and receiving OBD certification will be the ‘manufacturer’ and deficiencies (including the additional two free deficiencies or any associated fines for deficiencies beyond that) will be assessed on this manufacturer.

B. ALTERNATE-FUELED ENGINES

The heavy-duty OBD regulation currently al lows alternate-fueled engines to delay implementation of “full” OBD systems until the 2020 model year, with 2013 through 2019 model year alternate- fueled engines required to comply with the less comprehensive EMD requirements and basic monitoring of all NOx aftertreatment components. This late start date of 2020 wa s adopted in 2006 as part of the initial HD OBD regulation with the expect ation that alternate-fuel ed heavy-duty engines would make up a small portion of the market s hare and, based on light -duty experience with alternate fuel conversions of gasoline v ehicles, that the engines would primarily be OBD-compliant gasoline or diesel engines t hat are converted to an alternate-fueled engine and continue to have functional full OB D systems. Recent information, however, has indicated that some of these assump tions by staff were incorrect. Several

manufacturers have indicated that alternat e-fueled engine sales ar e not insignificant, with at least one engine manufacturer announcing plans to offer significantly more alternate-fueled engines in t he near future. Recent disc ussions with other regulating17 agencies indicate they are considering near or mid-term measures to greatly increase

the market share of alte rnate-fueled engines. Additionally, in discussions with manufacturers currently offering alternate- fueled engines, staff has found more diverse solutions than previously expected. Thes e include alternate fuel conversions that remain compression-ignited and retain the diesel emission c ontrol solution, conversions that change from compression-ignition to s park-ignition and change over to more gasoline-like emission control solutions, conver sions to non-stoichiometric spark-ignition

that retain diesel-like emission control solu tions, etc. Such conversions can have a much larger impact on the OBD system than simpler conversions staff were familiar with, resulting in several unmonitored major emission control components in addition to the normal impacts of altering correlation to emission thresholds and monitoring frequency. Therefore, staff is proposing to move up the r equired start date for full OBD monitoring from the 2020 model y ear to the 2018 model year.

Staff had originally proposed that the compliance date be moved up to the 2016 model year, but feedback from severa l manufacturers at the wor kshop indicated bringing their many alternate-fueled engine families into co mpliance in the 2016 model year would be difficult. As such, they requested a phase-in plan for the 2016 through 2018 model years in lieu of compliance for all engine families in 2016. In subsequent discussions with manufacturers that had multiple engine families, staff determined that, within the

small market share of alte rnate-fueled engines, there could be a significant inequity during the phase-in years between manufacture rs that offer many different product offerings and those that have only one or two offerings. To address the initial request for additional lead time and to avoid inequity during the phase-in years, staff revised the HD OBD regulation proposal to require t hat the HD OBD requirements apply to all alternate-fueled engines starti ng with the 2018 model year.

While the HD OBD regulation currently does not have a specific definition for alternatefueled engines, the definition of “gasoline engines” inclu des alternate-fueled engines based on staff’s presumption fr om light-duty experie nce that all alternate-fueled engines would be spark-ignited and have emission contro ls most like gasoline engines. This presumption, however, was wrong. To date, there has also been some confusion about what exactly constitutes an alternate-fueled engi ne versus a gasoline or diesel engine. Specifically, issues have come up with engines that can use more than one type of fuel, such as engines that can operate on two differ ent types of fuels at the same time and engines that can operate on two different types of fuel but only one at a time. In some instances, these engines are appropriately cla ssified as alternate-fueled engines when both fuels are used for the engine to operate. In other cases, such engines can also operate exclusively on diesel or gasoline if the alternate fuel is not used or not available, and such engines should not be considered al ternate-fueled during those conditions. Accordingly, staff is proposin g a definition that would more explicitly identify what configurations are consider ed alternate-fueled (and thus exempt from OBD monitoring until the 2018 model year). This clarification would provide manufacturers with direction as to how possible future configurations would be classified and prevent gaming by manufacturers looking to inappropriately cl assify something as an alternate-fueled engine to avoid OBD requirements.18 Additionally, regarding heavy-dut y alternate-fueled engines, staff is proposing another clarification with respect to evaporative system monitoring. As currently written, engines are exempt from evaporative syst em monitoring if they are not required to be equipped with evaporative emission systems. Tec hnically, ARB regulations do not mandate vehicles be equipped with com ponents specifically to control evaporative emissions, so the existing language is unclear about which vehicles and engines are subject to the evaporative system monitoring requirements. ARB regulat ions do however clearly delineate which vehicles and engines are s ubject to evaporative emission standards. Accordingly, the proposed change would exem pt engines from evaporative monitoring if they are not subject to t he evaporative emission standards. As examples, compressed natural gas (CNG) engines are not subject to evaporative emission standards but liquid propane gas (LPG) engines are subject to th e standards. The change would make it clear that evaporative system monitoring is required for LPG engines, irrespective of

whether the manufacturer claims it has or has not equipped the engine with an evaporative emission system. Al ternate-fueled engines that ar e subject to evaporative emission standards and thus required to do evaporative system monitoring would be required to submit a plan for Executive Office r approval on what monitoring they would do and its equivalence to the type of evapor ative system monitoring required for gasoline applications.

C. DEFINITIONS

Staff is proposing that a definition of “emission standard” be added to the OBD regulations to help clarify any confusion among stakeholders that t he OBD requirements

are not emission standards. The proposed definition spec ifically defines emission

standard in the context of OBD regulations and conforms that definition with the EMA decision, which defined a “standard relating to t he control of emissions” under Title 2 of the Clean Air Act as it applies to motor vehi cles and motor vehicle engines. There, the

Court found that an emission standard relates to the emission characteristics of a vehicle or engine and that for compliance pur poses, requires a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine to emit no more than a cert ain amount of a given pollutant, be equipped with a certain type of pollution-control device, or have some other design feature related to the control of emissions. ( Id .) Staff is proposing t hat the OBD regulations add a

definition of emission standard to be consistent with the definition set forth in EMA for purposes of clarity, consis tency, and conformity. Under the federal definition, requirements establishing OBD design features related to the control of emissions, as well as exhaust and evaporative numerical emission limits, rela te to the emission characteristics of the engine and are emission standards. The proposed amendments

are intended to make clear t hat the definition of emissi on standard as used in the OBD regulations conforms to the f ederal definition. The propos ed definition, which modifies

the definition of “emission standard” as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 39028, is authorized by Health and Safety Code sections 39010 and 39601 in that the proposed definition conforms with ex isting federal definitions.

For purposes of consistency and clarity, AR B staff is also adding the terms “exhaust19 emission standard” and “evaporative emission standard” in the definitions section to clarify, where needed, previous references to emission standards. These proposed terms are two subcategories of emission standar ds and are used to specifically identify the specified subcategories as opposed to t he broader term of emission standard that encompasses all standards, including among other requirements OBD design features relating to the control of emissions and ta ilpipe and evaporative nu merical limits.

HD OBD systems are required to support standar dized reporting of the calibration identification number (CAL ID), which identifi es the current software version installed in the engine, and the calibration verification number (CVN), which verifies the integrity of the software. These two parameters are in tended to be used during heavy-duty vehicle inspections to help verify that valid softwar e is installed in the on-board computer and that the software has not been corrupted or tampered with, which may occur for performance or fuel economy reasons or to defeat the OBD system . These parameters can also be used to verify that the proper so ftware has been installed as the result of an in-use action (e.g., service campaign, reca ll). The HD OBD regulation currently requires a CAL ID/CVN combination for each “diagnostic or emission critical” electronic control unit. The current definition of “diagnostic or emission critical” includes the engine

control unit and is intended to cover other control units that play a significant role in the emission control system or diagnostic systems. However, there is an ongoing trend with engine and vehicle designs to distri bute diagnostic and control functions across multiple control units thereby subjecting more control units on an engine or vehicle to reporting these paramet ers. Under the cu rrent definition, t here is a potential proliferation of CAL ID and CVN data and maintenance of those data without a commensurate OBD program benef it. Staff is therefore proposing to modify the definition of “diagnostic or emission critical” to limit the number of control units that are subject to the requirement while preserving the requirement fo r control units that serve a significant role in emissions or diagnostics or would likely be targeted for tampering.

The HD OBD regulation currently includes a definition of “sma ll volume manufacturer” in section 1971.1(d)(7.4), which states “a m anufacturer with projected engine sales for California heavy-duty vehicles of less t han 1200 engines per year for the 2010 model year.” This definition was adequate for the original use that was limited to initial implementation of the HD OBD system itself. With the pr oposed additions of required phase-in schedules for the diesel misfire, NOx catalyst/NOx sensor, and PM filter monitoring requirements (described below in their respective sections), staff is proposing to relax requirements for small vo lume manufacturers with limited resources to meet the phase-ins (descri bed in section II.S. below). A ccordingly, staff is proposing

to add a definition for “small volume manufacture r” that would refer ence the definition in Cal. Code Regs., title 13, section 1900(b), wit h the exception that California sales of less than 1200 heavy-duty engines will be used in lieu of 4500 engines.

The HD OBD regulation currently allows manuf acturers to erase a confirmed fault code or a previously MIL-on fault code if t he identified malfunction has not been again detected in at least 40 engine warm-up cycles and the MIL is presently not illuminated for that malfunction. The regulation current ly defines “warm-up cycle” as “sufficient20 vehicle operation such that the coolant te mperature has risen by at least 40 degrees Fahrenheit from engine starting and reaches a minimum temperature of at least 160 degrees Fahrenheit (140 degrees Fahrenheit for applications with di esel engines).”

Some concerns have been raised that certain vehicles, such as vehicles with highly efficient engines, may not be able to meet these temperature criteria under normal driving and ambient conditions. Staff under stands that some allowances should be

made for these vehicles that are unable to warm-up the engine coolant temperature to the defined temperatures even if they hav e been sufficiently driven. Thus, staff is proposing to allow manufacturers the option to define a “warm-up cycle” as a driving cycle in which the criteria to erase a permanent fault code for continuous monitors are

met. This would ensure that the vehicl e has been operated for a sufficient period of time to reasonably detect a recurrence of the malfunction and would allow timely

erasure of confirm ed or previously-MIL on fault codes.

Staff is proposing changes to the perm anent fault code erasur e requirements and the in-use monitor performance requirements that would apply to heavy-duty hybrid vehicles, the details of which are described below. Given the context of the proposed changes, new definitions are needed to complem ent the proposed requirements. Thus, staff is also proposing three new definiti ons for “hybrid vehicle,” “fueled engine operation,” and “propulsion system active” a nd making changes to the “ignition cycle” definition to supplement the proposed chan ges. More details about the proposed

definitions can be found below.

D. MIL ILLUMINATION AND FAUL T CODE STORAGE PROTOCOL

The HD OBD regulation currently requires v ehicles using the ISO 15765-4 protocol to

store and erase freeze frame conditions in c onjunction with the stor age and erasure of either the pending fault code or the confirmed fault code. This has unintentionally resulted in manufacturers erasing freeze fr ame conditions for pending fault codes that

mature to confirm ed fault codes and has left repai r technicians without helpful information to diagnose detected faults. To prevent such erasures, staff is proposing that starting with the 2016 model year, manufacturers be r equired to store freeze frame conditions in conjunction with storage of a pendi ng fault code. If the pending fault code is erased in the next driving cycle because no fault is detected, t he manufacturers would also be required to erase the freeze frame conditions. If, however, the pending fault code matures to a confirmed fault code, the manufacturer would be required to either

retain the current freeze frame conditions or update the freeze frame conditions with those related to storage of the confirmed fa ult code. For monitors that do not store pending fault codes (e.g., one-trip monitors or m onitors that use alternate statistical MIL illumination strategies), staff is proposin g that manufacturers store and erase freeze frame conditions in conjunction with stor age and erasure of a conf irmed fault code. Such changes will better ensure under all condi tions that freeze frame information is available to aid a technician in diagnosing a detected fault.

Staff is also proposing minor amendments to the erasure protocol for confirmed or previously MIL-on fault codes in the HD OBD r egulation. The regulation currently states that the OBD system “may” eras e the fault code if the fault isn’t again detected “in at21 least” 40 warm-up cycles” and the MIL is not presently illuminated for that fault. To ensure consistency among manufac turers, staff is proposing to modify the language to state that the OBD system “shall” erase the fault code if the fault isn’t again detected “in” 40 warm-up cycles and the MIL is not presen tly illuminated for that fault – this amendment would apply star ting with the 2016 model year. This change will better ensure that repair technicians focus on recent ly detected faults and are not led astray chasing down faults that have long since disappeared.

Additionally, staff is proposing changes to address issues concerning permanent fault code erasure on heavy-duty hybrid vehicles for monitors that are designed to run continuously, including monitors that must wait until similar conditions are satisfied (e.g., gasoline misfire and fuel system monitors). Currently, the regulation requi res that the permanent fault code for these monitors be erased only after the vehicle has been operated such that, among other conditions, cr iteria similar to those for a general denominator (section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(B)) have been satisfied on a single driving cycle (with the exception that the general denominator conditions require ambient temperature above 20 degrees Fahrenheit or bel ow 8000 feet in elevation). This ensures that the vehicle has been operated for a sufficient period of time to reasonably

detect a recurrence of the malfunction but does not unnecessarily delay erasure of the permanent fault code. Among thes e conditions is the criterion that the “cumulative time since engine start” be greater than or equal to 600 seconds. This language may not be clear for vehicles such as hybrid vehicles , where the engine may not start running at the beginning of a drive cycle like it would on a conventional vehicle. Thus, for hybrid vehicles, staff is proposing to clarify that manufacturers use 600 cumulative seconds of “propulsion system active” time in lieu of the 600 cumulative seconds after engine start, with “propulsion system active” defined as when the vehicle is operated, regardless of whether it is powered by the battery or the engine or both . Staff believes this new definition would ensure equivalent vehicle operation time between conventional vehicles and hybrid vehicles.

E. STANDARDIZED METHOD TO M EASURE REAL WORL D MONITORING

PERFORMANCE

The OBD regulations require manufacturers to track monitor performance by counting the number of monitoring events and the number of driving events. The number of monitoring events is defined as the numerat or and the number of driving events is

defined as the denominator. The ratio of these two numbers is referred to as the monitoring frequency and provides an indication of how often the monitor is operating relative to vehicle operation. The regulation also requires all vehicles to keep track of a “general denominator”, which is a measure of how often the vehicle is operated and is intended to represent a “typic al” driving cycle the vehicle usually encounters. The regulations require the manufacturer to in crement this denominator only if certain

criteria are satisfied on a si ngle driving cycle. This method allows very short trips or trips during extreme conditions such as very cold temperatures or very high altitude to

be filtered out and excluded from the count. This is appropriate because these are also

conditions where most OBD monitors are neit her expected nor requir ed to operate. In22 addition to the general denominator, manufactu rers are required to track specific denominators for several major monitors. These denominators are tailored to the specific components being moni tored and provide a more accurate and appropriate indication of the monitoring opportunities fo r each of those components relative to how often those components are used.

The HD OBD regulation currently requires all vehicles to increment the general denominator if, among other conditions, the cumulative time since engine start is greater than or equal to 600 seconds. Fo r the same reasons noted above, hybrid

vehicles need an alternate definition to re cognize trips where the engine does not start right away. Thus, similar to the changes proposed above for the permanent fault code erasure protocol, for hybrid vehicles, staff is proposing to clarif y that manufacturers must use 600 cumulative seconds of “propul sion system active” time in lieu of the 600 cumulative seconds after engine start w hen incrementing the general denominator. Additionally, staff is also proposing to requi re 10 seconds of “fueled engine operation” to be met in order to increment the general de nominator to discern between trips with and without engine operation. This condition wo uld ensure that only trips where the engine

has at least turned on once during the driving cycle are counted when looking at how often engine-related emission control co mponent monitors are running. These proposed changes would apply to all 2016 and subsequent model year heavy-duty hybrid vehicles.

Staff is also proposing amendm ents to the in-use monitor performance requirements for PM filter monitors. The HD OBD regulation and OBD II regulation currently require the PM filter active/intrusive injecti on monitor (sections 1971.1(e)(8.2.6) and 1968.2(f)(9.2.6)) to increment the denominator for that moni tor when, in addition to the general denominator criteria , a regeneration event is co mmanded for a time greater than or equal to 10 seconds. Intrusive inje ction, while used during a regeneration event, is not necessarily tied to when regenerati on begins. Staff believes the denominator incrementing criteria for such a monitor should instead be si milar to monitors of other components/systems that are commanded to activate in-use where monitoring frequency is tracked relative to how often th at particular component or system is used. Thus, staff is proposing to r equire manufacturers to increm ent the denominator for this monitor when, in addition to the general denomi nator criteria, the intrusive injection is

commanded to function for a cumulative time greater than or equal to 10 seconds in both the HD OBD and OBD II regulations.

Additionally, staff is propos ing amendments to the denominator increment ing criteria for

the PM filter filter ing performance and missing substrat e monitors in both the HD OBD and OBD II regulations. The HD OBD regulat ion currently requires these PM filter

monitors to increment the denominator when, in addition to the general denominator criteria, the cumulative engine run time exceeds 800 minutes, while the OBD II regulation currently requires the denominator to increment when, in addition to the general denominator criteria, the cumulative miles of ve hicle operation exceeds 500 miles. Further, the HD OBD regulation requi res these monitors to meet a minimum acceptable in-use performance ratio of 0.100, while the OBD II regulation requires these23 monitors to meet a ratio of 0.336 starting in the 2013 m odel year. ARB adopted the current denominator incrementing criteria based on the capability of PM filter monitoring technology. Most current monitoring strat egies are limited to running during a narrow window relative to a PM filter regeneration ev ent. Accordingly, the denominator criteria were tied roughly to a period of vehicle operat ion that would allow a regeneration event. However, there has been concern with this approach because PM filters are needed to control emissions throughout each and every dr iving cycle, not just for a narrow window of once per regeneration even t. Additionally, regeneratio n event intervals have been significantly increasing leading to longer an d longer intervals between monitoring events and significant consequent delays fr om the time of occurrence of a fault to detection of the fault. Fortunately, m onitoring technology has continued to evolve and newly developed PM sensors are now estimated to be the primary method for detection of faults starting in the 2014 and 2015 model y ears. Such sensors are capable of evaluating the performance of t he PM filter on virtually every driving cycle and have little

or no connection to PM filter regeneration events. Given the importance of properlyoperating PM filters on ever y trip and the direction monitoring technology is headed, staff is proposing to require manufacturer s to increment the denominators for these monitors when the general denominator criter ia are met in lieu of only once per 800 minutes of engine operation or 500 miles of vehicle operation starting in the 2016 model year for both heavy-duty engines and medium- duty vehicles. Further, for medium-duty vehicles, given the current higher ratio of 0.336 that these monitors are required to meet, staff is proposing to m odify the OBD II regulation to lower the required ratio to 0.100 for the first few year s these monitors use this new denominator, 2016 through 2018 model years, to give manufacturers more time to assess the monitoring frequency

of the new monito ring technologies.

Staff is also proposing amendm ents to the in-use monitor performance requirements for

PM sensor and PM sensor heater monitors. The HD OBD regulation currently requires the PM sensor monitoring capability moni tor (section 1971.1(e)(9.2.2)(D)) and the PM sensor heater monitor (section 1971.1(e)(9.2 .4)(A)) to use the general denominator as the monitor denominators. PM sensors, like PM filters, may be re generated infrequently in-use, which may make frequent monitoring difficult. Further, as opposed to oxygen

sensor and NOx sensor heater s, PM sensor heaters may be used infrequently in-use. Manufacturers are concerned that using t he general denominator may result in the denominator incrementing more often than is appropriate for the sensor technology and how it is used. Thus, staff is proposing to allow manufacturers to propose alternate criteria (for ARB review and approval) to increment the denominat or for PM sensor monitoring capability monitors until further experience is gained and more appropriate

criteria can be defined in t he regulation. For PM sensor heater monitors, staff is proposing to amend the HD OBD regulation to require manufacturers to increment the denominator when, in addition to the general denominator criteria, the heater has been

commanded to function for a cumulative ti me greater than or equal to ten seconds.

Staff is also proposing changes to the i gnition cycle counter requirements for heavyduty hybrid vehicles. Currently, manufactu rers are required to track and report an ignition cycle counter, which is required to be incremented every time the vehicle is24 started (i.e., “engine start” is met). This is basically a co unter of the num ber of driving cycles experienced by the vehicle. Staff is proposing to modify the incrementing criteria for hybrid vehicles under the HD OBD regulati on to clarify that manufacturers increment the ignition cycle counter when the “propulsi on system active” definition is met (e.g., each time the vehicle is operated, without res pect to whether the engine is started or used).

Lastly, staff is proposing changes to the tr acking and reporting requirements in the HD OBD regulation and OBD II regulation. Firs t, in the HD OBD regulation, staff is proposing to modify the diesel components/syst ems required to report in-use monitoring performance data (section 1971.1( d)(5.1.1)) to align with the requirements in SAE J1979 and J1939. Second, in both the HD OB D and medium-duty OBD II regulations, staff is proposing changes to the in -use performance tracking and reporting requirements for diesel NOx and PM sensor monitors. T he regulation currently does not require manufacturers to track and repor t the diesel NOx/PM sensor “monitoring capability” monitors (sections 1971.1(e)(9 .2.2)(D) and 1968.2(f)(5 .2.2)(D)); it only requires manufacturers to track and report di esel NOx/PM sensor performance monitors

that are emission threshold-based (sections 1971.1(e)(9.2.2)(A) and 1968.2(f)(5.2.2)(A)). Howeve r, recent discussions betwe en staff and manufacturers have indicated that many of these sensors do not hav e emission-threshold based monitors, and thus would only be subject to monitoring if the malfunction causes the sensor to no longer be sufficient for us e as an OBD system monitoring device. Considering how important NOx and PM sensors are for monitoring of major aftertreatment emission control devices, they should be monitored to ensure that they are running frequently in-use. Thus, staf f is proposing that the HD OBD and OBD II regulations be modified to require manufacture rs to track and report the diesel NOx/PM sensor “monitoring capability ” monitors for 2016 and subsequent model year heavy-duty engines and medium-duty vehicles.

F. DIESEL MISFIRE MONITORING

Diesel manufacturers are current ly required to monitor for mi sfire only during engine idle conditions and only for faults that cause one or more cylinders to be continuously misfiring. This requirement was first pr oposed based on diesel manufacturers’ assertion that misfire only occurred due to poor compression and would result in a cylinder misfiring under all operating conditions. T he OBD requirements also specify that, for 2013 and subsequent model year heavy-duty di esel engines and 2010 and subsequent model year light- and medium-duty vehicles equipped with sensors that can detect combustion or combustion quality, diesel manufacturers are requi red to monitor for misfire continuously under all positive tor que engine speeds and load conditions and to detect misfire before emissions exceed spec ific thresholds (e.g., 2.0 times the applicable standards). The premise for this was that engines so equipped would likely be more precisely controlling the combusti on process based on information from these sensors such that misfires could likely exist only in limited operating regions.25 However, the complexity of today’s control strategies on all diesel engines and the addition of new technologies in recent year s, like aggressive use of EGR or target airfuel ratios or fresh air concentrations in certain operating conditions, has resulted in

additional factors that can caus e misfire in very specific operating conditions instead of continuously under all conditions. Thus, even fo r diesel engines that do not have direct combustion quality sensors, staff is concer ned that real world ma lfunctions will cause

intermittent or off-idle misfires that in crease emissions but go undetected with today’s

monitors. As stated in the 2005 Staff R eport when the HD OBD r egulation was first adopted, staff intended to investigate the possi bility of such misfires and had indicated that a more comprehensive requirement ma y be proposed at a future Board review based on their findings. Staff has found that in the field, misf ire can occur during specific speed and load regions and would not likely be detected by an idle-only misfire monitor. Thus, staff worked on a propos al to require all 2016 and subsequent heavyduty and medium-duty diesel engines to conti nuously monitor for misfire in addition to the idle-only misfire monitor.

Manufacturers have expressed several concerns about monitoring continuously for misfires and about establishing a level of misf ire that would equate to a specific tailpipe emission level. They indicated that they w ould likely encounter difficulties in the highest engine speed and torque conditions and that t here would be challenges in actually creating misfires in a r epeatable manner without damaging t he engine and representing

a worst case emission scenario. As a resu lt, they proposed that they be required to detect a fixed misfire rate of 5 percent in lieu of establishing the specific rate on an engine model basis that correlated to a spec ific tailpipe emission level. They also proposed that monitoring be limited to engine speeds and loads less than 75 percent of the maximum engine speed and load.

Staff agrees that ther e are significant difficulties in creating a repeatable misfire on diesel engines that is repres entative of the worst case emissions and thus is proposing the manufacturers’ suggested solution of usi ng a fixed percentage of 5 percent as the malfunction criterion for both heavy-dut y engines and medium-duty vehicles. Concerning the continuous monitoring requi rement, while staff agrees that some relaxation is necessary, there are still conc erns and questions about the likelihood and possible effects of misfire during higher spee d and load regions. Thus, for the interim model years of 2016 through 2018, staff modified the proposal to be consistent with the manufacturers’ proposal to limit monitori ng to positive torque conditions with engine speed up to 75 percent of the maximum-rated engine speed and engine load up to 75 percent maximum-rated load. Additionally, at the manufacturers’ suggestion, a small region of high engine speed and very low load was defined and is proposed as an area where monitoring would not be required. However, because staff is concerned that higher speed and load regions may very well be su sceptible to misfire, the proposal also requires manufacturers to phase in monitori ng all the way up to the maximum engine speed and load for the 2019 through 2021 model y ears. Further, manufacturers would be required to collect and report data demons trating the complianc e of the misfire monitor as part of the certific ation application, similar to w hat is currently required for gasoline vehicles and engines. Specifically, the manufactu rers would be required to26 provide data demonstrating the probability of detection of misf ire events of the misfire monitoring system over the required engi ne speed and load operating range and data identifying all disablement of misfire monitoring that occurs during a specified test cycle. These data would provide assurance that the misfire monitor is robust and enabled under the required conditions. In additi on to the new proposed misfire monitor requirements, manufacturers would still be s ubject to the idle-only misfire monitor requirements. Staff expects that manufacturers will be able to meet both requirements with the revised monitor developed to cove r the expanded speed a nd load ranges. However, in case unforeseen difficulties aris e that prevent detect ion of the 5 percent misfire at idle, the manufactur ers would have to retain the cu rrent idle monitor. This would help protect the cr edibility of the monito ring system capability in the eyes of repair technicians by avoiding the situation wher e a technician can identify that an engine has

an obvious and severe misfire at idle but t he OBD system is incapable of detecting it. Staff is proposing all these changes to both the HD OBD and medium-duty OBD II requirements.

G. DIESEL EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULAT ION (EGR) SYSTEM MONITORING

The HD OBD regulation currently requires manuf acturers to monitor any EGR catalysts used in the EGR system on all 2013 and su bsequent model year engines. Such catalysts, though not very common, are used to further clean up t he exhaust gas before

it is recirculated into the intake of the engine to reduce contaminat ion or fouling that might otherwise affect durability of the EGR system. While fa ilures of the EGR catalyst may not result in an immediate impact on emissions, such failures lead to more aggressive deterioration of other EGR system co mponents such as fouling or plugging

of the EGR cooler.

Manufacturers have argued that OBD systems have always focused on the monitoring of components that directly influence emissi ons, not components that help to sustain the effectiveness or durability of t he system. They have further argued that ther e are issues with detecting and pinpointing EGR catalyst failures as opposed to relying on other monitors such as the EGR cooler diagnostic to eventually detect the subsequent failure of the cooler itself. Thus, staff is proposing to modify t he HD OBD regulation to exempt heavy-duty manufacturers from having to monitor the EGR catalyst if they can show that a fault of the catalyst will not cause a measurable emissions impact on the criteria pollutants (i.e., NMHC, CO, NOx, and PM) dur ing any reasonable driving condition in which the catalyst is most likely to affect criteria pollutants.27 H. DIESEL NON-METHANE HYDROCARBO N (NMHC) CONVERTING CATALYST

MONITORING

The HD OBD regulation currently requires m anufacturers to design the OBD system on 2013 and subsequent model year engines to detect an NMHC catalyst malfunction when the catalyst conversion capability dec reases to the point that NMHC emissions exceed 2.0 times the applicable standard. However, if a ca talyst malfunction does not result in emissions exceeding this threshol d, the regulation allows the manufacturer to detect a malfunction when the catalyst has no detectable amount of NMHC conversion capability.

Similar to what they ar gued during the 2009 HD OBD biennial review, manufacturers have again expressed concern that total failu re of NMHC catalysts will push emissions over the threshold and force them to implem ent threshold monitors. Furthermore, they do not believe that there is any monitoring technology that can robustly detect anything other than a completely failed NMHC catalyst. Accordingly, manufacturers have again

asked ARB to raise the threshold to 4.0 times the NMHC standard so that manufacturers would very likely only have to implement functional monitors to detect completely failed catalysts.

In the 2009 HD OBD staff report, staff detailed some possible monitoring approaches to meet the threshold monitoring requirements. To counter manufacturers argument that there is no level of catalyst degradati on between perfectly adequate and completely failed and that an exotherm monitor can only disce rn those two states, staff indicated in the 2009 report that after talking with suppl iers and individual manufacturers, it had determined that catalysts do have intermediat e levels of deterioration that cause increases in light-off temperature and lower conv ersion efficiencies. Staff found that by looking more closely at the catalyst behavior during active regeneration (e.g., by investigating how much time and/or fuel is needed to generate an exotherm, tracking the actual temperature rise from the exotherm versus the expected, and using better temperature sensors), manufacturers may be able to better determine the

characteristics exhibited as an NMHC catal yst degrades (even if it is still capable of eventually getting to a high enough exotherm to achieve regeneration of the PM filter). Manufacturers now argue that though there ma y be some validity to staff’s position, there are significant limitations includi ng the narrow temperature and time window around catalyst light-off that the exotherm monitor must run. Staff also mentioned in the 2009 staff report about a strategy to monitor the catalyst during a cold start, where during intrusive actions intended to bring t he catalyst up to the desired temperature quickly after a cold start, the light-off and/or temperature rise characteristics are tracked to evaluate the catalyst. Manufacturers again argued there are lim itations with this approach as well, with many factors including the condition of the catalyst that can affect catalyst warm-up, and note that most manufacturers have found that the cold start component monitor for the catalyst can only det ect a completely failed catalyst. Lastly,

staff mentioned in the 2009 sta ff report that manufacturers can also reduce the engineout NMHC emissions associat ed with a malfunctioning catalyst. Manufacturers have countered that lower engine- out NMHC emissions would mean higher engine-out NOx28 emissions, which would make it more diffi cult to meet the NO x-based monitoring requirements.

In more recent discussions with manufacture rs and suppliers, staff has found that some

manufacturers have indeed been successful in incrementally aging the NMHC catalyst much like what has been done for over 15 year s with gasoline catalysts. Additionally, virtually all manufacturers have indeed mov ed towards higher engine-out NOx emission levels (and generally, lower engine-out NMHC em ission levels) to maximize efficiency and use of SCR systems as staff suggested was possible, thus requiring detection of a more degraded NMHC catalyst than before. Further, at least one manufacturer has already successfully demonstrated the ab ility to detect a degraded catalyst prior to emissions exceeding the cu rrent 2013 model year thres holds by monitoring the exotherm of the catalyst dur ing regeneration events. Virt ually all manufacturers have continued to make significant improvem ents to regeneration emissions both by increasing the time between regenerations and lowering the emissions during the actual regeneration events. This l eads to reduced influences from the infrequent regeneration adjustment factors (IRAF), making it less of a factor in determining the threshold catalyst. Nonetheless, if a manufacturer were to choose a solution that still was very sensitive to NMHC catalyst degradation (due to high engine-out NMHC and/or high IRAFs), it is appropriate that such a solu tion be monitored at a reasonable emission level and not at something that is four times a standard that is already generous for diesel engines. Accordingly, staff is pr oposing no change in the current NMHC catalyst monitoring threshold.

Staff is proposing amendments to the HD OBD requirement for manufacturers to monitor the ability of the catalyst to generate a desired feedgas (e.g., nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 )) to promote better performance in a dow nstream aftertreatment component (e.g., for higher NOx conversion efficiency in an SCR system). Current ly, the regulation requires 2013 and subsequent heavy-duty m odel year engines to meet this requirement. During the most recent OBD II regulatory review for light- and mediumduty vehicles earlier this year, manufacturers asked ARB to delay the start date to meet this requirement to the 2016 model year in part because their original plans to comply were based on using monitors for the NMHC conversion efficiency of the NMHC catalyst and/or NOx conversion efficien cy of the SCR system and such approaches were not uniformly successful. This resulted in manufacturers having to investigate alternative monitoring strategi es, which indicated they needed more time to verify these strategies. While staff believes it is f easible to develop a monitor to meet this requirement and at least one manufacturer has already shown it will have this capability for the 2013 model year, staff acknowledge s that more time is needed to develop a robust monitor to meet this requirement. Thus, to be consistent with what staff had recently proposed for the OBD II regulation, staff is proposing to modify the HD OBD regulation to delay monitoring of proper feedgas generation until the 2015 model year for heavy-duty engines.

Further, manufacturers have indi cated that ability of the ca talyst to generate a desired feedgas (e.g., high levels of NO 2 ) is a secondary function that often has very minor29 impacts. Manufacturers proposed that becaus e the impacts are small, ARB should add

test-out criteria that woul d allow an emissions increase of up to 15 percent of the

standard due to a malfunction or loss of th is feature before monitoring would be required. While the OBD programs at ARB have traditi onally avoided this approach

because of the concern that several ‘minor’ items could fail without fault detection and cumulatively lead to significantly higher emi ssions, or that two or more such failures

could have an interaction that causes even hi gher emissions when both occur, staff has agreed to try such an approach here. Specifically, for this ‘secondary’ function of the NMHC catalyst (i.e., proper feedgas generati on for downstream components), staff is proposing to modify the HD OBD and OBD II r egulations to allow manufacturers to be exempt from monitoring if complete failure of the component or loss of the function results in less than a 15 percent of the standard increase for any pollutant over an applicable test cycle (e.g., Federal Test Procedure (FTP) or Supplemental Emission Test (SET)) during the engine’s us eful life. However, in addition to being less than a 15 percent of the standard increase, staff’s pr oposal would also require that tailpipe

emissions be below the standard with the failure to better ensure that any emission impact is truly ‘minor.’

I. DIESEL OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NOx) CONVERTING CATALYST MONITORING

The HD OBD and medium-duty OBD II regulati ons require manufacturers to detect conversion efficiency faults of the NOx conv erting catalyst (typically an SCR catalyst)

before NOx emissions exceed the followin g thresholds: for the 2010 through 2012 model years, the applicable NOx standard plus 0.4 g/bhp-hr, and for the 2013 and subsequent model years, the applicable NOx standard plus 0.2 g/bhp-hr.

Manufacturers have argued that the dynamic s of the SCR system and its control, including the NOx sensors and the reductant delivery system, have made it difficult to meet the 2013 model year requirements. They contend that due to the high degree of conversion efficiency of the SCR catalyst, a system degraded to the level required to be detected by the OBD system is still a highly functioning S CR system and provides little separation from a properly per forming one. They further contend that a good catalyst could resemble a bad catalyst since t he instantaneous conversion efficiency can dramatically change given the operating conditi ons. Adding to the issue is the crosssensitivity of the NOx sensors to ammonia (NH 3 ) and the less-than-desired accuracy of the sensors needed for robust monitoring.

Staff has met with virtually every manufacture r and several suppliers to assess current capability and what improvement s are available in the near term. While several medium-duty manufacturers are on track to meet the existing 2013 standards, most heavy-duty manufacturers are not. Given t he importance of achi eving and preserving

the NOx benefits of the 0.2 g/bhp-hr tailpipe standard, staff is committed to continuing to drive to the limits of technical feasibility to achieve the lowest threshold possible. Further, given industry trends towards in creasing engine-out NOx emissions even higher for engine efficiency improvements or greenhouse gas reductions, staff is concerned that some may try to push too far in that directi on such that tailpipe or OBD30 capability is sacrificed. Thus, staff is c autious about providing even interim relaxation that could be misinterpret ed as showing that some ARB requirements are more important than others instead of keeping manufacturers on tr ack to find a reasonable middle ground that meets all of our requirements, includ ing OBD, tailpipe standards, and greenhouse gas standards (where applic able). In discussions with the manufacturers, it seems there are many elements of base SCR control and dynamics

that are not well refined or understood. The problem appears to be exacerbated on larger catalysts that are more common on the biggest engine displacements, and many point to unknowns related to ammoni a storage and release that produce both

inconsistent in-use conversion efficien cy and, consequently, quite varied catalyst monitoring results. Last-minute changes to the underlying base emission control strategy has also placed the OBD engineers within manufacturers at a disadvantage by forcing them to either develop and calibrate on less-than-finalized so ftware or wait until very late in the process to begin the calibration process. Those manufacturers with

more stable emission control solutions that we re finalized early in the process tend to be further ahead in OBD capability as well.

When talking with manufacturers and suppliers , staff identified several items that continue to show promise for achieving t he current 2013 model year threshold of the NOx tailpipe standard + 0.2 g/bhp-hr. NOx sensor a ccuracy is not expected to get appreciably better than the +/-10% and +/- 10 parts-per-million accuracy of current sensors, but that doesn’t appear to be the limiting factor to achieving the final

thresholds. Some manufacture rs have shifted some focus to looking more at ammonia storage—both for purposes of better controlling emissions in the first place and also for

another metric to correlate wit h the performance of the catal yst itself. One supplier has

indicated that ammonia stor age capability is affected earlier and more dramatically on deteriorated catalysts than NO x sensor-based measurements can detect, implying that monitoring strategies based on or incorpor ating some measure of ammonia storage would likely be more sensitive and able to detect malfunctioning catalysts sooner. Some manufacturers have even incorporated (o r plan to incorporate) ammonia sensors to better quantify and understand the storage and release phenomena. Some of these strategies may even include intrusive monito rs that saturate and/or deplete ammonia storage to better assess the cu rrent catalyst performance. Others have indicated they plan to look at partial volume monito ring approaches to monitor the conversion efficiency over a smaller portion of the total ca talyst volume in an at tempt to be able to work in an environment with higher NOx outlet concentrations. To the extent that the smaller engines (and thus catalysts) are closer to achieving (if not already achieving) the 2013 model year thresholds, such an approach continues to have promise. Additionally, some manufacturers believe that they just n eed to get a better handle on what they are currently observing as high vari ability in the monitor results through better base control strategies, including adaptive al gorithms, further refinement of enable conditions to eliminate driving conditions that cause big fluctuations in catalyst efficiency, and even improved statistica l filtering of t he results.

Taking that all into consideration, staff is proposing a couple chang es to the current HD OBD and OBD II requirement of a ‘+ 0.2’ threshold across the board in the 2013 model31 year. Specifically, staff is proposing that for medium-duty vehicles, which are already further along than some of their heavy-dut y counterparts (primarily because of the smaller catalyst size, more constrai ned vehicle packages and usage patterns, and perhaps earlier timing for finalized base calib rations), manufacturers would be required to meet a threshold of ‘+0.3’ (i.e., t he engine dynamometer st andard + 0.3 g/bhp-hr)

instead of the ‘+0.2’ current threshold for 2013 through 2015 model year medium-duty vehicles. For chassis dynamometer-cer tified applications, based on the current capability of several such products, a thres hold of 2.0x the applicable standard would be

used as a level that is consistent with sect ion 1968.2(f)(17.1.5)(C), which requires the threshold be set as tight as technically feasible.

For heavy-duty applications, staff is proposing to modify the 2013 model year threshold to remain at the ‘+0.4’ threshold that app lied in 2012. However, starting with the 2014 model year, manufacturers would be required to phase in a tighter threshold of ‘+0.3’. Specifically, manufacturers would have to m eet the ‘+0.3’ threshold on 20 percent of their 2014 model year diesel engine volume and 50 percent of their 2015 model year diesel engine volume, with the percentages based on the manufacturer’s projected California sales volume of all heavy-duty di esel engines. For the 2016 model year, manufacturers would be required to meet t he ‘+0.2’ threshold with the exception that any engines that were phased-in during 2014 or 2015 to the ‘+0.3’ threshold would be

able to remain at that threshold in 2016 and w ould not have to meet the ‘+0.2’ threshold until the 2017 model year. This phase-in woul d force manufacturers to continue to push

forward but allow them to fo cus their efforts on the engine models for which compliance is more straight forward in the early years as well as give them time to continue to evolve base calibration beyond what was done for the 2013 model year. Further, the carry-over provision for the 2016 model year w ould provide them relief from having to recalibrate their entire product line to meet t he tighter threshold in that one year. The phase-in would also provide much needed time to improve ammonia storage estimations and explore alternative monitoring methods or metrics.

Manufacturers raised questions about whic h heavy-duty engines coul d or could not be counted as part of the phase-in percent ages for the heavy-duty OBD proposal. Specifically, whether only ‘ parent’ ratings (those explic itly calibrated to emission thresholds and liable for them in-use) would count or if ‘child’ ratings (ratings with calibration that is extrapolated from the par ent rating to be very similar but without explicit demonstration or in-u se liability for the emission thresholds) could also be counted. Given the premise of parent and child ratings is that the parent is representative of the child and the extrapolated calibrations are intended to end up with compliant calibrations for the child ratings , the regulation would allow child ratings engines as well as parent ratings to count as part of the engine volume phase-in percentage. And while staff already scrutinizes the extr apolation method manufacturers use to establish an appropriate calibration on the child ratings, there is concern that

manufacturers would take additional liberties when extrapolating the calibration for the tighter phase-in threshold. Specifically, staff is concerned that manufacturers would extrapolate towards a less stringent threshold in addition to making appropriate changes for the different rating. Accordingly, staff will likely be reviewing manufacturers’32 extrapolation techniques and calibrations ca refully to ensure that manufacturers are calibrating to an equivalent stringency for any ra tings they are including in the phase-in percentages.

J. DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTE R (PM) FILTER MONITORING

The HD OBD regulation currently requires t he OBD system to identify malfunctions of

the PM filter when t he filtering capability degrades to a level such that tailpipe PM emissions exceed a specific threshold. For the 2010 through 2012 model year engines, the PM threshold was essentially 0.07 g/bhp-hr (for an engine certified to the nominal standard of 0.01 g/bhp-hr). For the one engine family in 2013 through 2015 where full OBD is phased-in, the threshol d is 0.03 g/bhp-hr (for an engine certified to the nominal standard of 0.01 g/bhp-hr). For all other 2013 through 2015 model year engines, the PM threshold drops to 0.05 g/bhp-hr (again for an engine certified to the nominal standard of 0.01 g/bhp-hr). Fo r all 2016 and subsequent model years, the threshold is 0.03 g/bhp-hr (for an engine cert ified to the nominal standar d of 0.01 g/bhp-hr). For medium-duty vehicles and engines covered under OBD II, the only di fference from the above is that the 0.03 g/ bhp-hr standard applies across the board in 2013 and subsequent model years in lieu of a phase-in on some products in 2013 and the rest in

2016.

The HD OBD regulation originally required manuf acturers to meet the PM threshold of 0.050 g/bhp-hr starting in the 2010 model year, but due to heavy-duty engine manufacturers’ concerns about meeting the threshold, staff amended the starting date to the 2013 model year based on projections t hat PM sensors, which many believe will be the only viable way to meet the thresholds, would be available in time for the 2013 model year. Now manufacturer s are still expressing concern that the threshold is too stringent and is not technically feasible fo r the 2013 model year ti me frame. They

contend that PM sensors are not yet commercially ready ac ross all of industry and thus,

the emission threshold needs to be revised to what current monitoring technologies (primarily backpressure or delta pressure- based metrics) are capable of achieving. Accordingly, they proposed that heavy-dut y engines continue to use the 2010 model year 0.07 g/bhp-hr PM threshold up to and including the 2015 model year, with 2016 and subsequent model year engines using the PM threshold of 0.05 g/bhp-hr.

As noted earlier, staff met wit h virtually every manufacturer and several suppliers to assess their monitoring capabilities for 2013 and the improvements they plan to implement in the near term. While at least one light-duty manufacturer is implementing a PM sensor in 2013 model year and a few hea vy-duty manufacturers were on track to do that until very recently, staff generally ag rees that PM sensors are not ready for full scale implementation in the 2013 model year . In some cases, manufacturers have indicated the 2014 model year is still viab le for implementation on some of their products while others have indicated the 2015 model year is more likely. In most cases,

the data from the sensors continue to indica te that they are certainly capable of detecting faults at the final PM threshold le vel of 0.03 g/bhp-hr. In meeting with sensor33 suppliers, staff has confirmed that wide-sca le implementation of PM sensors in heavyduty engines is not feasible for the 2013 model year.

In the absence of PM sensors, several manufacturers have continued to move forward on alternate monitoring techniques, including further refinement of delta pressure-based approaches and concepts such as a downstr eam secondary filter optimized for monitoring capability. In some cases, especially on medium-duty products, such techniques have already achieved the emissi on level of the 2016 threshold. However, some of these monitoring strategies still re ly on relaxed provisions provided in the regulation (and recently extended through th e 2013 model year for medium-duty) to

allow ARB to exclude certai n failure modes such as a partially melted and partially

cracked filter that results in the identical delta pressure char acteristics of a good filter. Such relaxation is set to expire in 2014 for medium-duty because it provides an unknown risk for failures that cause high PM emissions to go undetected, but was seen as a necessary interim step to accommodate the best available monitoring techniques. Lastly, as most in industry continue to mo ve towards higher engine-out NOx emission levels, this necessarily results in lower engine-out PM levels. As engine-out levels decrease, the amount of degradat ion of the PM f ilter the engine can handle before the

emission threshold is reached is substantiall y increased. In some cases, engine-out levels are reaching 0.05 g/bhp-hr or lower, which in turn means a PM filter would need to drop from a 95 percent or higher trapping efficiency down to something less than 60 percent efficiency to reach t he threshold of 0.03 g/bhp-hr.

Taking all this into account, staff is propos ing a variety of changes to the thresholds including a couple of phase–in options to prov ide some interim rela xation. With minor exceptions depending on the phase-in options selected , medium-duty and heavy-duty applications would all have the same end poi nt for all 2016 and subsequent model year engines: PM threshold levels of 0.03 g/bhp- hr and no provision for exclusion of certain failure modes. PM sensors are certainly on track to be available across industry before

that timeframe so that is a viable so lution to meet the requirements.

Staff is proposing the following changes to the OBD II regulation for medium-duty vehicles. For the 2013 model year, staff is proposing that the PM threshold for mediumduty vehicles remain at 0.03 g/bhp-hr; but with amendments prev iously approved in January 2012, manufacturers will be able to re ceive ARB approval to exclude specific failure modes. For 2014 and 2015 model year, medium-duty manufacturers would have two options. First, they could choose to implement monitoring to a PM threshold of 0.03 g/bhp-hr without the failure m ode exemptions on at least 20 percent of their 2014 and 2015 annual model year medium- duty diesel vehicle volume , and certify the remaining vehicles to the 0.03 g/bhp-hr th reshold with the failure mode ex emption. Alternatively, a

manufacturer could chose to continue to meet the 2013 threshold with failure mode exemption in the 2014 model year. Ho wever, for the 2015 model year, the manufacturer choosing this second path would need to certify at least 50 percent of its 2015 model year medium-duty diesel volume to the threshold of 0. 03 without the failure mode exemption. These two opt ions provide manufacturers the flexibility to either34 implement earlier (2014 model year) on a smaller portion of their fleet or implement later (2015 model year) but on a lar ger fraction of their fleet.

Staff is proposing the following changes to the HD OBD regulation. For 2013 model year heavy-duty engines, staff is proposing t he PM threshold of 0.05 g/bhp-hr apply to all engines and to retain the provision for ARB to exempt certain failure modes. For 2014 and 2015 model year heavy-dut y engines, staff is proposing two options. First, manufacturers can choose to certify 20 percent of thei r 2014 through 2015 model annual year heavy-duty diesel engine volume to a PM threshold of 0.05 without the failure mode exemption. The remaini ng engines can again be certified to the 0.05 g/bhp-hr threshold with the exemption of certain failure modes. Additionally, manufacturers using this alternative would be allowed to carry-over the 0.05 threshold without the failure mode exempt ion into the 2016 model year on engines first certified to this option in the 2014 model year. This w ould provide an extra year at the higher threshold on those engines brought in early and allow the manufacturer to avoid having to recalibrate all of its products in 2016 to th e lower 0.03 threshold. As an alternative, manufacturers could choose to certify t he 2014 model year engines to the same requirements as the 2013 model year -- a PM threshold of 0.05 g/bhp-hr with failure mode exemption. Those choosing this sec ond option, however, would be required to certify 50 percent of their 2015 model year diesel engine volume to a PM threshold of 0.03 g/bhp-hr without the failure mode exemption. Manufactu rers choosing this second option would also be required to meet the 0.03 threshold without failure mode exemption on all 2016 model year engines. As mentioned in the diesel NOx catalyst monitoring discussion above, manufacturers woul d be allowed to include child ratings in the phase-in percentages to t he extent they are extrapolat ed from a parent rating that meets the tighter threshold.

The HD OBD regulation also currently requi res manufacturers to monitor the NMHC conversion capability of catal yzed PM filters starting wit h the 2013 model year. The catalyzed coating of a PM filter has secondar y functions that have an emission impact. These functions can include promotion of passive regeneration at lower exhaust temperatures, conversion of HC and ca rbon monoxide created during an active regeneration, and generation of NO 2 feedgas for downstream SCR systems. Manufacturers have argued that many of thes e functions are just side effects that directionally help, but are not necessary to comply with the emission standards. They

further indicated that ther e are currently no suitable ro bust monitoring strategies available to discern the proper operation of these secondary functions. Thus, manufacturers have asked ARB to delay the st art date to meet this requirement to the 2016 model year.

Staff believes that such secondary functions are not trivial and warrant monitoring to

ensure overall effectiveness of the emission control system. Staff recognizes that the success of the monitoring approaches may be highly dependent on the actual catalyst configuration, significance of the catal yst loading on the PM filter, and regeneration strategy (especially reliance on high levels of passive regeneration) and thus require manufacturers to take OBD monitoring capab ility into consideration when designing and35 implementing the aftert reatment system and c ontrol strategy. It fu rther recognizes that manufacturer OBD engineers have often been le ft out of the design process due to the rapid deployment of new technologies and increasingly stringent standards. Thus, consistent with the Board’s approval of am endments to the OBD II regulation in January 2012, staff is proposing to delay the monitoring requirements of the ca talyst function of catalyzed PM filters until the 2015 model year for heavy-duty engines to give

manufacturers more time to refine their systems, optimiz e regeneration strategies, and better investigate the impacts of the catalyze d PM filter.

Staff is also proposing that for 2016 and subsequent model year engines that use catalyzed PM filters to generate feedgas constituency (e.g., NO 2 ) to assist SCR systems, manufacturers be requi red to monitor the capability of the system to generate desired feedgas. Currently, the HD OBD regul ation specifically requires that manufacturers monitor the NMHC catalyst for proper feedgas generation for the SCR system, since this seems to be the primar y component used to generate such feedgas. Through discussions with manufacturers, staff has learned that catalyzed PM filters are also used to generate such feedgas. Thus, staff’s proposal would require the monitoring of all components t hat generate the desirable feedgas.

Lastly, similar to what is discussed abov e for proper feedgas monitoring of NMHC catalysts in section II.H., manufacturers have indicated that the abilities of the catalyzed

PM filter to convert NMHC and to generate a desired feedgas (e.g., high levels of NO 2 ) are secondary functions that often have very minor impacts. While not arguing that such functions do not have any emissi on impact and should not monitored, the manufacturers propose that because the impac ts are small, ARB should add test-out criteria, specifically allowing an emissions in crease of up to 15 per cent of the standard

due to a malfunction or loss of this feature before monitoring would be required. While the OBD programs at ARB have traditional ly avoided this approach because of the

concern that several ‘minor’ items could fail without fault detection and cumulatively lead to significantly higher emissions, or that two or more such failures could have an interaction that causes even higher emissions when both occur, staff has agreed to try such an approach here. Specifically, for bot h of these ‘secondary’ functions of a PM filter (i.e., NMHC conversion due to a cata lyzed coating and pr oper feedgas generation for downstream components), staff is proposi ng to allow manufacturers to be exempt from monitoring if complete failure of the component or lo ss of the function results in less than a 15 percent of the standard increase for any pollu tant over an applicable test cycle (e.g., FTP or SET) during the useful life. However, in addition to being less than a 15 percent of the standard incr ease, staff’s proposal would also require that tailpipe

emissions be below the standard with the failure to better ensure that any emission impact is truly ‘minor’. These proposed changes would apply to both the HD OBD and OBD II regulations.

K. DIESEL NOx SEN SOR MONITORING

The HD OBD and medium-duty OBD II regulations currently require manufacturers to

detect faults of the NOx sensor before em issions exceed the following thresholds: for36 the 2010 through 2012 model year s, the applicable NOx standar d plus 0.4 g/bhp-hr, and for the 2013 and subsequent model years, t he applicable NOx sta ndard plus 0.2 g/bhphr. Manufacturers have argued that they are unable to meet t he 2013 model year thresholds given the current NOx sensor technology – specifically, considering the tolerances of the latest NOx sensors, they claimed there is too li ttle separation between good sensors and bad sensors to ensure robust detection. Thus, they proposed that staff delay the 2013 model year thres holds until a later model year.

For sensors upstream of the NOx converting catalyst, ther e are fewer items affecting the output of the sensor condition. Accord ingly, most manufacturers have monitoring strategies based on comparing an expected/ modeled engine-out emission level to the sensor output. And while the better sensor accuracy at the higher NOx concentrations read by the upstream sensor gen erally improves the situat ion, there are still several factors affecting the sensor output and accu racy of the estimated engine out emission levels that impact what emission level a f ault can be detected. Further, manufacturers are still refining these diagnostics includi ng improving accuracy of engine-out models and sensor adaptation strategies to co mpensate for any sensor drift.

For NOx sensors located downstr eam of the NOx converting ca talyst, the sensor output is affected by the condition of the catalyst itsel f. As such, it is diffi cult to discern sensor malfunctions from catalyst system malfunctions . For the most part, manufacturers have come up with separate diagnostics to discern the likely root cause and be able to direct a repair technician to a troubleshooting proc edure that focuses on the likely cause. However, these sensor diagnostics are generally only able to detect malfunctions at the same emission level as the catalyst diagnostic itself.

Accordingly, staff is proposing that the HD OBD and OBD II regulations be modified to require identical thresholds for NOx s ensors as those being proposed for NOx converting catalyst monitoring (described in section I above). Specifically, staff is proposing that for 2013 model year medium -duty vehicles, manufacturers would be required to meet a threshold of ‘+0.3’ (i.e., the engine dynamometer standard + 0.3 g/bhp-hr) instead of the ‘+0.2’ current thresh old. For heavy-duty applications, staff is proposing to modify the 2013 model year threshol d to remain at the ‘+0.4’ threshold that applied in 2012. However, starting with the 2014 model year , manufacturers would be required to phase in a tighter threshold of ‘+0.3’. Specifically, manufacturers would have to meet the ‘+0.3’ threshold on 20 per cent of their 2014 m odel year heavy-duty engine volume and 50 percent of their 2015 m odel year heavy-duty engine volume. For the 2016 model year, manufacturers would be r equired to meet the ‘+ 0.2’ threshold with the exception that any products that were phased-in during 2014 or 2015 to the ‘+0.3’

threshold would be able to remain at that threshold in 2016 and would not have to meet the ‘+0.2’ threshold until the 2017 model year . As already stated in section I for NOx catalyst monitoring, this phase- in would force manufacturers to continue to push forward but allow them to focus their efforts on engi nes in which compliance is more straightforward in the early years as well as give them time to continue to evolve base calibration beyond what was done for the 2013 m odel year. Further, the carry-over provision for the 2016 model year would provide them relief from having to recalibrate their entire product line to meet the tighter threshol d in that one year.37 Further, staff is also proposing NMHC malfunc tion thresholds for the NOx/PM sensor performance monitoring requirements in the HD OBD regulation. Specifically, in

addition to the NOx and PM malfunction thre sholds currently required (e.g., detect a

NOx sensor fault before NO x emissions or PM emissions, whichever happens first, exceed a specified level), manufacturers would be required to detect a sensor performance fault before NMHC emissions exce ed 2.0 times the standards starting in the 2016 model year. The proposed NMHC thre sholds would be consistent with the thresholds currently required for diesel NOx ca talyst monitoring. In virtually all cases, staff does not expect this change to alter the current calibrati on or sensitivity of NOx or PM sensor diagnostics because NOx and PM emissions will likely be the two most sensitive pollutants and have the biggest em ission impact. Howe ver, to be thorough and to protect against unforeseen interactions or control strategies, the change would ensure that a fault is detected before any one of the pollutants exceeds a defined

threshold.

L. GASOLINE MISF IRE MONITORING

The HD OBD regulation currently requires m anufacturers to continuously monitor for

misfire faults from no later than the end of the second crankshaft revolution after engine start and, for engines that employ shutoff strat egies (e.g., hybrid vehicles that shut off the engine at idle), no later than the end of the second crankshaft revolution after each engine restart. The term “engine st art” is currently being used in the regulation for many requirements with the intent that “engine start” signifies the start of vehicle operation, which may or may not involve the engine actually being started in a hy brid vehicle. To avoid confusion about when exactly misfire m onitoring is required to resume after the engine is shutoff, staff is proposing to revise the language to require manufacturers to

monitor for misfire faults from no later t han the end of the second crankshaft revolution after “engine fueling begins fo r the initial start and after each time fueling resumes.”

M. GASOLINE SECONDARY AIR SYSTEM MONITORING

The HD OBD regulation currently requires m anufacturers to monitor the secondary air system for malfunction prior to either a dec rease or an increase from the manufacturer’s specified air flow that w ould cause emissions to exc eed 1.5 times the standards. Further, if no fault that causes a decreas e or an increase in air flow could cause

emissions to exceed 1.5 times the standards , the manufacturer is required to detect a

fault when “no detectable amount of air flow is delivered during normal operation of the secondary air system.” Manufacturers are presently not required to do a functional

monitor for increases in air flow that do not cause emissions to exceed 1.5 times the

standards. Consistent with w hat is required for other co mponent/system monitors, staff believes that complete coverage of faul ts is needed for secondary air systems as well. Thus, staff is proposing to modify the language to require manufacturers to detect a

fault when no detectable amount of air flow is delivered only if no fault that causes a

decrease in air flow could cause emissions to exceed the threshold. Further, staff is proposing that if no fault that causes an incr ease in air flow could cause emissions to38 exceed the threshold, the m anufacturer would be required to detect a fault when the system has reached its control limits such that it cannot reduce air flow during normal operation of the secondary air system.

N. ENGINE COOLING SYSTEM MONITORING

The HD OBD regulation requires manufactu rers to monitor cooling systems for

malfunctions that affect emissions or ot her diagnostics. Malfunctions resulting in improper engine temperature regulation may disable OBD diagnostics, reduce OBD monitoring frequency, cause changes in engine and emission cont rol operation, and

cause an increase in vehicle emissions. T herefore, ARB has r equired cooling systems

to be monitored to detect thermo stat malfunctions if either of the following occurs: (i) the engine coolant temperature (ECT) does not reach the highest temperature required by the OBD system to enable other diagnostics, or (ii) the ECT does not reach a warmedup temperature within 20 degrees Fahrenheit of the engine manufacturer’s nominal thermostat regulating temperat ure. Currently the regulati on requires this thermostat

monitor to be enabled “on ever y driving cycle in which the ECT sensor indicates, at engine start, a temperature lowe r than the” threshold temper ature, but the regulation also indicates that ARB will not approve “d isablement of the monitor on engine starts where the ECT at engine st art is more than 35 degrees Fahrenheit lower than the” threshold temperature. The language has caus ed confusion about when the thermostat

monitor is allowed to be enabl ed on a given driving cycle. Thus, staff is proposing clarifications to the HD OBD language to ma ke clear when the thermostat monitor can be enabled. Essentially, the manufacturer would be required to disable the thermostat monitor on driving cycles where the ECT at start is within 35 degrees Fahrenheit of the

thermostat monitor malfuncti on threshold temperature to avoid false passes when cooling system faults are present but still manage to wa rm the system up by a few degrees. However, manufacturers would be able to request Executive Officer approval

to enable the monitor if the ECT at start is wi thin a portion of this region (e.g., if the malfunction threshold temperature is 160 degrees Fahrenheit, the manufacturer may request approval to enable the monitor for a portion of the temperature region above 125 degrees but still below 160 degrees Fa hrenheit) provided they submit data demonstrating that the monitor can indeed ro bustly detect thermostat malfunctions and is not at risk for false passi ng when starting at engine temperatures in those regions.

O. COMPREHENSIVE COMPONENT MONITORING

The HD OBD regulation currently requires diesel manufacturers to detect faults of the idle control system if, among other things, the fuel injection quantity is “not within +/-50 percent of the fuel quant ity necessary to achieve the target idle speed for a properly functioning engine and the given oper ating conditions.” Manufacturers have expressed concern that not all the “g iven operating conditions” are known to manufacturers, making it hard to determine w hat the appropriate fuel quantity to achieve the target idle speed should be and, consequent ly, whether or not there actually is a fault. Staff is proposing to modify the l anguage to require detection of idle control39 system faults of the fuel quantity in relati on to achieving the target idle speed for “known”, not “given,” operating conditions.

The HD OBD regulation currently requires manuf acturers to monitor fuel control system components (e.g., injectors, fuel pumps) that have toler ance compensation features implemented in hardware or software duri ng production or repair procedures on 2013 and subsequent model year engines. Examples of these include individually coded injector flow characteristics and fuel pumps that use in-line resistors to correct differences in fuel pump volume output. Monitoring of the components would ensure that misassembled systems, erroneous progr amming, or incomplete repair procedures that result in incorrect adjustment being applied (and consequently, increases in emission levels) will be detected. Manufac turers have questioned the need to monitor this feature and have expre ssed concern about meeting th is requirement in the 2013 timeframe. They additionally stated that the fuel system monitoring requirements already require detection of emission-related malfunctions for pressure control, timing, and quantity. Light- and medium-duty manufact urers, who are also required to monitor this feature, have indicated they have been wo rking hard on improvem ents to their fuel system adaptive strategies to fully compensate or learn out any errors that may occur due to mismatches in the injector and t he programmed toleranc e/adjustment. This would allow manufacturers to avoid adding new hardware, such as a communication chip in the injector that would automatically communicate its characteristics to the engine computer, and avoid other alternatives such as tighter tolerances on the injectors to meet this requi rement. Staff believes that heavy-duty manufacturers could also take the same approach. Thus, consis tent with what was approved by the Board in January 2012 for light- and medium-duty diesel vehicles under the OBD II regulation, staff is proposing to modify the HD OBD regul ation to delay the monitoring requirement of this feature until the 2015 model year fo r heavy-duty engines. Such a delay should give sufficient time for manufac turers to fully refine adaptive st rategies so that they can compensate for any mismatches that occur or to determine that such strategies are ineffective and implement an alternative met hod such as those previously mentioned.

Additionally, as discussed early in sections II.H. and II.J., manufacturers have requested that this monitor be subject to test-out criteria allowing manufacturers to be exempted from monitoring if the impac t is less than 15 percent of the standard. While many manufacturers seem to be making great strides in adaptive strategies that nearly fully compensate for mismatches, achieving comp lete compensation may prove to be very difficult. Accordingly, staff is proposing to also apply test-out criteria to feat ures that fall under this provision. Specifically, mismat ches or faults that cause less than a 15 percent of the standard increase in emi ssions and are below the emission standard would be exempt from monitoring. However, because this function is often on multiple components (e.g., all injectors) and the severity of the fault can vary by how far off the mismatch is, staff is proposing that manufactu rers be required to submit a test plan for Executive Officer approval of the test pr ocedures and combination of failed parts and the degree to which they are a mismatch that will be used for the test-out. While staff would normally take the position of the wors t-case scenario (e.g.., all injectors with a mismatch and with the largest mismatch po ssible), such a scenario is statistically40 virtually impossible and not ve ry representative of the type of mismatches that happen in the real world. Accordingly, staff is proposing to give some additional latitude to manufacturers to propose a more realisti c scenario based on the distribution of parts and likely in-use scenarios. Staff’s intent is for the manufacturers to identify a reasonable bound within which most replacement parts would fall (e .g., perhaps within one sigma from the median part) and propose a test condition that would represent a reasonable worst case emissions scenario within those bounds. These proposed changes would apply to both the HD OBD and OBD II regulations.

P. STANDARDIZATION REQUIREMENTS

Reference Documents: The staff is proposing amendments t hat would update the list of SAE and ISO documents that are incorporat ed by reference into the HD OBD regulation. As is common practice with technical standards, in dustry periodically up dates the standards to add specification or clarity.

Diagnostic Connector and Communication Protocol: Staff is also proposing amendments to the diagnostic connector and protocol requirements in the HD OBD regulation. St aff is proposing specific language clarifying

the use of SAE J1939 for diesel manufacture rs. When the HD OBD regulation was first adopted, SAE J1939 only had a 250 kbps baud rate version of the protocol and a single connector. However, since originally ado pted, SAE J1939 had been updated to include an additional 500 kbps baud rate version of t he protocol and a second version of the connector itself (i.e., the “Type 2” versi on) to handle the new baud rate. While staff initially objected to the addition of a second baud rate and second connector on the grounds that it was undermining the intent of standardization by creating more permutations, industry has indicated that the 250 kbps baud rate is likely to have insufficient bandwidth to handle all of the requi red message traffic in the near future. Further, the “Type 2” connector has been de signed to be backwards compatible with both baud rates such that any technician or inspection entities would be able to purchase a single connector that would cove r both variants. With this standardization first applying in the 2013 model year, it is also expected that a minimal amount of entities have already ‘tooled up’ for the “Typ e 1” connector and could jump straight to the “Type 2” connector for their equipment purchases. While two baud rates will generate more work for the tool and equipment manufacturers because they will have to validate their equipment on a sufficient numbe r of vehicles on each of the two baud rates, the baud rate change is a fairly mi nor permutation. Several J1939 committee

members have also committed to ensuring that the J1939 spec ification contains enough

direction to tool manufacturers on how to accurately determine the appropriate baud

rate when first connected to a vehicle. T hus, staff is proposing to amend the HD OBD regulation to clarify the comb inations of baud rate and connectors that are allowed in the near term (prior to 2016 m odel year) and that the 500 kbps variant (and associated “Type 2” connector) would be the only allo wed variant for 2016 and subsequent model years to align with industry’s likely timefr ame for switching to the higher baud rate.41 Based on light-duty experience, staff is also proposing that the HD OBD regulation be amended to prohibit manufacturers from pu tting an additional identical standardized connector (i.e., an SAE J1939 connector or “Type A” SAE J1962 connector) used for non-OBD purposes in the same area where the standardized OBD diagnostic connector is required to be located. This would he lp avoid confusion among technicians or inspectors attempting to identify the ‘co rrect’ diagnostic connector to retrieve OBD

information from the vehicle. Manufacturers would stil l be allowed to equip their engines and vehicles with additional dia gnostic connectors as needed but, if they

choose additional connectors th at are identical to the sta ndardized one, they would not

be allowed to install those connectors in the driver footwell area where the HD OBD connector is required to be.

Readiness Status: Staff is also proposing am endments to the readiness stat us requirements in the HD OBD regulation. Manufacturer s are presently required to incorporate readiness status indications of several major emission cont rol systems and components into their OBD systems, which helps determine if the OB D monitors have performed their system evaluations. When the OBD system is interro gated by an off-board tool, the system is to report a readiness status for each majo r emission-related component of either “complete” (if the monitor has run a sufficient number of ti mes to detect a malfunction since the memory was last cleared), “incom plete” (if the monito r has not yet had the chance to run since the memory was last cl eared), or “not applicable” (if the monitored component in question is not equipped or monitor ed on the vehicle). T he main intent of the readiness status is to ensure an engine or vehicle is ready for an OBD-based inspection (i.e., that monitors have run prior to inspection). Technicians also can use the readiness status to verify OBD-related repairs. With the current language, however,

there has been confusion about which monitors manufacturers are required to include when determining readiness status fo r each component/system. Further, manufacturers have expressed concern that certain diesel-related monitors may take too long to run and complete (e .g., monitors that require PM filter regenerations to occur), which would unnecessarily delay setti ng of the readiness status to “complete”.

While staff understands manufactu rers’ concerns regarding this last point, staff believes it is important to include most monitors of the primary emission controls on the engine, even though they make take time to complete . Staff, however, is proposing revisions that would clarify exactly which monitors are required to be incl uded when determining readiness status to ensure consistency in implementation among a ll manufacturers.

Staff is also proposing additional amendm ents to correct confusion related to implementing the readiness r equirements, including specif ic language on how to deal

with monitors that detect faults of more than one major emission-related component (e.g., an oxygen sensor monitor that is used to detect both oxygen sensor faults that are tied to the oxygen sensor readiness bit and ai r-fuel ratio cylinder imbalance faults that are tied to the fuel system readi ness bit). Lastly, staff is proposing to delete the current requirement that allows manufacturers to request Executive Office r approval to set the readiness status to “complete” without moni toring actually having been completed if monitoring is disabled on multiple driving cycles due to extreme operating conditions42 (e.g., cold ambient temperatures, high alti tudes). This requirement was originally

carried over from the OBD II r equirements, where st aff allowed a showing of complete status to avoid light- and medium-duty vehicl es from failing inspection and maintenance tests due to unset readiness bits solely because the vehicle was being operated in extreme conditions (e.g., high altitude, very co ld temperatures, etc.) in which monitoring was routinely disabled. However, given that heavy-duty vehicles do not undergo periodic inspections, staff believes this condition is not needed.

Data Stream Parameters: Staff is proposing some modifications to t he data stream parameters that are required to

be made available in the HD OBD regulation. First, staff is proposing the addition of three parameters for all 201 6 and subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engines. Specifically, manufacturers w ould be required to report fuel rate, actual engine torque including fan/accessory torque, and modeled exhaust flow (mass/ti me). These three parameters are intended to make it easier to conduct valid in-use emission tests with portable emission measurement systems (PEMS) and as such, also are referenced in section 1971.1(h)(4.2.2)(H) as needed to be repor ted as accurately as available in the applicable electronic control modul e to facilitate accurate test ing. Regarding fuel rate, this parameter is already required on dies el engines ‘if equipped’ but this change will ensure all diesel engines support it and by including reference in section 1971.1(h)(4.2.2)(H), the resolution of the fuel rate parameter will likely need to be improved beyond what is currently reported on some vehicles as suspect parameter number (SPN) 183 in the SAE J1939 standard . Regarding engine torque, several manufacturers have indicated that the engine torque value commonly available is torque after fan or other engine accessory tor que has been subtracted. This effectively underreports the torque being pr oduced by the engine and results in less accurate calculations of a g/bhp-hr emission rate dur ing in-use testing. Accordingly, the

amendments would ensure the most accura te total engine torque number is available for testing. Staff is al so proposing additional data st ream parameters to be made available on engines so equipped – specif ically, starting with the 2016 model year, manufacturers of engines equipped with reduct ant quality sensors would be required to output such sensor data in a standardized format to a scan tool. Further, 2016 and subsequent engines with NOx sensors would be required to output a ‘corrected’ NOx sensor signal in addition to the raw NOx sensor signal currently available. In discussions with manufacturers, several have i ndicated that they have corrections or adaptions they apply to the raw signal with in the engine or afte rtreatment control

modules to account for the ammo nia cross-sensitivity of the s ensor or auto-zero or other adaption strategies that are used to adjust the raw signal. Given the control systems would likely be acting on this corrected signal rather than the raw signal, it could prove

to be valuable information for technicians w hen troubleshooting detected malfunctions.

Lastly, staff is proposing to identify the specific SPNs that manufacturers must use for the required data stream param eters “normalized trigger for PM filter r egeneration” and “PM filter regeneration status”. In these specific cases, SAE J1939 contains more than one SPN that is related or very similar to these parameters, which may result in an engine utilizing a different SPN than anot her engine for the sa me parameter or43 confusion among manufacturers as to which va riant of the parameter they should be supporting. So while manufacturers are requ ired to report both t hese data parameters starting with the 2013 model year and different manufacturers will likely meet this requirement by supporting different SPNs, sta ff is proposing to clarify which exact SPN manufacturers should be using to meet thes e requirements starting in the 2016 model year to ensure consistent implem entation across all manufacturers.

Erasure of Emission-Related Information: Staff is also proposing amendments relat ed to the erasure of emission-related information. Currently, the HD OBD regulat ion allows permanent fault codes to be

erased when the individual c ontrol module containing t he permanent fault code is reprogrammed and the vehicle/e ngine readiness status for all monitors (in all emissionrelated modules) is set to “not complete”. The regulation similarly requires all emissionrelated information (from all emission-relat ed modules) to be erased in conjunction with the reprogramming of the vehi cle identification number (VIN ) or engine serial number (ESN). Manufacturers have argued that actions that affect only certain control modules (e.g., erasing a permanent fault code stored in just the engine control module) should not require resetting of readiness bits or er asing of emission-related information from “all” control modules, and that such ‘coordinat ed clearing’ can be difficult to achieve. The rationale for clearing all information was to reduce the opportunity for selective reprogramming events to be used to evade detection during inspections or avoid necessary repairs. However, staff agrees that a change is appr opriate while still meeting the original intent. Specifically, the primary objective was to ensure that readiness status for the major monitors wa s reset to “not complete” to provide an

obvious indication that some or all relev ant information to an inspection had recently

been altered or erased. Given that many modules do not support readiness bits or only support the comprehensive components readiness bit (which, by design, immediately reports “complete” even after a code clear event), staff is proposing that such reprogramming events must ensure a readine ss reset only in modules that support readiness for major components (i.e., any readiness bits other than comprehensive components). While this does still require some form of ‘coordinated’ code clearing, it

limits the number of involved modules. For ex ample, if a vehicle has an engine control unit (ECU) that supports readiness for majo r components and five auxiliary emissionrelated modules that don’t support readine ss for any major components, and if one of the auxiliary modules has a permanent fault code stored and that module is reprogrammed and erases the permanent faul t code, the OBD system would only need to ensure that the engine ECU resets all r eadiness bits and not that all five of the auxiliary modules also reset readiness.

Calibration Verificati on Number (CVN): Staff is proposing amendments to the CV N requirements. The HD OBD regulation currently requires the CVN to be stored at al l times, calculated, and re-stored at least once per ignition cycle, and to be made immedi ately available at all times through the data link connector to a generic scan tool in accordance with the requirements in SAE J1979 or J1939. The only exceptions allo wed in the regulation are for extreme

circumstances where the stored value has been erased and not had an opportunity to44 be calculated and re-stored yet. Specifica lly, relief is granted from having the CVN immediately available to a scan tool if it is requested within 60 seconds of the ECU being reprogrammed or having non-volatile me mory cleared, or within 30 seconds of a volatile memory clear or ba ttery disconnect. A few manufacturers have indicated that the timeframes of 60 and 30 seconds might be insufficient to recalculate a new CVN and have it available. To address this, staff is proposing to modify the HD OBD regulation to clarify these timeframes and the associated events that are allowed and to clarify that, at all other time s, immediately available means the value is returned to the requesting scan tool within the normal mess age response timing and does not allow for any extended message response timings or negative response codes. Additionally, given the very limited and rare scenarios in which the 60 and 30 second timeframes apply, staff is proposing to ex tend the timeframe to 120 se conds for both situations.

Q. CERTIFICATION DEMONSTRAT ION TESTING REQUIREMENTS

The HD OBD and OBD II regulations require manufacturers to conduct emission demonstration testing prior to certification to ensure that the systems are indeed able to

detect faults before the thresholds are ex ceeded. The HD OBD and OBD II regulations currently require manufacturer s to perform demonstration test ing of the diesel full speed and load misfire monitor on heavy-duty engines and medium-duty vehicles, since the monitors are calibrated to a tailpipe emissi on threshold and demonstration testing is used to verify such calibrations are correct. However, as explained in section F. above, staff is proposing to require manufacturer s to detect misfire w hen the percentage of misfire exceeds a certain level (i.e., 5 perce nt) in lieu of the emission threshold-based malfunction criteria. Due to this change, staff is proposing to modify both the HD OBD and OBD II regulations to exempt manufactu rers from having to perform demonstration testing of diesel misfire monitors using this new malfunction criterion.

The HD OBD regulation currently contains language detailing the testing required for gasoline fuel system monitoring. Staff, however, forgot to include specific language for the air-fuel ratio cylinder imbalance monitor, which is one part of the gasoline fuel system monitoring requirements, so staff is proposing la nguage detailing the testing requirements for this monitor. Further, t he regulation currently requires that “for purposes of fuel system testing, the fault(s) induced may resu lt in uniform distribution of fuel and air among the cylinders” and that “non- uniform distribution of fuel and air used to induce a fault may not cause misfire.” While this language works for testing of the main fuel system feedback monitor, it does n’t apply to testing of other fuel system monitors such as the air-fuel cylinder imbal ance monitor, which, by definition is ‘nonuniform’ and in some cases produce misfire. Therefore, staff is proposing amendments to the HD OBD regulation to limit this language to testing of the main fuel system

feedback monitor.

Staff is also proposing am endments to the HD OBD testi ng requirements for gasoline oxygen sensor emission threshold-based monito rs to limit the numbe r of tests required to be performed. Specifically, for conventio nal oxygen sensors, the manufacturer would be required to perform a test for two malfunction cases: (1 ) the single worst case45 response rate malfunction among all symmetric and asymmetric patterns, and (2) the worst case asymmetric response rate ma lfunction that results in delays during

transitions from rich-to-lean or lean-to-rich sensor output. For wide range or universal sensors, the manufacturer also would be re quired to perform a test for two malfunction cases: (1) the single worst case response rate malfunction among all symmetric and asymmetric patterns, and (2) the symmetric response rate malfunction that results in delays during transitions from rich-to-lean and lean-to-rich sensor output. For the worst case malfunctions, staff would require m anufacturers to subm it data and/or analysis demonstrating that the malfuncti on will result in the worst case emissions compared to all the other response rate malfunctions.

Lastly, staff is proposing changes to t he HD OBD regulatory language to clarify demonstration testing for catalyst faults and ot her faults where default actions are taken subsequent to fault detection. Staff’s propos ed modifications provide more direction to

manufacturers to handle various scenarios of default actions and incremental levels of

fault detection to ensure diesel monito rs are appropriately tested.

R. DEFICIENCIES

The HD OBD regulation contains provisions that allow certificat ion of HD OBD systems with “deficiencies” in cases where a good fa ith effort to fully comply with the OBD requirements has been demonstrated. The def iciency provisions facilitate OBD implementation by mitigating the danger of manufacturers not being able to certify engines with relatively minor implementation problems.

Staff is proposing a clarification to the deficiency language in t he HD OBD regulation. Specifically, staff currently does not issue deficiencies (and consequently, certification of the vehicle) for issues that would be subject to an ordered re call under the HD OBD enforcement regulation section 1971.5. Staff is proposi ng language to make this clear in the regulation. Further, staff is propos ing language clarifying t hat OBD systems that fail to meet the requirement s of the HD OBD regulation and that were not granted deficiencies for the requirem ents they failed to meet would be considered non-compliant and subject to enforcem ent under section 1971.5.

Staff is also proposing amendm ents to the required timelines for issuing retroactive deficiencies in the HD OBD regulation. The r egulation currently allo ws manufacturers to request retroactive deficiencies within either the first six months after commencement of the start of engine production or the first th ree months after comme ncement of the start of vehicle production, whichever is later. The deadlines are aligned with the required deadlines for production engine/vehicle testing to verify the monitoring requirements (section 1971.1(l)(2)), since such testing may uncover problems with the OBD system

that would be considered deficiencies. Manufacturers have expressed concern about meeting the required deadlines for the test ing, indicating that they have been having trouble procuring vehicles with their engines soon enough after production begins to complete the testing in time. Staff, therefore, is proposi ng to extend the deadline for production engine/vehicle testing, and thus the request deadline for retroactive46 deficiencies, to six months after commenc ement of the start of engine production or vehicle production, whichever is later.

Additionally, staff is propos ing amendments to address the certification of heavy-duty hybrid vehicles. The regulation currently allows manufacturers to carry over a deficiency up to a maximum of three model y ears from the time it was first issued, provided the manufacturer is able to demonstr ate a good faith effort in complying with the HD OBD requirements, am ong other criteria. As indicated above, engine manufacturers and hybrid system manufacture rs have expressed issues about meeting the OBD requirements on hybrid vehicles, ci ting the lack of experience in developing such OBD systems and the complexities of designing systems cons idering the various possible hybrid-engine configurations. And as already explained above in section II.A., staff is proposing to provide relaxation for the 2013 model year and require OBD compliance starting from the 2014 model year. However, for those hybrid vehicles that

are certified to the HD OBD r equirements of section 1971.1 in lieu of this relaxation in the 2013 model year and carried over to the 2014 model year, staff is proposing language to allow the 2014 model year to be considered t he first model year for the deficiency. This change shoul d ensure that a manufacturer w ho elects to certify to the more stringent path (HD OBD) in 2013 will no t be at a disadvantage to manufacturers who choose the easier path for items that w ould take long lead time to resolve. Additionally, as already explained above in section II.A., staff is proposing an additional two free deficiencies for hybrid systems in the 2013 through 2015 model years to help

avoid fines for manufacturers that fall short.

Lastly, while staff is not proposing specific language in the regulations, staff would like to clarify the policy for the carry-over of deficiencies for emission threshold-based monitors to address questions raised by manuf acturers. Specifically, in cases where

there is an interim threshol d (e.g, three times the standar d) for a few years and then a step down to a final threshold (e.g., two ti mes the standard), manufacturers have asked if a deficiency for the interim threshold ‘sta rts the clock’ towards the maximum two or three years of carry-over or if the carry-over clock rest arts when the threshold steps down to the final threshold. Initially, st aff was concerned that the latter case (i.e., restarting the clock with the fi nal threshold) would allow manuf acturers to drag their feet when addressing deficiencies or attempt to carry them over longer than needed. However, given the existing criteria that a manufacturer must meet to qualify for a deficiency, namely a good faith effort to comply in full and to come into compliance as expeditiously as possible, staff believes there are valid cases where it would be appropriate. For example, a manufacture r could make an appropriate attempt to comply with the interim threshold and fall short and again make a valid attempt to comply with the final threshold with a comp letely different approach or monitor and still come up short. In cases where it is not app ropriate and is caused by a manufacturer not putting forth sufficient effort or resour ces to try and comply, the existing deficiency qualifications would already a llow staff to deny such deficiencies and prevent further carry-over. Accordingly, st aff believes it is appropriate that, as a general policy, a change in the monitoring threshold would rese t the clock for a deficiency. As stated though, this would not, however, obviate the need to make a good faith effort to comply47 or to come into compliance as expeditiously as possible---both would still be required to qualify both initially and in each subsequent year for a deficiency to be granted.

S. OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Staff is proposing other minor amendments to the HD OBD regulati on. These include proposed additional items requir ed to be submitted by the manufacturer as part of the HD OBD certification appl ication and minor amendmen ts to the production engine/vehicle evaluation testing procedur es, as well as clarification changes throughout the regulation. All the proposed amendments are detailed in the attached regulatory language.

Staff is also proposing amendments related to small volume manufacturers. As described above, staff is proposi ng amendments to the diesel misfire, NOx catalyst/NOx sensor, and PM filter monitoring requirement s that include required phase-in schedules

that manufacturers must m eet. Small volume manufactu rers, however, would likely have trouble meeting the required phase-ins, c onsidering the small volume of engines (and thus, small number of engi ne families, if more than one) produced every year and

the limited resources available to make t he necessary changes each year of the phasein. In some cases, these manufacturers do not have enough different engine families to be able to meet a phase-in on a portion of their families and would be forced to implement the new requirements across their ent ire product line in t he first year of the phase-in. Therefore, staff is proposing to allow small volume manufacturers to meet different schedules than the required phas e-in schedules for these monitors. Specifically, for the diesel misfire moni tor, staff is proposing to allow these manufacturers to either use an alternate phase- in schedule as defined in section (c) or to meet the requirement on all vehicles in the final year of the required phase-in schedule. For NOx catalyst/NOx sensor and PM filter monitoring, staff is proposing to

allow these manufacturers to continue usi ng the 2013 model year ma lfunction criteria for the 2014 and 2015 model years (i.e., ex empt them from the phase-in malfunction criteria required for the 2014 and 2015 model year phase-in engines) and wait until the 2016 model year to comply with the final th resholds that apply to 2016 and subsequent model year engines. These revisions for sm all volume manufacturers are consistent with what has historically been provided for light-duty vehicle m anufacturers in the OBD II program. Further, staff is also proposing similar revi sions in the OBD II regulation concerning small volume manufacturers and the new proposed PM filter monitor requirements and phase-in schedule.

Concerning the OBD II regul ation, staff is proposing amendments for medium-duty diesel vehicles certified to a chassis dy namometer tailpipe emi ssion standard. The OBD II regulation currently requires manufacture rs of these vehicles to request approval

of the emission-based malfunc tion criteria in lieu of the engine dynamometer-based malfunction criteria (e.g., 2.0 times the applicable standards) required for each applicable diesel monitor in se ction 1968.2(f). At the time of the last amendments in 2006, the vast majority of medium-duty di esels were certified using the engine dynamometer standards and cha ssis dynamometer-based certif ications were extremely48 rare. However, since then, chassis dy namometer certificat ion has become quite common and staff has developed more experienc e as to the monitoring capability of these systems with respect to emission levels relative to the emission standards. Therefore, staff is proposing that for most monitors on 2016 and subsequent model year medium-duty diesel vehicles certified to a chassis dynamometer tailpipe emission standard, manufacturers woul d be required to use the same chassis dynamometerbased malfunction criteria currently required for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles certified to a chassis dynamometer tailpipe emission standard. For NMHC catalyst conversion e fficiency monitoring, since the light-duty

malfunction criteria does not have a NOx ma lfunction threshold while the medium-duty engine dynamometer-based criteria does, staff would require manufacturers to detect a catalyst fault before emissions exceed 1.75 times the applicabl e FTP NMHC or NOx

standards. For diesel misfire monitoring, since the OBD II regulation currently requires light-duty emission threshold-based malfunction criteria and continuous monitoring while the medium-duty engine dynam ometer-based criteria does not, staff would require

manufacturers to detect a malfunction bas ed on the medium-duty engine dynamometerbased malfunction criteria and monitoring requi rements. The proposed language would eliminate the requirement fo r manufacturers to indivi dually propose chassis-based

thresholds and seek Executive Officer approval and instead would provide clear

thresholds that all manufacture rs would be required to meet.

Lastly, as already stated above in section II.R., staff is proposi ng amendments to the required timelines for conducting production engine/vehicle testing to verify the monitoring requirements in the HD OBD regul ation. The regulatio n currently allows manufacturers to conduct this testing and subm it the results within either the first six

months after commencement of the start of engine production or the first three months

after commencement of the start of vehicle production, whichever is later. Manufacturers have expressed concern about meeting the required deadlines, indicating that they have been having trouble pr ocuring vehicles with their engines early enough to complete the testing in time. St aff therefore is propos ing to extend the deadline for production engine/vehicle testing to six months after commencement of the start of engine production or vehicle production, whichever is later. Additionally, for clarification, staff is propos ing amendments to indicate t he six month timeline starts when vehicle production using the manufactu rer’s engine begins to cover cases where vehicle production begins earlier but solely with other engine options.

T. HD OBD AND OBD II ENFORCMENT REGULATIONS

The HD OBD and OBD II enforcement pr ovisions (sections 1971.5 and 1968.5, respectively) help ensure the effectivene ss of the HD OBD and OB D II regulations and to address OBD noncompliances in the fiel d. The enforcement regulations detail procedures for evaluating and remediating (where necessary) OBD-specific in-use issues. Specifically, the regulations cont ain detailed protocols that provide clear direction as to the procuremen t, testing, sampling, and evaluat ion criteria that ARB staff uses to determine compliance with the OBD requirements. They include performance testing of emission threshold-related monito rs, downloading of data of in-use monitoring49 performance ratios, and evaluation of other OBD requirements (e.g., diagnostic connector location, communication protocol standards, MIL illumination protocol, etc.). The results of the tests would be compar ed to the minimum performance levels prescribed in the enforcement regula tions, which would determine if the engines/vehicles in question may be subject to remedial action or fines including mandatory recall for the most egr egious nonconforming OBD systems.

Currently, the HD OBD and OBD II enforcement r egulations dictate specific criteria for procuring engines/vehicles for the test sample group used to perform the evaluation. To determine if a monitor is in complianc e with the in-use monitoring performance requirements, the regulations require the test sample group to include engines/vehicles

with denominators for that moni tor meeting a minimum requir ed value. Currently, many

PM filter-related monitors and PM sensor monitors are required to have denominator values of at least 150 or 300, depending on t he denominator increment ing criteria being used. Many of these monitors, however, requi re a PM filter regeneration event to occur, which consequently means the engine/vehicle would have to accumulate very high mileage to have a sufficient number of denominat ors to be acceptable as part of the test sample group. Given the recent trend in industry to further lengthen the intervals between regeneration events, th is criterion will become even more restrictive in the future. Thus, staff is proposin g to require engines/vehicles to be part of the test sample group if such PM filter-related monitors or PM sensor monitors have denominators of at

least 50.

As stated above, staff is proposing changes to the denominator increm enting criteria for the PM filter filtering perfo rmance monitor and PM filter missing substrate monitor in both the HD OBD and OBD II regulations. Specifically, these monitors, which are currently required to increment the denom inator when, among ot her conditions, 800 minutes of engine runtime ar e met in the HD OBD regulati on and 500 miles are met in the OBD II regulation, woul d be required to increment th e denominators using only the general denominator criteria starting in the 2016 model year. Further, the OBD II regulation would allow m anufacturers to certify these moni tors to a lower interim in-use ratio of 0.100 on 2016 through 2018 model year medium-duty vehicles. Considering the

new denominator would increment more of ten than the current denominator, the resulting ratios would be less than the current ratios, causing manufacturers’ concerns about the ability to meet the required minimu m in-use performance ratio. To address manufacturers’ concerns, staff is proposing to relax enforcement provisions for the first few years the monitors start using this new denominator, specifically to the nonconformance criteria and mandatory recall r equirements. The OBD II enforcement regulation already has nonconform ance criteria for monitors ce rtified to an in-use ratio of 0.100 and do not subject these monitors to mandatory recall, so minimal changes are

needed to address this. For the HD OBD enforc ement regulation, staff is proposing changes to allow these monitors on 2016 th rough 2018 model year engines to use the less stringent criteria to dete rmine nonconformance. Specific ally, while other monitors on 2016 and subsequent model year engines w ould be considered nonconforming if the average in-use monitor performance ratio of engines in the test sample group is less than 0.088 or if at least 66 percent of the engines have an in-use ratio of less than50 0.100, the PM filter filtering performance monitor and PM filter missing substrate monitor would be considered nonconforming if the average in-use ratio is less than 0.050 or if at least 66 percent of the engines have an in-use ratio of less than 0.050. Further, staff is proposing that these monitors not be subj ect to mandatory recall for the 2016 through 2018 model years.

Staff is also proposing changes to the HD OBD and OBD II enforcement regulations to address the proposed changes made to the diesel misfire monitoring requirements. As described above, staff is proposing to r equire all 2016 and subsequent model year heavy-duty engines and medium-duty vehicles to detect a diesel misfire fault when the percentage of misfire exceeds 5 percent. The enforcem ent regulations currently do not contain mandatory recall criteria applicable to this new requirement. Thus, staff is proposing to require mandatory recall if the percentage of misfire exceeds 10 percentage points greater than th e malfunction criteria (i.e., 15 percent misfire) without the MIL being illuminated for both the HD OBD and OBD II enforcement regulations, starting with the 2019 model year.

Lastly, staff is proposing changes to the HD OBD and OBD II enforcement regulations

related to the PM filter. As described above in section II.J., staff is proposing higher

interim emission malfunction thresholds for PM filter monitoring, with proposed thresholds around the range of 0.04 or 0. 05 g/bhp-hr in the HD OBD regulation. Further, as previously stated, engine m anufacturers have been moving towards higher engine-out NOx emission levels, resulting in lower engine-out PM levels that are near 0.05 g/bhp-hr or lower. The HD OBD and OB D II enforcement regulations currently mandate a mandatory recall if a malfunction is not detect ed before emissions exceed

two or three times the malfunction criteria. In the case of the PM filter monitor, that

recall level could reach 0.120 to 0.150 g/bhp-hr. Consideri ng that engine-out PM levels are projected to be around the 0.05 g/bhp-hr level for several manufacturers, an engine

with no PM filter would have PM emission le vels that would be far below the mandatory recall emission level and never be subject to mandatory recall despite a completely nonfunctional PM filter monitor. Considering how critical of an emission control component that the PM filter is, it would be inappropriate for the mo nitor to be unable to detect a completely missing PM filter and still not be subj ect to enforcement action. Thus, staff is proposing to add additional criteria for mandatory recall related to the PM filter monitor. Specifically, starting with the 2013 model year , a mandatory recall sha ll be ordered if the PM filter monitor is unable to detect any of the following: (1) a missing substrate PM filter fault or (2) a malfunction of the PM filter that causes PM emissions to be equal to or greater than the engi ne-out PM levels with the PM filter substrate completely

removed.

Staff is also proposing additional changes to the mandatory recall crit eria for PM filter filtering performance monitori ng in the OBD II enforcement regulation. The OBD II enforcement regulation current ly mandates a mandatory recall if a malfunction is not

detected before emissions exceed two times the malfunction criteria. The OBD II regulation currently requires m anufacturers to detect a PM f ilter fault before emissions exceed 0.03 g/bhp-hr for all 2013 and subse quent model year vehicles. Some51 manufacturers, however, have indicated that t heir current monitors would not be able to detect a fault until emissions are quite near 0.06 g/bhp-hr, which would put them very close to the mandatory reca ll criterion, and have requested accommodations for their near-term model year vehicles. While st aff does not think increasing the emission threshold malfunction criteria during these interim years would be appropriate as most

manufacturers are on track to meet them, it ack nowledges that some accommodation is needed with regards to enforcement to ensure that manufacturers ar e able to certify their OBD II systems. Thus, staff is proposing to exempt the PM filter filtering performance monitor from the mandatory reca ll provisions in the OBD II enforcement regulation that are specifically based on m eeting the emission threshold malfunction criteria for the 2013 model year.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides an envir onmental analysis for the propos ed regulation. Based on ARB’s review, staff has determined that impl ementation of the pro posed amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II regulations would no t result in any potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment. This analysis provides the basis for reaching this

conclusion. This section of the Staff R eport also discusses the environmental benefits resulting from implementati on of the proposed regulation.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

ARB is the lead agency for the proposed regu lation and has prepared this environmental analysis pursuant to its certified regulatory progr am that was certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency in 1978. 1 Public Resources Code §21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A) allows public ag encies with regulatory programs to prepare a plan or ot her written document in lieu of an environmental impact report or negative declaration once the Secret ary of the Natural Resources Agency has certified the regulatory program . As required by ARB’s cert ified regulatory program, and the policy and substantive requirements of CEQA, AR B prepares an environmental analysis to assess the potential for significant long or short-term adverse environmental impacts associated with a proposed regulation. 2 In accordance with ARB’s regulations, the analysis also describes any beneficial environmental impacts. 3 The CEQA

Guidelines environmental checklist was used to consider the potential for significant impacts. 4 In accordance with ARB’s certified regulatory program, this environmental analysis is included in the Staff Report: Init ial Statement of Reas ons (ISOR) for the rulemaking. 5

1 CEQA Guidelines §15251(d); Cal. Code Regs., title 17, 60005-60008

2 Cal. Code Regs., title 17, section 60005(b)

3 Cal. Code Regs., title 17, 60005(d)

4 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G

5 Cal. Code Regs., title 17, 6000552 If comments received during the public review period raise significant environmental issues, staff will summarize and respond to t he comments in writing. The written responses will be included in the Final Statem ent of Reasons for the regulation. In accordance with ARB’s certified regulatory program, the decision maker will approve the written responses prior to taki ng final action on any proposal. 6 If the regulation is adopted, a Notice of Decision will be pos ted on ARB’s website and filed with the Secretary of the Natural Resour ces Agency for public inspection. 7

C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Based on ARB’s review of the proposed regul ation, staff concl udes that the proposed regulatory amendments would not have a signifi cant adverse effect on the environment. Compliance with the proposed regul ation does not require or result in any physical change to the existing environment. It does not involve new development or require modifications to buildings or other structures, or affect operations at existing facilities, or cause any new land use designation because the action consists of changes to the engine/vehicle software that include changes to the OBD system algorithms using the existing hardware already on the engines/vehicles. These changes do not result in any physical changes to the environment such as adv erse impacts to aesthetics, air quality, agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, land use planning, mi neral resources, popul ation and housing, public services, recreation, or traffic and tr ansportation. Further, compliance with the proposed regulation does not involve any activity that would involve or affect hazardous material, hydrology and water quality, noise , or population and housing because it does not require any action that coul d affect these resources. No discussion of alternatives or mitigation measures is necessary bec ause no significant adverse environmental impacts were identified.

This determination was made because the pr oposed amendments would only affect HD OBD and OBD II requirements that have not yet been implemented. The proposed amendments affect requirement s that start in the 2013 or later model year and do include some relaxations in the 2013 through 2015 model years that would allow higher

interim malfunction emission thresholds for so me monitors. Staff believes these short term interim delays and higher thresholds are necessary considering the diesel emission control technologies involved are new and evolving and have never previously existed on diesel engines. As described in section II of this staff report, these requirements are considered technically f easible for manufacturers to meet, but circumstances such as delays in te chnology development have prevented manufacturers from implementing the requi rements within the r equired deadlines. For example, in the case of the PM filter monitoring requirement, the delay in the development of the PM sens or, which is expected to be used to meet the future stringent emission threshold requirement, ha s necessitated some delays in the start

6 Cal. Code Regs., title 17, 60007(a)

7 Cal. Code Regs., title 17, 60007(b)53 dates. Manufacturers are expected to take advantage of these delays to improve their system strategies and develop robust moni tors to meet the requirements.

Additionally, the proposed amendments would also establish more stringent requirements that will encourage manufacture rs to design and build more robust engines to comply with the requirement s. The proposed HD OBD and OBD II amendments will help ensure that forecasted emission reduction benefits from adopted light-, medium-, and heavy-duty engine emi ssion standards programs are achieved.

Given the substantial shortfall in emission re ductions still needed to attain the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards and the difficulty in identifying further sources of cost-effective emission reductions, it is vi tal that the emission re ductions projected for the light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehi cle programs be achieved. The proposed amendments are necessary to accomplish th is goal by achieving these emission benefits in two distinct ways: First, to avoid customer dissatisfaction that may be caused by frequent illumination of the MIL becaus e of emission-related malfunctions, it is anticipated that the manuf acturers will produce increasi ngly durable, more robust emission-related components; Second, by alerting vehicle oper ators of emissionrelated malfunctions and providing precise information to the service industry for identifying and repairing detected malf unctions, emission systems will be quickly repaired. The benefits of the regulations bec ome increasingly import ant as certification levels become more and more stringent and as a single malfunction has an increasingly greater impact relative to certification levels.

Overall, the proposed amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II regulations would result

in cleaner vehicles than those currently produced and ar e not expected to impact previously calculated em ission benefits or findings. During the 2009 HD OBD regulatory process, the lifetime cumulative emission reductions for HD OBD, on a per engine basis calculated with the most recent version of EMFAC, were calculated to be 165 pounds of ROG, 2000 pounds of NOx, and 14 pounds of PM . For OBD II, during the 2002 OBD II regulatory update, staff calc ulated a combined benefit for OBD II and LEV II of 57 tons per day of ROG + NOx in the South Coast Air Basin alone. These benefit calculations have not changed.54 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

State law defines environmental justice as t he fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (Senate Bill 115, Solis; Stats 1999, Ch. 690; Governm ent Code § 65040.12(c )). The Board has established a framework for incorporating environmental ju stice into the ARB's programs consistent

with the directives of State law. The po licies developed apply to all communities in California, but recognize that environmental justice issues have been raised more in the context of low income and minority communi ties, which sometime s experience higher exposures to some pollutants as a result of the cumulative impacts of air pollution from multiple mobile, commercial, indust rial, area-wide, and other sources.

Over the past twenty years, ARB, local air districts, and federal air pollution control programs have made substant ial progress towards improv ing the air quality in California. However, some communities cont inue to experience higher exposures than others as a result of the cumulative impacts of air pollution from multiple mobile and stationary sources and thus may suffer a disproportionate level of adverse health

effects.

Adoption and implementation of the OBD regul ations will not result in any adverse environmental impacts on environmental justice communities. The proposed amendments would help ensur e that measurable emissi on benefits are achieved both

statewide and in the South Coas t and San Joaquin Valley air basins

V. ECONOMIC IMPACT

The proposed amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II requirements and enforcement regulations would apply to manufacturers of California-certified medium-duty and heavyduty engines and manufacturers of medium and heavy-duty vehicles using the aforementioned engines. T here are approximately 11 co mpanies worldwide that manufacture diesel or gasoline California- certified heavy-duty engines, an estimated 10 heavy-duty hybrid system manufacturers, and 9 heavy-duty alternate-fuel conversion manufacturers. Of these, only one manuf acturer, an alternate fuel conversion manufacturer, is located in California.

The proposed amendments to the HD OBD and OB D II regulations are not anticipated to have a significant impact on businesses or individuals related to the diesel and gasoline engine manufacturing industry. The proposed am endments primarily affect computer software, and additional lead time would be provided to manufacturers to allow them to implement su ch changes at the time they normally schedule system updates. The new reporting requirements will result in some additional costs to manufacturers, and the proposed amendments to require manufacture rs to implement full OBD on alternate-fueled engines two years earlier than previously required will impose staffing and equipment costs two year s earlier than previously anticipated, but will concomitantly provide em ission benefits earlier than anticipated. These additional55 and earlier imposed costs will be passed on nati onwide to consumers of heavy-duty vehicles since manufacturers normally cert ify one version of an engine for the entire nation. Additionally, staf f believes that the proposed requirements would cause no noticeable adverse impact in Californ ia employment, business status, and competitiveness since all companies t hat manufacturer medium- and heavy-duty engines are required to meet the same r equirements whether they are located in

California or elsewhere.

A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

Section 11346.3 of the Government Code requires State agencies to assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on California business enterprises and individuals when proposing to adopt or ame nd any administrative regulation. Section 43101 of the Health and Safety Code similarl y requires that the Board consider the impact of adopted standards on the California economy. This assessment shall include a consideration of the impac t of the proposed regulation on California jobs, business expansion, elimination, or cr eation, and the ability of Cali fornia business to compete.

B. COST AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

The revisions to the OBD II and HD OBD regul ations consist primarily of interim relaxation and clarification of existing r equirements. The only changes that are expected to affect costs involve the incr eased reporting requirem ents for the misfire monitor and the two year earlier implementat ion schedule of full OBD for alternatefueled engines. To assess the impact thes e proposed changes will have on costs, ARB staff has performed a comprehensive cost analysis of the proposed amendments.

Since the modifications to the two regulations are similar, and primarily affect diesel and alternate-fueled vehicles, staff conc entrated its cost analysis on the HD OBD amendments since this provides the worst-ca se cost to manufacturers and consumers. This is because over 90 percent of all new v ehicles in the heavy-duty sector consist of diesel and alternate-fueled engines whil e the light-duty and m edium-duty sector consists primarily of gasoli ne-powered vehicles. The analysis was done to estimate the long-term “learned-out” costs of the program to a heavy-duty engine purchaser for a “typical” engine. The analysis estimated th e incremental costs of implementing the proposed amendments.

First, staff estimated the cost s to manufacturers of heavy- duty diesel engines. These engines make up over 90 percent of all new heavy-duty engines a nd are manufactured only by large manufacturers. The amendmen ts mainly provide short-term interim relaxed compliance for these manufacturers , with no associated compliance costs. However, there are additional costs associ ated with the reporting requirements that ensure compliance with the amendments fo r more comprehensive diesel misfire monitoring that begins with the 2016 model year. This will result in costs of up to $30,000 per manufacturer (for a large manuf acturer) annually when the reporting requirements are fully phased in. These costs are expected to be passed on to consumers (new heavy-duty engine/ vehicle purchasers) at an in cremental retail cost of less than $0.56 per vehicle. For reference, this represents a less than 0.01 percent56 increase in the retail price of a typical heavy- duty engine. To perform the analysis, staff

took the national sales numbers for the t op nine engine manufacturers and determined a composite average value of 72,440 engines. This number was rounded to 72,000 in the analysis. Staff then esti mated the incremental costs for an engine manufacturer with sales of 72,000 engines. Staff further assumed the engine manufacturer would have three engine families that would require separate misfire monitoring data to be generated and calculated the total cost s for such a manufacturer.

Second, staff estimated the costs to manufac turers of alternate- fueled engines. These engines currently make up approximately 2 per cent of all new m edium and heavy-duty engines but the percentage could increase in the future due to various monetary incentives that could be offered by st ate and federal organizations, greenhouse gas regulations, and by increased market demand. These engines are usually converted from diesel or gasoline to run on alternate-fuels such as CNG or LPG. As a result, these engines will already have an existing OBD system before being co nverted. It is projected that manufacturers will only need to re calibrate some of the existing monitors on these engines, and may, in some cases, need to develop a few new monitors for alternate fuel specific co mponents that are added. Manufac turers of these vehicles range from small businesses (less than 250 employees) to large manufacturers. For the analysis, it was assumed that a typica l alternate-fueled engine manufacturer will have one engine family with a large manuf acturer producing about 5000 alternatefueled engines per year nati onwide and a small manufacture r producing approximately 500 engines per year nati onwide. Additionally, it was assumed that a large alternatefueled manufacturer also produces dies el engines as its primary product.

Since the amendments will require these manufacturers to co mply with the alternatefuel requirements two y ears earlier than previously requir ed, the majority of costs were already accounted for in the initial 2005 HD OB D rulemaking. The only additional costs would be those costs incurred during these fi rst two years that would not otherwise have been incurred under the original requirements. Specifically, this would cover the hiring of additional staff or equi pment needed for earlier compliance and possible two years of annual monitor recalibration. Also, since the alternate-fueled eng ines will have OBD systems on them two years ear lier, buyers of such engines in these two years will see an incremental price increase t hat otherwise would not have o ccurred until later. From staff’s analysis, the incremental retail cost to buyers of these engines/vehicles for these two years has been estimated to range from $21 per vehicle to $207 per vehicle, depending on the size of the ma nufacturer (larger manufac turers can spread out the cost across more engines than smaller manuf acturers). These costs represent less than a 1.0 percent increase in t he retail cost of the smallest vehicles and far less than a 0.1 percent increase for larger vehicles. Generally, large manufacturers and small businesses that convert alternate-fueled eng ines have not been dire ct competitors. Large manufacturers have mainly offered al ternate-fueled engines for larger work

vehicles such as line-haul trucks and bus es while small businesses have typically

offered alternate fuel conversions for smalle r vehicles that perfo rm lighter-duty work such as passenger and cargo vans. The incr emental costs for these vehicles are also expected to be offset by financial incentives offered by state and federal governments57 that have recently ranged fr om about $7,500 up to $32,000. Future incentives are currently being proposed and may be different from these amounts.

Based on the emission benefit analysis and the additional cost numbers identified above, the cost effectiveness of the OBD r egulation was re-calculated to reflect the proposed amendments. For the cost estimation, it was assum ed that half of the cost

was for PM emission benefit and the other half was for ROG+NOx benefit. Since the amendments applicable to diesel engines onl y added an incremental cost of $0.56 per engine for diesel engines, newly calculat ed numbers for cost effectiveness, when rounded to the nearest cent, are identical to t he results calculated in the 2009 biennial review. As stated in 2009, the per-engine cost to implement OBD is estimated at $630 per engine. Splitting that in half, $315 wa s attributed to PM benefit for a costeffectiveness of $13.13 per pound of PM. The other half of the cost was attributed to

ROG+NOx benefit for a cost-effectiveness of $0.08 per pound of ROG+NOx. Both values compare favorably with the cost -effectiveness of other recently adopted regulations.

The amendments applicable to alternat e-fueled engines requiring full HD OBD compliance in model year 2018, two years ear lier than previously required, would also have a limited impact on cost-effectiveness. While there would be some incremental

costs as calculated above that occur fr om implementing HD OBD two years earlier,

there would also be an incremental emi ssion benefit from the OBD system being required earlier. As such, the cost-e ffectiveness numbers calculated in 2009 for all engines including 2020 and subsequent model y ear alternate-fueled engines are also appropriate for 2018 and subsequent model y ear alternate-fueled engines under the proposed amendments. These numbers take in to account both the costs to implement and the long-term emission benefits of the program (after the vehicles have been on the road for 20 years). Further, alternate-fueled engines make up a very small fraction of

the vehicle fleet so the cost-effectiveness of the program, as a whole, is primarily driven by the cost-effectiveness of diesel engines.

C. AFFECTED BUSINESSES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Any business involved in manufacturing, purc hasing, or servicing medium-duty vehicles, and heavy-duty engines and vehicles could be a ffected by the proposed amendments.

Also affected are businesses that supply parts for these vehicles.

With respect to businesses that manufac ture engines, there are approximately 11 companies worldwide that manuf acture diesel or gasoline Ca lifornia-certified heavy-duty engines. There are also an estimated 10 hy brid system manufacturers and 9 alternatefuel conversion manufacturers. Only one of these companies, an alternate-fuel conversion manufacturer, is located in Cali fornia. Staff believes that some of the

alternate-fuel conversion manufacturers ar e “small businesses” but cannot determine the exact number. However, t he cost related to these m anufacturers is determined to be negligible because these manufacturers ar e expected to pass the added costs on to consumers (engine and vehicle purchasers) in the form of increased retail prices.58 With respect to businesses that purchase medium- or heavy-duty diesel engines, the amendments are not expected to have any ma terial impact as the incremental per engine price increase of $0.56 is insignificant on engines/vehicles that range in price from $20,000 to over $100,000. For busin esses that purchase 2018 or 2019 model year heavy-duty alternate-fuel ed engines, the effect has al so been determined to be negligible because the increm ental per engine increase in pr ice is less than 0.1 to 1.0 percent and is expected to be more than offset by various financial incentives that exist for purchasing alternate-fueled vehicles.

California accounts for only a small share of total nationwide m edium-duty and heavyduty motor vehicle and parts manufacturing. As stat ed, only one alternate-fuel conversion company is located in California.

D. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON VEHICLE OPERATORS

For heavy-duty engines and vehicles, the pr oposed amendments would provide OBD information and encourage manufacturers to bui ld more durable engines, which would result in the need for fewer repairs and savi ngs for vehicle owners. OBD systems are designed to detect malfunctions that ma y otherwise go undetected (and unrepaired) by the vehicle owner. A single additional repai r was estimated to occur on approximately

two-thirds of the trucks over a 21 year lifetime as a re sult of OBD detection, at an average cost of $741 per repair. This is a conservative cost estimate, since OBD systems will potentially result in savings by catching problems early before they adversely affect other components and syst ems in the engine. The proposed amendments are anticipated to have a negligible impact on new diesel engine or vehicle prices, since the calculated increase in reta il price of an engine is estimated to be $0.56 per engine. The two-year earlier implem entation of full OBD on alternate-fueled engines is expected to increase the retail cost of the engine and vehi cle for the two year time period by $21 to $207 but these costs are expected to be offset by various financial incentives offered by st ate and federal agencies that have ranged from $7,500 to $32,000 per vehicle in past years.

For medium-duty vehicles, the proposed am endments would provide improved OBD II information and encourage manufacturers to bui ld more durable vehicles, which should result in the need for fewer vehicle repairs and savings for consumers. The proposed changes involve minimal development and ve rification of software above what is already incorporated into OBD II systems. Additionally, because manufacturers would be provided sufficient lead time to in corporate the minimal proposed changes, incorporation and verification of the revi sed OBD II software would be accomplished during the regular design process at vi rtually no additional co st. Any additional engineering resources needed to comply with the proposed program would be small, and when spread over several years of v ehicle production, these costs would be negligible. Thus, the proposed amendments are anticipated to have a negligible impact on manufacturer costs and new vehicle prices.

E. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS59 The proposed amendments are not expected to adversely impac t the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in ot her states as the proposed standards are anticipated to have no material impact on re tail prices of new engines and vehicles. Additionally, U.S. EPA has adopted federal OBD II and HD OB D requirements that are generally harmonized with those of ARB. To date, virtua lly all engine and vehicle manufacturers have chosen to design a sing le OBD system that meets both ARB and U.S. EPA regulations and equipp ed all vehicles nationwide with the same system. Therefore, any costs incurr ed by the engine or vehicle m anufacturers will be applicable to all engines/vehicles nationwide and these costs will be passed on to purchasers

nationwide in the form of hi gher retail prices as explained above. Thus, any price increases of medium- and heavy-duty vehicl es are not expected to dampen the demand

for these vehicles in California relative to other states, since pr ice increases would be

the same nationwide.

It should be noted that one area of differ ence between the Federal and California requirements involves heavy-duty hybrids. Specifically, the U.S. EPA has exempted hybrids from OBD compliance for the 2014 through 2016 model years while ARB will require compliance. In theory, this could l ead to some heavy-duty hybrid vehicles being more expensive in California than in other states during these thr ee years. However,

staff’s assessment is that this is not likel y to happen for two reason s. First, the heavyduty hybrid vehicle sales volume is extrem ely low, which would make it virtually impractical for manufacturers to have suffi cient resources to of fer two different OBD systems (one that complies for the California market and one that does not comply with California hybrid monitoring requirements th at would be available for sale in other states). Past history would suggest that these manufacturers will design and build one system nationwide and as such, the cost to purchasers would be the same nationwide. Second, the ARB’s HVIP program already in centivizes (and largely subsidizes) the purchase of a heavy-duty hybrid vehicle for businesses in California and those incentives (typically $20,000 to $40,000 per v ehicle) dwarf any increase in cost due to OBD compliance. Thus, even if there were to be an increase specific to hybrids offered for sale in California, the incentives would more than offset them for any purchaser in

California.

F. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT

The proposed amendments are not expected to cause a noticeable change in California employment because California accounts for only a small share of motor vehicle, heavyduty engine, and parts manufacturing employm ent, and the minimal additional work done by heavy-duty vehicle manufacture rs can be done with existing staff.

G. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON BUSIN ESS CREATION, ELIMINATION, OR

EXPANSION

The proposed amendments ar e not expected to affect busi ness creation, elimination or expansion.60 VI. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

As described in the individual secti ons above detailing the proposed changes, manufacturers suggested alternatives to the proposed amendments, and staff explained why these alternatives were not considered. No alternative considered by the agency would be more effective in carrying out the pu rpose for which the r egulation is proposed

or would be as effective or less burdens ome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation.

VII. SUMMARY AND RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

In response to manufacturers’ concerns ab out difficulties meeting the requirements within the required timefram es, the proposed amendments mo stly include relaxations that would provide manufacturers with more lead time. Manufacturers are expected to take advantage of these delays to improve t heir system strategies and develop robust monitors to meet the requirements and ens ure more robust systems. The proposed

amendments also include more stri ngent requirements that will encourage manufacturers to design and build more robust engines to comply with the requirements. In general, the propos ed amendments to the HD OBD and OBD II regulations would help ensure that foreca sted emission reduction benefits from adopted medium-duty and heavy-duty engine emission standards programs are achieved.

Proposed amendments to Cal. Code R egs., title 13, section 1971.1:

Subsection (a) Th e “Purpose” clause of the r egulation has been amended to reaffirm and clarify the objec tives of the regulation cons istent with the longstanding expressed intent when the regulation was first adopted and subsequently amended.

Subsection (c) “Alternate-fueled engine” This new proposed definition is needed to clear up confusion about what constitu tes an alternate-fueled engine and thus is exempt from meeting the HD OBD monitoring requirem ents until the 2018 model year, with the clarification mostly in volving engines that utilize more than one type of fuel.

Subsection (c) “Alternate phase-in” This new proposed definition is needed to

allow manufacturers some flex ibility and allow more time in meeting some requirements with phase-in schedules.

Subsection (c) “Auxiliary Emission C ontrol Device (AECD)” The proposed change to move this definition before the definition of “base fuel schedule” is needed since the definitions in subsection (c) are typically listed in alphabetical order.

Subsection (c) “Calculated load value” The proposed changes to the definition of “calculated load value” is necessary to update the versions of the SAE J1979 and

SAE J1939 documents referenced to the most recent versions referenced in section 1971.1(h)(1) of t he regulation.61 Subsection (c) “Diagnostic or emission critical” The proposed changes to the definition of a “diagnostic or em ission critical” electronic control unit is necessary to limit

the number of control units t hat would be subject to report the CAL ID/CVN parameters to the most import ant control units.

Subsection (c) “Driving cycle” The pr oposed change to this definition is needed for formatting reasons.

Subsection (c) “Emission standard” The addition of this definition is needed to clarify that the OBD regulatio ns include emission standards. The definition revises the definition set forth at Health and Safety Code section 39028 consistent with the express

authorization of the Board to make such a re vision in Health and Safety Code sections

39010 and 39601.

Subsection (c) “Evaporative emission standa rds” The new proposed definition is needed to identify a subcategory of the new definition of emissi on standard that had previously been identified mere ly as an emission standard.

Subsection (c) “Exhaust emission standar ds” or “tailpipe emission standards” The new proposed definition is needed to identi fy a subcategory of the new definition of emission standard that had prev iously been identified merely as an emission standard.

. Subsection (c) “Fueled engine operation” This new proposed definition is needed to complement the amendments to the in-use monitor perfo rmance requirements, where

this definition is used.

Subsection (c) “Gasoline engine” This proposed change to delete “or an alternate-fueled engine” fr om this definition is needed because a separate new

definition for “alternate-fuel ed engine” is being proposed.

Subsection (c) “Hybrid vehicle” Th is new proposed definition is needed to complement the amendments to the permanent fault code erasure requirements and the in-use monitor performance requirem ents, where this definition is used.

Subsection (c) “Ignition cycle” T he proposed changes to the definition are necessary to account for the proposed changes to the ignition cycle counter requirements for hybrid vehicles in section 1971.1(d)(5.5).

Subsection (c) “Malfunction” The proposed addition of “system” to the

definition of “malfunction” is needed since the regulation requires detection of a

malfunction that can affect ei ther a component or a system.

Subsection (c) “Permanent fault code” The proposed deletion of the phrase “currently commanding the MIL on” is neede d to avoid confusion, since a permanent62 fault code may not be commanding the MIL on in cases where the fault information in the on-board computer has been cleared by a scan tool or a battery disconnect.

Subsection (c) “Propulsion system active” This new proposed definition is needed to complement the amendment s to the permanent fault c ode erasure requirements and the in-use monitor performance requirem ents, where this definition is used.

Subsection (c) “Small volume manufactu rer” This new proposed definition is needed to complement the proposed changes to the exceptions to monitoring requirements provisions in subsection (g)(5.8.2).

Subsection (c) “Warm-up cycle” The pr oposed addition of the phrase “a driving cycle with” to this definition is necessary to clarify that a warm-up cycle is referring to a driving cycle with specific conditions met. Additionally, the proposed change to allow

manufacturers to use an alter nate definition for warm-up cycle is needed to account for vehicles that are unable to warm up the engine coolant temperature to the defined temperatures in the current definition even if it has been sufficiently driven.

Subsection (d)(2.1.2) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate how the

functional check of the MIL should work. The proposed change to delete “20” is necessary since the original phrase “minimu m of 15-20 seconds” already indicates 15 seconds as the minimum required time.

Subsection (d)(2.1.3) The pur pose of this section is to allow manufacturers the option to use the MIL for r eadiness status indication. The proposed change is needed for formatting reasons, with the old text in subsection (h)(4.1.3) now in subsection (h)(4.1.6).

Subsections (d)(2.2.1)(D) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the

criteria under which freeze frame conditions can be stored and erased for engines using ISO 15765-4. The proposed changes are needed to address concerns about manufacturers inappropriately erasing fr eeze frame data when a pending fault code

matures to a confirmed fault code. Also , the proposed changes to require monitors using alternate strategies to store and erase the freeze frame condit ions concurrent with storing and erasing a confirmed fault code are needed since the current language is vague about how to handle one-trip monito rs which don’t store pending fault codes.

Subsection (d)(2.2.2)(D) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the

criteria under which freeze frame conditions can be stored and erased for engines using SAE J1939. The proposed changes to require monitors using alternate strategies to

store and erase the freeze fr ame conditions with the MIL-on fault code are needed since the current language is vague abo ut how to handle one-trip monitors, which don’t store pending fault codes.

Subsection (d)(2.3.1)(A) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the protocol for extinguishing the MIL for engines using ISO 15765-4. The proposed63 changes are needed to include reference to diesel monitors that have their own protocol for extinguishing the MIL in lieu of the require ments in this subsection, since the current language only referenced gasoline monitors . The proposed changes are also needed to clarify that the MIL is not allowed to be extinguished after less than three sequential driving cycles, since the original language may be misi nterpreted.

Subsections (d)(2.3.1)(B) and (d)(2.3.2)(C) The purpose of these subsections is to indicate the protocol for erasi ng confirmed fault codes or prev iously MIL-on fault codes. The proposed changes to require rather than allow manufactur ers to erase these fault codes after 40 warm-up cycles are necessary to ensure consistency among manufacturers and require all of them to eras e the fault codes in the same timing. The proposed change to delete “engine” from “engi ne warm-up cycle” is also necessary to be consistent with the terminology used in the definitions in section (c), which states “warm-up cycle.”

Subsections (d)(2.3.1)(C)( ii)b.3. and (d)(2.3.2)(D)(ii) b.3 The purpose of these

subsections is to indicate the criteria under which a permanent fault code can be erased

when the fault information in the on-boar d computer has been cleared and the OBD system is not commanding the malfunction indi cator light on. The proposed changes to subsections (d)(2.3.1)(C)(ii)b.3.i. and (d)(2.3 .2)(D)(ii)b.3.i. and the proposed additions of subsections (d)(2.3.1)(C)(ii)b.3.v. and (d)(2 .3.2)(D)(ii)b.3.v. are needed to account for hybrid vehicles, which may not start the engi ne right after the vehicle is turned on and may affect the “cumulative time si nce engine start” criterion.

Subsection (d)(2.3.2)(A) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the protocol for extinguishing t he MIL for engines using SAE J 1939. The proposed changes are needed to clarify that the MIL is not allowed to be extinguished after less than three sequential driving cycles, since the or iginal language may be misinterpreted.

Subsection (d)(2.4.1) T he purpose of this subsection is to describe default strategies that manufacturers are allowed to have and not be required to illuminate the MIL when they are invoked. The proposed changes are needed for readability to make the language and criteria easier to understand.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(B) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the specifications for increment ing the denominator. The propos ed clarification that the requirements in subsections (d)(4.3.2)(F), (I), and (J) may supersede the requirements in subsection (d)(4.3.2)(B) for specific m onitors/vehicles is needed since they have

certain characteristics that make the current requirement s in subsection (d)(4.3.2)(B) inappropriate to use. The proposed change to add “engine” to “start” to subsection (d)(4.3.2)(B)(i) is also nece ssary to be consistent with the terminology used in the definitions in section (c), which states “engine start”.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(C) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the specifications for increment ing the denominator for evaporat ive system monitors. The proposed change is needed to allow other moni tors (i.e., engine cooling system input64 component monitors, comprehensive component input component temperature sensor rationality monitors) that also require a cold start to enable monito ring to use the same denominator. Further, the proposed change to add “engine” to “start” in subsection (d)(4.3.2)(C)(i) is necessary to be consistent with the terminol ogy used in the definitions in section (c), which states “engine start”.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(E) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the specifications for increm enting the denominator for co mponents that are “commanded” to function. The proposed change to delet e “output” from “output components” is needed since some of the component monitors listed under this section are not output components. The proposed additions of the PM filter active/intrusi ve injection monitor

and the PM sensor heater monitor to this section are needed since the previously required denominator increm enting criteria applied to these monitors were not appropriate. Additionally, the proposed ch ange to allow 2010 th rough 2015 model year engines to use the previously required denominat or criteria is needed to allow lead time

for manufacturers to m eet the new requirement.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(F) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the specifications for incrementi ng the denominator for monitors that require “alternate” criteria. The proposed change to modify the phrase “monitors of the following components” to “the following component monitors” is needed since the items listed in this section refer to monitors, not com ponents. The proposed deletions of “engine cooling system input component” and “c omprehensive component input component temperature sensor rational ity monitors” and renumberin g of the section are needed

since these monitors were moved to subs ection (d)(4.3.2)(C). The proposed change to add “PM sensor monitoring capability monitor” to this subsection is needed to reflect the current capability of the PM sensor te chnology, which may regenerate infrequently inuse and thus may result in low ratios fo r this monitor with the currently required

denominator.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(G) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the specifications for increment ing the denominator for component s or emission controls that experience infrequent regeneration events. The proposed change to modify the phrase “monitors of the follo wing components” to “the followi ng component monitors” is

needed since the items listed in this section refer to monitors, no t components. The proposed change to limit application of this requirement to the 2010 through 2015 model year for the PM filter filt ering performance monitors and t he PM filter missing substrate monitors to is needed considering the import ance of the PM filt er, which controls emissions throughout the driving cycl e, not just once every 800 minutes.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(H) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the specifications for increment ing the denominator for some monitors based on whether or not a regeneration event occurs. The proposed deletion of “PM filter active/intrusive injection” is needed since this monitor was moved to subsection (d)(4.3.2)(E).65 Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(I) The purpose of this subsection is to allow certain

vehicles to increment the general denominator based on alter nate criteria in lieu of those in subsection (d)(4.3.2)(B). The propos ed deletion of the phrase “hybrid vehicles” is necessary since a new proposed require ment for hybrid vehicles has been added (subsection (d)(4.3.2)(J)) that will super sede this requirement. The proposed replacement of the phrase “i ntegrated starter and generators” with the phrase “a vehicle with a start-stop system that does not meet the defin ition of a hybrid vehicle as defined in section (c)” is needed since the requirement in subsection (d)(4.3.2)(I) no longer applies to hybrid vehicles (a separate secti on was created specifically for hybrids) and vehicles with integrated star ters and generators most comm only will meet the definition of a hybrid vehicle while vehicles with other simpler start-st op systems will not and will still be subject to the require ments of this section. The proposed change of “alternate fuel vehicles” to “alternate-fueled engines” is needed to be consistent with the phrase used in the definitions in subsection (c). The proposed deletion of “(e.g., dedicated, bifuel, or dual-fuel applications )” is needed since the phrase “alt ernate-fueled engine” is now defined in section (c), so the examples here are not needed anymore.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(J) The purpose of th is new proposed subsection is to indicate the criteria under which the general denominator shall increment for hybrid vehicles. This new requirement is needed to a ccount for the fact that hybrid vehicles need a new definition to recognize trips wher e the engine starts later in the trip. Additionally, the proposed language to a llow 2010 through 2015 model year engines to use the previously required denomi nator criteria in subsection (d)(4.3.2)(I) is needed to

allow lead time for manufacturers to meet the new requirement.

Subsection (d)(4.5.3) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the conditions under which incrementing of all numerat ors and denominators ar e allowed to be disabled. The proposed deletions of refe rence to subsection (d)(4.3.2)(C) and the phrase “engine cold start” are needed since s ubsection (d)(4.3.2)(C) refers to the denominator incrementing criteria for monitors that require co ld start (e.g., evaporative system monitors), so all other monitors that do not require a cold start can and should still accurately increment their numerators and denominators even if an “engine cold start” can no longer be determined.

Subsection (d)(5.1.1) The purpose of this su bsection is to indicate the specific diesel components/monitors the HD OBD system is required to report in-use monitor performance data for. The proposed changes to this subsection are needed to be consistent with what is required to be reported in SAE 1979 and SAE J1939.

Subsection (d)(5.5.2)(B) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the criteria under which the ignition cycle count er shall increment. The proposed changes

are needed to ensure that the counters for co nventional vehicles and hybrid vehicles

are incremented in an equivalent manner.

Subsection (d)(7.5) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the HD OBD implementation schedule for alternate-f ueled engines. The proposed change of the66 start date to implement HD OBD systems from 2020 to 2018 is needed to address the issue that alternate-fueled engines will compri se a higher percentage of the heavy-duty market than previously thought, thus incr easing the importance of making sure the emission controls on these engines are pr operly working in-use. The proposed additional language in subsection (d)(7.5.3 ) requiring manufactu rers to propose a monitoring plan for alternate-fueled engine s is needed to ensure that all emission control components (which may include bot h diesel-related and gasoline-related components) on the engine are properly monitored.

Subsection (d)(7.6) This new proposed subsection allowing 2013 model year heavy-duty hybrid vehicles to meet less stringent requirements in lieu of the requirements in section 1971.1 is needed to address manufacturers’ concerns about implementing compliant HD OB D systems and to allow some interim relaxation from meeting the HD OBD requirements.

Subsection (e)(1.1) The purpose of this subsec tion is to indicate the general requirement for diesel fuel system monitori ng. The proposed change of “emission standard” to “applicable standard” is needed si nce “applicable standard” is the more appropriate term to use.

Subsection (e)(1.4.2) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the MIL

illumination and fault code stor age protocol for diesel fuel system monitoring. The proposed change of “vehicle” to “engine” is needed since the reference to “engine” is more appropriate.

Subsection (e)(2.1.1) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the general requirement for diesel misfire monitoring. The proposed deletion of “causing excess emissions” from “misfire causing exce ss emissions” is needed since the proposed changes to the diesel misfire monitoring now in volve requiring detection of faults when the percentage of misfire exceeds a certai n level, not when a specific emission

threshold is exceeded.

Subsection (e)(2.2) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to monitor for misfire on diesel engines. The proposed change to require all diesel engines to meet subsection (e)(2.2.2) with a phase-in starting in the 2016 model year is needed since the current requirement to monito r for misfire only at idle will not detect misfire faults that occur only during other engine speed and load conditions. The proposed change to require misfire detection w hen the percentage of misfire exceeds 5 percent instead of when specific emission thresholds are exceeded in subsection (e)(2.2.2) is needed to address manufacturers’ c oncerns about difficulties in establishing a level of misfire that equates to a specif ic tailpipe emission threshold. The proposed change to subsection (e)(2.2.3 ) is needed for formatting reas ons, since the malfunction criteria originally in subsection (e)(2.2.2)( A) is now in subsection (e)(2.2.2). The proposed new subsection (e)(2.2.5) to allow m anufacturers to detect misfire at a higher percentage than the required 5 pe rcent if specific emission levels are not exceeded is67 needed to provide relaxation to manufacturers should their system be abnormally robust

to an emission increase due to misfire.

Subsection (e)(2.3.1) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the conditions under which diesel misfire monitoring s hall occur. The proposed changes are needed to avoid confusion by indicating that t he monitoring conditions under this subsection apply to misfires identified in section (e)(2.2.1).

Subsection (e)(2.3.3) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the conditions under which diesel misfire monitoring shall occur. The proposed change to require

monitors for misfires identifi ed in section (e)(2.2.2) to me et subsection (e)(2.3.3) is needed for clarity. The proposed changes to the required monitoring conditions in subsection (e)(2.3.3)(A)(i) are needed to addre ss manufacturers’ concerns about the extent to which they can monitor for misf ire on diesel engines gi ven the wide range of heavy-duty applications that exist up to the 2018 model year, while the proposed requirement to continuously monitor for mi sfire under all positiv e torque engine speed and load conditions with a phase-in starting in the 2019 model year in subsection (e)(2.3.3)(A)(ii) are needed to ensure misfires that occur during the higher operating ranges are robustly detected. Lastly, the proposed change in subsection (e)(2.3.3)(B) is

needed to allow manufacturers to disable misfire monitoring under conditions in which

robust detection of misfires is at issue.

Subsection (e)(2.4.2) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the MIL illumination and fault code storage protocol for the diesel misfire monitor. The proposed change to require monitors for misfires identif ied in section (e)(2.2.2) to meet subsection (e)(2.4.2) is for clarit y. The proposed change to delete “(A )” from “section (e)(2.2.2)(A)” in subsection (e)(2.4.2)(A) is needed for fo rmatting reasons, since the malfunction criteria originally in subsection (e)(2.2 .2)(A) is now in subsection (e)(2.2.2).

Subsection (e)(3.2.6) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to monitor the EGR catalyst. The proposed ad dition of subsection (e)(3.2.6)(B), which

allows manufacturers to be exem pt from monitoring the EGR ca talyst if a failure of the catalyst does not cause a measurable emi ssion impact, is needed to provide relaxation

to manufacturers due to their concerns that a failure of this catalyst does not directly

cause an emissions increase.

Subsection (e)(5.2.3)(B) The purpose of this subsection is to require manufacturers to monitor the NMHC converting catalyst for proper f eedgas generation. The proposed delay of the requi red start date to the 2015 model year is needed to allow

manufacturers more time to meet the r equirement. The propo sed language allowing manufacturers to be exempt from this monito ring requirement if ce rtain conditions are met is needed to allow manufacturers relaxation in meeting this requirement based on

their concerns.

Subsections (e)(5.2.2)( B), (e)(6.2.1)(A)(i ), (e)(6.2.1)(D)(i), (e )(6.2.2)(A)(i) and (iv), (e)(7.2.1)(A) and(B), (e)(8.2.1)(A) and (B), (e )(8.2.1)(D), (e)(8.2.2)(B ), (e)(9.2.1)(B)(i),68 (e)(9.2.2)(A)(i) and (iv), (g )(3.4.3), and (j)(1.1) T he proposed change of “emission

standard” to “exhaust emission standard” is needed since “exhaust emission standard” is the more appropriate term to use.

Subsection (e)(5.2.3)(D) The proposed c hanges to this subsection are needed for readability.

Subsection (e)(6.2.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to monitor the NOx converting catalyst conver sion efficiency. The proposed changes to allow higher interim emission thresholds for 2013 through 2015 model year engines in new proposed subsections (e)(6.2.1)(B) and (C) and to delay the final, stringent

emission thresholds to 2016 in subsec tion (e)(6.2.1)(D) are needed to address manufacturers’ concerns about meeting the requirements and to allow manufacturers

more time to meet the final thresholds. The new proposed subsection (e)(6.2.1)(E), which allows engines first certified in t he 2014 or 2015 model year and carried over to the 2016 model year to meet t he previous interim thresholds in 2016, is needed so that manufacturers would not have to spend resour ces to have all engines meet the final

thresholds in 2016.

Subsection (e)(6.2.2) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to monitor the SCR catalyst reductant deliver y performance. The proposed changes to allow higher interim emission thresholds for 2013 through 2015 model year engines in new proposed subsections (e)(6.2.2)(A)(ii) th rough (iii) and to delay the final, stringent

emission thresholds to 2016 in subsecti on (e)(6.2.2)(A)(iv) are needed to address manufacturers’ concerns about meeting the requirements and to allow manufacturers

more time to meet the final thresholds. The new proposed subsection (e)(6.2.2)(A)(v), which allows engines first certified in t he 2014 or 2015 model year and carried over to the 2016 model year to meet t he previous interim thresholds in 2016, is needed so that manufacturers would not have to spend resour ces to have all engines meet the final

thresholds in 2016.

Subsection (e)(6.2.2)(D) The purpose of this subsection is to require manufacturers to monitor the SCR catalyst feedback control. The proposed addition of “(e.g., pressure control)” is needed to give an example of a feedback control strategy that is required to be monitored.

Subsection (e)(6.3) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the conditions under which NOx converting catalyst monitori ng shall occur. The proposed addition of section (e)(6.2.2)(A) (for reductant deliv ery performance monitoring) to subsection (e)(6.3.1), which requires m onitoring to occur once per trip, is needed since the original requirement for monitoring to occur conti nuously was found to be inappropriate and too stringent. The proposed deletion of sect ion (e)(6.2.2)(A) (f or SCR performance monitoring) from subsection (e)(6.3.2) is needed since this subsection was moved to subsection (e)(6.3.1) as pr eviously described.69 Subsection (e)(8.2.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to

monitor the PM filter filt ering performance. The propos ed changes to allow higher interim emission thresholds for 2013 through 2015 model year engines in subsections (e)(8.2.1)(B) and (C) are needed to address manuf acturers’ concerns about meeting the requirements, given the delay of the avai lability of PM sensors, and to allow

manufacturers more time to meet the final thresholds. The new proposed subsection (e)(8.2.1)(E), which allows engines first ce rtified in the 2014 or 2015 model year and carried over to the 2016 model y ear to meet the previous in terim thresholds in 2016, is

needed so that manufacturers would not have to spend resources to have all engines

meet the final thresholds in 2016. The new proposed subsection (e)(8.2.1)(F) is needed to prohibit manufacturers from using an alternate phase-in schedule instead of the required phase-in sche dule proposed in subsection (e)(8.2.1)(C).

Subsection (e)(8.2.4) The purpose of this su bsection is to require manufacturers to monitor the catalyzed PM filter. The proposed delay of the required start date to the 2015 model year in subsection (e)(8.2.4)(A) for monitoring NMHC conversion capability

is needed to allow manufacturers more time to meet the requirement. The proposed language in subsection (e)(8.4.2)(A)(iii) allo wing manufacturers to be exempt from this monitoring requirement if certain condition s are met is needed to allow manufacturers relaxation in meeting this requirement bas ed on their concerns. The proposed addition of subsection (e)(8.2.4)(B), which requires m onitoring of catalyzed PM filter for proper feedgas generation, is needed to ensure moni toring of all components that generate feedgas for the SCR system.

Subsection (e)(8.3.2) The proposed deletion of “II” from “OBD II system” is needed to correct an error, since this regulat ion does not apply to OBD II systems.

Subsection (e)(9.2.2)(A) The purpose of this subsection is to require

manufacturers to monitor the NOx sensor fo r sensor performance faults. The proposed changes to allow higher interim emission thresholds for 2013 through 2015 model year engines in new proposed subsections (e)(9.2.2)(A )(ii) through (iii) and to delay the final, stringent emission thresholds to 2016 in su bsection (e)(9.2.2)(A)(iv) are needed to

address manufacturers’ concerns about m eeting the requirements and to allow

manufacturers more time to meet the final thresholds. The new proposed subsection (e)(9.2.2)(A)(v), which allows engines first ce rtified in the 2014 or 2015 model year and carried over to the 2016 model y ear to meet the previous in terim thresholds in 2016, is

needed so that manufacturers would not have to spend resources to have all engines meet the final thresholds in 2016. Lastly, the proposed addition of an NMHC threshold in subsection (e)(9.2.2)(A)(iv) is necessary to maintain consistency with the thresholds for the heavy-duty NOx converting catalyst monitors as well as the medium-duty NOx sensor monitoring requirement s in the OBD II regulation.

Subsection (e)(9.3.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to indicate the conditions under which NOx sensor monitoring shall oc cur. The proposed addition of section (e)(9.2.2)(D), for sensor moni toring capability monitors, to subsection (e)(9.3.1)(A) is

needed since this monitor has been determined to be important based on reviews of70 manufacturers’ OBD systems, so there should be assurance t hat the in-use monitoring performance data of this monitor is tra cked and reported star ting in the 2016 model year. The proposed deletion of section (e)(9 .2.2)(D) from subsection (e)(9.3.1)(B) is

needed since this subsection was moved to s ubsection (e)(9.3.1)(A) as previously described. The proposed change to delete t he requirement for monitoring to occur “every time the monitoring conditions are me t during the driving cycle in lieu of once per driving cycle” in subsection (e)(9.3.1)(B) is needed since staff does not see a need for this, and because some monitors currently requi red to meet this requirement would not be able to meet this if they were intrusive monitors.

Subsection (e)(9.4) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the MIL illumination and fault code storage require ments for exhaust gas sensors. The proposed addition of language to separately det ect and store different fault codes for circuit and out-of-range faults is needed for emphasis since some manufacturers have been inappropriately storing the same fault code for different circuit and out-of-range faults, even though section (h)(4.4) currently requires manufacturers to pinpoint the likely cause of a malfunction.

Subsection (e)(11.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to

monitor the cold start emission reduction st rategy on diesel engines. The proposed changes to subsection (e)(11.1.1) ar e needed for readability. The new proposed subsection (11.1.2), which woul d require manufacturers to us e different diagnostics to distinguish component/element faul ts that occur while the cold start strategy is active

from faults that occur while the strategy is not active (e.g., warmed-up conditions), is needed to avoid confusion and prevent manuf acturers from using only one fault code/monitor to detect both types of faults – this new subsection would prevent premature erase of pending fault codes.

Subsection (f)(1.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to indicate the general requirement for gasoline fuel system moni toring. The proposed change of “emission standard” to “applicable standard” is needed si nce “applicable standard” is the more appropriate term to use.

Subsection (f)(1.2.1) The purpos e of this subsection is to describe the malfunction criteria for gasoline fuel system monitoring. The propos ed changes of “vehicle” to “engine” in subsections (f)(1 .2.1)(B) and (C) are needed sinc e the reference to “engine” is more appropriate.

Subsection (f)(2.3.1) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the conditions under which gasoline misfire monitoring shall o ccur. The proposed cl arification that the requirements in subsection (f)(2.3.6) ma y supersede the requirements in subsection (f)(2.3.1)(A) is needed since subsection (f)(2.3.6) contains criteria for vehicles that utilize engine shutoff strategies like hybrids, which have certain characteristics that make the current requirements in subsection (f )(2.3.1)(A) inappropriate to use.71 Subsection (f)(2.3.6) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the conditions under which misfire monitoring shall occur fo r vehicles that employ engine shut-off strategies that do not require the vehicle operator to restart the engine to continue driving. The proposed changes to this subsection are needed since the current usage of “engine start” is not applicable for such ve hicles, since the definit ion of “engine start” in subsection (c) does not co mprehend engine restarts.

Subsection (f)(4.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to

monitor the cold start emission reduction strategy on gasoline engines. The new proposed subsection (f)(4.1.2), which would require manufacturers to use different diagnostics to distinguish component/element faults that occur while the cold start strategy is active from faults that occur while the strategy is not active (e.g., warmed-up conditions), is needed to avoid confusion an d prevent manufacture rs from using only one fault code/monitor to detect both types of faults – this new subsection would
prevent premature eras e of pending fault code.

Subsection (f)(5.2.2) The proposed c hange is needed for formatting reasons, since the original text in subsection (f )(5.2.3) is now in subsection (f)(5.2.4).

Subsection (f)(5.2.3) The purpose of this subsection is to require manufacturers to detect a functional fault of the secondary air system if a fault does not cause emissions to exceed a specific threshold. The pr oposed changes are needed to clarify that this

subsection is related to faults that cause a decrease in air flow.

Subsection (f)(5.2.4) Th is new proposed subsection, which requires

manufacturers to detect a functional fault of the secondary air system if a fault that

causes an increase in air flow does not cause emissions to exceed a specific threshold, is needed to completely cover all faults of the secondary air system and be consistent with what is required for ot her component/system monitors.

Subsection (f)(7.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to monitor the evaporative system. The pr oposed changes to change “vehicles not required to be equipped with evaporative emi ssion systems” to “vehicles not subject to evaporative emission standards” is needed sinc e ARB regulations technically do not mandate engines to be equipped with evapora tive systems but, instead, establish evaporative emission standards and identify which vehicles are subject to the standards. The proposed additio nal language requiring manufacturers to propose a monitoring plan for alternate-fueled engine s is needed since some alternate-fueled engines are subject to the evaporative em ission standards, and thus to evaporative system monitoring, but have evaporative syst ems that are differ ent from gasoline engines, so the current monitoring requirements are not applicable.

Subsection (f)(7.2.5) The purpose of this subsection is to require manufacturers to monitor multiple purge flow paths on a vehicl e. The proposed change of “vehicles” to “engines” is needed since the reference to “engines” is more appropriate. The proposed change of “both purge flow paths” to “all purge flow paths” is needed to72 correct an error, since vehicles can have more than two purge flow paths and should monitor all these purge flow paths.

Subsection (f)(8.4) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the MIL illumination and fault code storage require ments for exhaust gas sensors. The proposed addition of language to separately det ect and store different fault codes for circuit and out-of-range faults is needed for emphasis since some manufacturers have been inappropriately storing the same fault code for different circuit and out-of-range faults, even though section (h)(4.4) currently requires manufacturers to pinpoint the likely cause of a malfunction.

Subsection (g)(1.3.1) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the conditions under which thermostat monitoring shall occur. The proposed changes to subsection (g)(1.3.1)(A) is needed for fo rmatting reasons due to the changes mentioned here. The proposed changes to subsection (g)(1.3.1)( D) and proposed additional subsection (g)(1.3.1)(E) are needed to make the requi rement easier to understand and clearly

indicate under what conditions the thermost at monitor can be disabled. The proposed change of subsection (g)(1.3.1 )(E) to (g)(1.3.1)(F) is nee ded for formatting reasons.

Subsection (g)(3.1.1) The purpose of this su bsection is to require manufacturers to monitor comprehensive components. The proposed change to delete “engine” from “electronic engine powertrain componen t/system” is needed since the monitoring requirements under this subsection are not limited to component/systems on the engine.

Subsection (g)(3.1.3) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to require manufacturers to monitor elec tronic powertrain input or output components/systems associated with systems/components t hat are driven by the engine and not related to contro l of fueling or emissions only if the component/system is used as part of the diagnostic strategy of a monitored com ponent/system. The proposed addition of “transmission” is neede d to make clear that transmission components/systems are required to meet this subsection.

Subsections (g)(3.1.4) and (g)(3.1.5) The proposed change of “hybrids” to “hybrid

vehicles” is needed to be consistent with the terminology used in the definitions in section (c). The proposed change to allow t he requirements of subsection (g)(3.1.5) to be superseded by section (d)(7.6) is needed to account for the new proposed subsection (d)(7.6), which allows manufac turers to be exempt from meeting the requirements of section 1971.1 in the 2013 model year.

Subsection (g)(3.2.2)(B)(ii) d. The purpose of this subsection is to require

manufacturers to monitor the diesel id le control system. The proposed change to require detection of faults if the fuel in jection quantity is not within a certain range necessary to achieve the target idle s peed for the “known”, not “given”, operating

conditions is needed to address manufacturers c oncerns about the inability to know all the “given” operating conditions to det ermine the appropriate fuel quantity.73 Subsection (g)(3.2.2)(F) The purpose of this subsection is to require

manufacturers to monitor the fuel contro l system components for proper compensation. The proposed delay of the requi red start date to the 2015 model year is needed to allow

manufacturers more time to meet the requirement. The new proposed subsection (g)(3.2.2)(F)(ii) allowing manufac turers to be exempt from th is monitoring requirement if

certain conditions are met is needed to allow manufacturers relaxation in meeting this requirement based on their concerns.

Subsection (g)(5.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to allow manufacturers to revise the required malfunction criteria if certain conditions are met. The proposed change of the phrase “prevent significant errors of commission in detecting a malfunction” to “prevent false indications of a malfunction” is needed for clarify and to avoid confusion. The proposed amendments to limit the allowance fo r manufacturers to exclude detection of specific failure modes for PM filter monitoring up to the 2015 model year is needed since this allowance provides an unknown risk for failures that cause high PM emissions to go undetected, which should not be allowed on all future engines nor needed based on new monitoring techni ques being developed fo r future engines.

Subsection (g)(5.7) The purpose of this new proposed subsection is to allow manufacturers to be exempt from monito ring a component if a failure only affects emissions or other diagnosti cs when the ambient temperat ure is below 20 degrees Fahrenheit. This proposed allowance is needed to address manufacturers’ concerns about expending resources to monitor such components that only affect emissions during extreme conditions.

Subsection (g)(5.8) The purpose of this new proposed subsection is to allow manufacturers to use an alternate phase-in schedule, in accordance with the definition in subsection (c), and allow small volu me manufacturers to use a different implementation schedule (as described in ne w subsection (g)(5.8.2)) in lieu of the required phase-in schedule. This proposal is needed to allow manu facturers more lead time to meet the requirements.

Subsection (g)(5.9) This proposed change of this subsection from (g)(5.7) to (g)(5.9) is needed for formatting reasons.

Subsection (h)(1) The purpose of this su bsection is to indicate the SAE and ISO documents incorporated by reference in the regulation. The proposed updates to

the SAE and ISO documents are needed to referenc e the most recent versions of these documents, which include some clarificatio ns and modifications to the standardized requirements for the HD OBD systems.

Subsection (h)(2) The purpose of this subs ection is to specify the requirements for the diagnostic connector. The proposed changes are needed to account for the new 500 kbps baud rate variant of SAE J1939 and its associated connector being allowed for communication protocol. The proposed language in subsections (h)(2.6.1) and74 (h)(2.6.2) prohibiting addi tional identical connectors from being located in the same area

as the standardized OBD connector is needed to avoid confusion among technicians and inspectors attempting to identify the corr ect connector to retrie ve OBD information

from.

Subsection (h)(3.2) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the communication protocol allowed to be used on the engines. The proposed addition of “including diesel engines converted to alte rnate-fueled engines” is needed so that the requirement in subsection (h)(7), where t he language was originally located, can be deleted. The proposed changes indicating the 250 kbps and 500 kbps baud rates are

needed to account for the recent addition of the 500 kbps baud rate variant to SAE J1939. The proposed change to prohibit usage of the 250 kbps baud rate variant starting in the 2016 model year is needed to account for the industry trend towards using the 500 kbps baud rate variant and to miti gate potential problems in the field that may result with allowing multiple variants for communication protocol.

Subsection (h)(4.1) The purpose of th is subsection is to describe the requirements for the readine ss status. The proposed changes to the language are needed for clarity, to make the requirement s easier to understand, and avoid confusion among manufacturers by identifying the spec ific monitors that are required to be

included in the readiness status for a specific monitored component/system.

Subsection (h)(4.2.2) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the data stream parameters required to be made availa ble. The proposed change to subsection (h)(4.2.2)(E) is needed to better ensure standar dization by clarifying the specific SPNs to be used. The new proposed subsection (h)(4 .2.2)(G) is needed to make it easier to

conduct valid in-use emission tests with PEMS. The proposed change in subsection (h)(4.2.2)(H) is needed to account for new subsection (h)(4.2.2)(G).

Subsection (h)(4.2.3)(E) This new proposed subsection, which requires engines equipped with reduct ant quality sensor s and NOx sensors to make the reductant quality sensor output and the corrected NOx sensor output available to a scan tool, is needed since more and more manufact urers are using the reductant quality sensor and technicians will need access to both these signals to help diagnose

malfunctions.

Subsections (h)(4.4.1)(F) and (h)(4.4.2)(F) The purpose of these subsections is to

describe the standardized r equirements for permanent fault codes. The proposed changes to subsections (h)(4.4.1 )(F)(iv) and (h)(4.4.2 )(F)(iv), which limit the resetting of

readiness bits to those modules that report any supported r eadiness bits except the bit for the comprehensive components when the control module contai ning the permanent fault code is reprogrammed, are needed to address manufactu rers’ concerns about the difficulty in resetting the readiness bits in ‘all’ control modules.

Subsection (h)(4.7) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the standardized requirements fo r CVN. The proposed de letion of language from75 subsection (h)(4.7.4) is needed since this language was moved to new proposed subsection (h)(4.7.5). The new proposed subsection (h)(4.7.5) is needed to clarify the requirements for making CVN immediately av ailable through the data link connector and to prevent manufacturers from inappropriately using extended message timing for replies or negative response codes.

Subsection (h)(4.8.3) The purpose of th is subsection is to describe the standardized requirements for VI N and ESN. The proposed ch ange to this subsection, which limits the resetting of readiness bits to those modules that report any supported readiness bits except the bit for the co mprehensive components when the VIN or ESN is reprogrammed, are needed to address manufacturers’ concer ns about the difficulty in resetting the readiness bits in ‘all’ control modules.

Subsection (h)(4.10.2) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the conditions under which all emission-related diagnostic in formation is required to be erased. The proposed change to this subsection is needed to indicate that the requirements in section (h)(4.4.1)(F)(iv), (h )(4.4.2)(F)(iv), and (h )(4.8.3) supersede the requirements of

this subsection.

Subsection (h)(5.2.2) The proposed deletion of this subsection is needed since the specific requirements are already specified in SAE J1979 and J1939.

Subsection (h)(7) The proposed deletion of this subsection is needed since the requirements have been moved to subsection (h)(3.2).

Subsection (i) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the requirements for demonstration testi ng. The proposed changes throughout the

subsection with relation to the term “e mission threshold malfunction criteria” and

“malfunction limit” are needed to maintain consis tency within the section. The proposed

deletions of “FTP” from “FTP standard” throughout the subsection are needed to be

consistent with the term used thr oughout subsections (e) and (f).

Subsection (i)(3.1.2) The purpose of th is subsection is to describe the demonstration testing requirements for diesel misfire monitoring. The proposed change to exempt manufacturers from testing the diesel misfir e monitor is needed since the

malfunction criteria for diesel misfire monitoring in subsecti on (e)(2) is no longer tied to

an emission threshold.

Subsection (i)(3.2.1) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the testing requirements for gasoline fuel system monito rs. The proposed addition in subsection (i)(3.2.1)(A) and the proposed deletion in su bsection (i)(3.2.1)(E) are needed since the language at issue does not apply to all fuel system monitors, such as the air-fuel cylinder imbalance monitor. The new propo sed subsection (i)(3.2.1)(C) describing the testing requirements for the air-fuel cylin der imbalance monitor is needed since such language was mistakenly left out.76 Subsection (i)(3.2.7) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the testing requirements for gasoline exhaust gas sens or monitors. The proposed changes are

needed to allow manufacturers to test only certain response rate malfunctions (e.g., worst case malfunctions) to limit the number of te sts performed.

Subsection (i)(3.3.1 ) The proposed change of “applicable emission standards” to “applicable standards” is needed since “applicable standards” is the more appropriate

term to use.

Subsection (i)(3.6) This new propos ed subsection is needed to avoid manufacturer confusion by clearly stating th at demonstration testing is not required for functional monitors, since they are not tied to an emission threshold.

Subsection (i)(5.1.3) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the procedure

that must be taken when the MIL does not ill uminate when the malfunction is set at the limits during demonstrating te sting. The proposed changes are needed to clarify the testing procedures for catalyst faults and ot her faults where default actions are taken subsequent to fault detection, since the original language is not clear on this.

Subsection (j)(2.2) The proposed deletion of “July 7, 2009, incorporated by reference” is needed since this phrase was already stated previously in the regulation. The proposed change in subsection (j )(2.2.2)(H) to require diesel engines to use units of “mg/stroke” for all fuel quantity based criter ia is needed since “mg/stroke” is already more commonly used and appropriate for di esel engines than the “per crankshaft revolution” units currently required.

Subsection (j)(2.5) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the gasoline misfire monitor information required to be in cluded in the certificat ion application. The proposed changes are needed to indicate that t he required data are to be submitted in

the standardized formats detailed in ARB Mail- Out #MSC 09-22, which will assist staff during certification review.

Subsection (j)(2.6) The proposed deleti on of the requirement to include information related to the heated catalyst syst em is needed since the original inclusion of this requirement was a mistake, giv en that the HD OBD regulation does not have monitoring requirements for heated catalyst systems. The new proposed requirement for manufacturers to provide diesel misf ire monitor data is needed to support the new diesel misfire monitoring requirements being proposed in subsection (e)(2) and to

ensure that the diesel misfire moni tor is robust in detecting misfires.

Subsection (j)(2.16) The proposed additiona l requirement to include information about all other issues that apply to the engine is needed to assist st aff in reviewing the application.

Subsection (j)(2.18) Staff is proposi ng to move the original language in subsection (j)(2.18) to subsection (j)(2. 21). The new propos ed requirement in77 subsection (j)(2.18) to include information re lated to the in-use performance data is

needed to assist staff in re viewing the application.

Subsections (j)(2.19) and (j)(2.20) T he new proposed requirements to include information related to test results and the requi red timelines for submitting results for the production engine/vehicle testing are needed to assi st staff in reviewing the application.

Subsection (k)(1) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the requirements for certifying with a deficien cy. The proposed additional language is

needed to make clear that deficiencies will no t be granted for issues that would subject

to an ordered recall under section 1971.5.

Subsection (k)(6.1) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the criteria and

timelines under which a retroactive defici ency can be applied. The proposed change to

extend the deadline of “three months after commencement of the start of vehicle production” to “six months after commencement of the start of v ehicle production” is needed to align with the proposed deadline in subsection (l)(2.1).

Subsection (k)(7) The purpose of this ne w proposed subsection is to describe the exceptions to the fine r equirements for PM filter and PM sensor-related monitor deficiencies. The proposed cha nge to allow for “free deficiencie s” for specific PM filter

and PM sensor monitors is needed to account for the fact that PM sensors are a new technology and manufacturers that use them in the early years may have difficulty developing robust monitors to meet the requirements in the current regulation.

Subsection (k)(8) The purpose of this ne w proposed subsection is to describe the carry-over allowances and the exceptions to the fine requirement s for hybrid vehicle deficiencies. The propos ed allowances and exceptions are needed to provide

relaxation to manufacturers and allow them to certify their hybrid vehicles to the HD OBD requirements in the initial years.

Subsection (k)(9) The purpose of this ne w proposed subsection is to indicate that OBD systems that fail to meet the requirements of sect ion 1971.1 and have not been granted deficiencies pursuant to subsecti on (k) are considered non-compliant and subject to enforcement. This language is alr eady implied but its inclusion is necessary

to make it clear to manufacturers.

Subsection (l)(1) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to perform verification testing of the standardized requi rements. The pr oposed change in subsection (l)(1.1) is needed to make clear that the testing is to be done on production engines. The proposed change in (l)(1.4.3)(B) is needed for formatting reasons, since the original requirement in subsection (h)(4 .1.3) is now in (h)(4.1.6). The proposed change in subsection (h)(4.1.3)(E) to include MIL command status is needed to ensure the correct information is being made availa ble, and the proposed change to require this information from each diagnostic and em ission critical electronic powertrain control

unit is needed for better assurance that t he OBD system as a whole is working as78 certified. Finally, the proposed changes to subsection (l)(1.5.1), which would require manufacturers to submit the test results (i.e ., the test log file), is needed since this is important data for staff in determini ng if the system is working correctly.

Subsection (l)(2.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to perform testing to verify the monitoring r equirements within a certain timeline. The proposed change to extend the d eadline of “three months a fter the start of vehicle production” to “six months after the star t of vehicle producti on” is needed to allow

manufacturers more time to cond uct this testing, since they indicated it was difficult to procure the vehicles within the current required timeline.

Subsection (l)(2.3.4 ) The proposed change of “emission standard” to “emission threshold malfunction criteria (e.g., 2.0 ti mes the standard)” is needed to correct an

error.

Subsection (l)(2.3.6) The purpose of this su bsection is to allow manufacturers to be exempt from testing specific diagnostics if certain conditions are met. The proposed allowance to exempt testing on monitors where demonstration may jeopardize the safety of the tester is needed to ensure the safety of the indivi duals conducting the testing.

Subsection (l)(3.4) The purpose of this subs ection is to require manufacturers to submit specific information related to thei r in-use monitor performance testing. The proposed changes are needed to make the requir ed information consistent with what is required in ARB Mail-Out #MSC 09-22.

Proposed amendments to Cal. Code R egs., title 13, section 1968.2:

Subsection (a) Th e “Purpose” clause of the r egulation has been amended to reaffirm and clarify the objec tives of the regulation cons istent with the longstanding expressed intent when the regulation was first adopted and subsequently amended.

Subsection (c) “Alternate phase-in” T he proposed change to the definition is

needed since the definition stat es the percentages described in the phase-in schedules are to be based on the manufacturer’s project ed sales volume of “all vehicles”, while some phase-in schedules described in section (e) and (f) specifically indicate that the percentages are not based on all vehicles (e.g., based on only diesel vehicles).

Subsection (c) “Emission standard” The addition of this definition is needed to clarify that the OBD regulatio ns include emission standards. The definition revises the definition set forth at Health and Safety Code section 39028 consistent with the express

authorization of the Board to make such a re vision in Health and Safety Code sections

39010 and 39601.79 Subsection (c) “Evaporative emission standa rds” The new proposed definition is needed to identify a subcategory of the new definition of emissi on standard that had previously been identified mere ly as an emission standard.

Subsection (c) “Exhaust emission standards ” or “tailpipe emission standards” The new proposed definition is needed to identi fy a subcategory of the new definition of emission standard that had prev iously been identified merely as an emission standard.

Subsection (d)(3.2.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to indicate which monitors are required to meet a minimum in-use per formance ratio of 0.100. The proposed change to subsection (d)(3.2.1)(D) of “introductory years” to “interim years” since the new proposed subsection (d)(3.2.1)(D)(vi) does not apply to “introduc tory years.” The new proposed subsection (d)(3.2.1)(D)(vi) re quiring a minimum ratio of 0.100 for PM

filter monitors on 2015 thr ough 2018 model year medium-dut y vehicles is needed to

allow interim relaxation for these monitors , which would be required to start using the more frequently incremented gener al denominator starting in the 2015 model year (as required in subsection (d)(4.3.2 )(G)) and thus may result in lower ratios and require the manufacturer to gain some experience bef ore being held to a higher ratio.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(F) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the specifications for increm enting the denominator for co mponents that are “commanded” to function. The proposed change to delet e “output” from “output components” is needed since some of the component monitors listed under this section are not output components. The proposed addition of the PM filter active/int rusive injection monitor to this section is needed since the previously required denominator in crementing criteria applied to this monitor were not appropriate . Additionally, the proposed changes to allow 2013 through 2015 model year vehicles to use the previously required

denominator criteria for the PM filter active/intrusive injection monitor and the PM

sensor heater monitor are needed to allow lead time for manuf acturers to meet the new requirement.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(G) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the specifications for increment ing the denominator for component s or emission controls that experience infrequent regeneration events. The proposed change to limit application of this requirem ent to the 2004 through 2015 model year for the PM filter filtering performance monitors and the PM filter missing subs trate monitors to is needed considering the importance of the PM filt er, which controls emissions throughout the driving cycle, not ju st every 500 miles.

Subsection (d)(4.3.2)(I) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the specifications for increment ing the denominator for some monitors based on whether or not a regeneration event occurs. The proposed deletion of “PM filter active/intrusive injection” is needed since this monitor was moved to subsection (d)(4.3.2)(F).

Subsection (e)(6.1.1) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the general requirement for diesel fuel system monitori ng. The proposed change of “emission80 standard” to “applicable standard” is needed si nce “applicable standard” is the more appropriate term to use.

Subsection (f)(1.2.3)(B) The purpose of this subsection is to require manufacturers to monitor the NMHC converting catalyst for proper f eedgas generation. The proposed language allowing manufacturers to be exempt from this monitoring requirement if certain conditions are met is needed to allow manufacturers relaxation in meeting this requirement based on their concerns.

Subsection (f)(2.2.2)(A)(i) The purpose of this subsection is to require

manufacturers to monitor the NOx converti ng catalyst conversion efficiency. The proposed changes to allow higher interim emission thresholds for 2013 through 2015 model year vehicles in new proposed subsection (f)(2.2.2)(A)(ii)c. and to delay the final, stringent emission thresholds to 2016 in subs ection (f)(2.2.2)(A)(ii)d. are needed to

address manufacturers’ concerns about m eeting the requirements and to allow

manufacturers more time to m eet the final thresholds.

Subsection (f)(3.1.1) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the general requirement for diesel misfire monitoring. The proposed deletion of “causing excess emissions” from “misfire causing exce ss emissions” is needed since the proposed changes to the diesel misfire monitoring for medium-duty vehicles now involve detection of faults when the percentage of misfire exceeds a certain level, not when a specific

emission threshold is exceeded.

Subsection (f)(3.2.2) The purpose of this subsection is to require manufacturers to monitor for misfire on diesel engines. The proposed change to require all diesel engines to meet subsection (f)(3 .2.2) with a phase-in starting in the 2016 model year is needed since the current requirement to monito r for misfire only at idle will not detect misfire faults that occur only during other engine speed and load conditions. The proposed change to require misfire detection w hen the percentage of misfire exceeds 5 percent instead of when specific emission thresholds are exceeded in subsection (f)(3.2.2)(A)(ii) is needed to address manufac turers’ concerns about difficulties in establishing a correlation between a specif ic misfire level and a tailpipe emission threshold. The proposed change to subsec tion (f)(3.2.3) is needed for formatting reasons, since the malfunction cr iteria originally in subsection (f)(3.2.2)(B) is now in subsection (f)(3.2.2). The pr oposed new subsection (f)(3.2.5) to allow manufacturers to detect misfire at a higher percentage than the required 5 percent if specific emission levels are not exceeded is needed to provide relaxation to manufac turers should their system be abnormally robust to an emi ssion increase due to misfire.

Subsection (f)(3.3.1) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the conditions under which diesel misfire monitoring s hall occur. The proposed changes are needed to avoid confusion by indicating that t he monitoring conditions under this subsection apply to misfires identifi ed in section (f)(3.2.1).81 Subsection (f)(3.3.3) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the conditions under which diesel misfire monitoring shal l occur. The proposed change to require

monitors for misfires identifi ed in section (f)(3.2.2) to m eet subsection (f)(3.3.3) is needed for clarity. The proposed changes to the required monitoring conditions in subsection (f)(3.3.3)(B) are needed to addre ss manufacturers’ concerns about the extent to which they can monitor for misf ire on diesel engines given the wide range of medium-duty applications that exist up to the 2018 model year, while the proposed requirement to continuously monitor for mi sfire under all positiv e torque engine speed and load conditions with a phase-in starting in the 2019 model year in subsection (f)(3.3.3)(B)(ii) is needed to ensure misfir es that occur during the higher operating ranges are detected. Lastl y, the proposed change in subsection (f)(3.3.3)(C) is needed

to allow manufacturers to disable misfire monitoring under conditions in which robust

detection of misfires is at iss ue to prevent misdetections.

Subsection (f)(3.4.2) The proposed change of s ubsection (f)(3.2.2)(B ) to (f)(3.2.2) is needed for formatting reasons.

Subsection (f)(4.1) The purpose of this su bsection is to indicate the general requirement for gasoline fuel system moni toring. The proposed change of “emission standard” to “applicable standard” is needed si nce “applicable standard” is the more appropriate term to use.

Subsection (f)(5.2.2)(A)(ii) The purpose of this subsection is to require

manufacturers to monitor the NOx sensor performance. The pr oposed changes to allow higher interim emission thresholds for 2013 through 2015 model year vehicles in new proposed subsection (f)(5.2.2)(A)(ii)c. and to delay the final, stringent emission thresholds to 2016 in subsection (f)(2.2.2) (A)(ii)d. are needed to address manufacturers’ concerns about meeting the r equirements and to allow manufacturers more time to

meet the final thresholds.

Subsection (f)(5.3.1) The purpose of this subsection is to indicate the conditions under which NOx sensor monitoring shall oc cur. The proposed addition of section (f)(5.2.2)(D), for sensor m onitoring capability monitors, to subsection (f)(5.3.1)(A) is

needed since this monitor has been determined to be important based on reviews of manufacturers’ OBD systems, so there should be assurance t hat the in-use monitoring performance data of this monitor is tracked a nd reported starting in the 2016 model year for medium-duty vehicles. The proposed de letion of section (f)(5.2.2)(D) from subsection (f)(5.3.1)(B) is needed since th is subsection was moved to subsection (f)(5.3.1)(A) as prev iously described.

Subsection (f)(9.2.1) The purpos e of this subsection is to require manufacturers to

monitor the PM filter filter ing performance. The proposed changes to allow exclusion of specific failure modes for 2014 through 2015 model year engines in subsection (f)(9.2.1)(A)(ii)c. and subsection (f)(9.2.1 )(A)(iii) are needed to address manufacturers’ concerns about meeting the requi rements, given the delay of the availability of PM sensors. The new proposed subsecti on (f)(9.2.1)(A)(iv) is needed to prohibit82 manufacturers from using an alternate phas e-in schedule instead of the required phasein schedule proposed in subsection (f)(9.2.1)(A)(iii).

Subsection (f)(9.2.4 ) The purpose of this subsection is to require manufacturers to monitor the catalyzed PM filter. The propos ed language allowing manufacturers to be exempt from monitoring the NMHC conversion c apability if certain c onditions are met is

needed to allow manufacturers relaxation in meeting this requirement based on their

concerns.

Subsection (f)(15.2.2)(F) The purpose of this subsection is to require

manufacturers to monitor the fuel contro l system components for proper compensation. The new proposed subsection (f)(15.2.2)(F)(ii) allowing manufacturers to be exempt from this monitoring requirement if cert ain conditions are met is needed to allow manufacturers relaxation in meeting th is requirement based on their concerns.

Subsection (f)(17.1) The purpose of this su bsection is to allow manufacturers to revise the required malfunction criteria if certain conditions are met. The proposed change of the phrase “prevent significant errors of commission in detecting a malfunction” to “prevent false indications of a malfunction” is needed for clarify and to avoid confusion. The proposed extension of the allowance for manufacturers to exclude detection of specific failure modes for PM f ilter monitoring is needed to recognize one of the issues with monitoring strategies that do not use a PM sensor and to allow manufacturers to certify the OBD II systems on their medium-duty ve hicles up to the 2015 model year.

Subsection (f)(17.1.5) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the monitoring requirements and malfunction criteria for medi um-duty diesel vehicles certified to a chassis-dynamometer tailpipe emission stan dard. The proposed change to limit this subsection to the 2004 through 2015 model y ears is needed since new requirements for 2016 and subsequent model year vehicles are being proposed in new subsection (f)(17.1.6).

Subsection (f)(17.1.6) The purpose of this new proposed subsection is to describe the monitoring requirements and malfunction criteria for 2016 and subsequent model year medium-duty diesel vehicles certifi ed to a chassis-dynamometer tailpipe emission

standard. This subsection is needed to give clear direction to medium-duty manufacturers about what they are required to meet for these vehicles and to eliminate the requirement for manufacturers to individ ually propose chassis-based thresholds and seek Executive Officer approval.

Subsection (f)(17.2.2) The purpose of this su bsection is to allow manufacturers to use an alternate phase-in schedule, in accor dance with the definition in subsection (c), in lieu of the required phase-in schedule. The proposed language to meet this language except for what is described for the PM filt er monitor in section (f)(9.2.1)(A) is needed since this section specifically prohibits m anufacturers from using an alternate phase-in plan for the PM filter monitor.83 Subsection (f)(17.2.3) The purpose of this subsection is to allow small volume manufacturers to use a different implementat ion schedule in lieu of the required phasein schedule. The proposed additional langu age is needed to clarify the acceptable phase-in schedule small volume manufacturers can use in lieu of the required phase-in

schedule for the diesel PM filter monitor.

Subsection (h)(4.3) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the demonstration testing requirements for diesel misfire monitoring. The proposed change to this subsection is needed to specifically require demonstration testing only for those

vehicles with misfire monitors calibrated to an emission malfunction threshold (i.e., those meeting section (f)(3.2.2)(A)(i)).

Subsection (i)(1.1) The purpose of this subs ection is to describe the certification documentation requirements. The proposed addition of “exhaust” to “emission

standard” is needed since “exhaust emission standar d” is the more appr opriate term to

use.

Subsection (i)(2.5) The purpose of this su bsection is to describe the misfire monitor information required to be submitted as part of the certificat ion application. The proposed change to separate the original lan guage into different parts in subsection (i)(2.5.1)(A) through (D) is needed for bet ter readability. The proposed change to subsection (i)(2.5.1)(D) is needed for fo rmatting reasons to account for the change described above. The new proposed subsection (i)(2.5.2) for manufa cturers to provide

diesel misfire monitor data is needed to s upport the new diesel misfire monitoring requirements being proposed in subsection (f)(3 ) and to ensure that the diesel misfire monitor is robust in detecting misfires.

Subsection (j)(2.3.4) The purpose of th is subsection is to describe the requirements for verification testing of moni toring requirements. The proposed change

of “emission standard” to “malfunction th reshold (e.g., 1.5 ti mes the applicable standards)” is needed to correct an error.

Proposed amendments to Cal. Code R egs., title 13, section 1971.5:

Subsection (a)(3) “OBD Emi ssion Testing” The proposed change to add a “d” to

“measure” in this definition is needed to correct a grammatical error.

Subsection (b)(3)(C)(i) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the protocol for procuring engines for a test group sample. The proposed deletion in this subsection is needed to correct an error, since the deleted language was mistakenly taken from the OBD II enforcement regulation and not appropriate for the HD OBD enforcement regulation.84 Subsection (b)(3)(D)(ii)b. The purpose of this subsection is to describe the criteria for which engines ar e to be included in a test sample group for OBD ratio testing. The proposed changes to subsection (b)(3)(D)(ii)b.3. are needed to ensure less difficulty in procuring applicable engi nes, since the engine would have needed to accumulate a very high mileage before the denom inators for the diesel PM filter, PM sensor, and NMHC converting catalyst monitors specified were acceptable for inclusion in the test sample group with the or iginal language. The proposed change to subsection (b)(3)(D)(ii)b.4. is needed to make clear what monitors are required to have denominators meeting the value in this s ubsection versus the value in subsection (b)(3)(D)(ii)b.3.

Subsection (b)(6)(A) The purpose of this subs ection is to describe the criteria for determining nonconformance for OBD emission testing. The proposed deletions of “on the applicable standard (i.e., FTP or SET)” is needed to correct wording errors. The proposed changes in subsection (b)(6)(A)(iii) of reference to section 1971.1(e)(8.2.1)(C) to section 1971.1(e)(8.2.1)(D) and (E) ar e needed for formatting reasons based on the proposed changes to section 1971.1. The proposed changes in subsections (b)(6)(A)(iii) and (b)(6)(A)(iv) of “eithe r” to “any” are needed for clarity.

Subsection (b)(6)(B) The purpose of this subs ection is to describe the criteria for determining nonconformance for OBD ratio te sting. The proposed changes related to PM filter filtering performance and missing substrate mo nitors for the 2016 through 2018 model years are needed to allow some rela xation during these model years based on the proposed changes made to s ubsection 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(G).

Subsection (b)(6)(C)(ii)b. The proposed c hange to this subsection is needed for formatting reasons based on the pr oposed changes to section 1971.1.

Subsection (d)(3)(A)(i) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the mandatory recall criteria for OBD ratio testing. The proposed addition of “and subject to the nonconformance criteria on section (b)(6(B)( ii)” is needed to allow 2016 through 2018 model year PM filter filter ing performance and missing substrate monitors to be exempt from mandatory recall and to allow some re laxation during these model years based on the proposed changes made to s ubsection 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(G).

Subsection (d)(3)(A)(ii)b.2. The proposed change to this subsection is needed for formatting reasons based on the pr oposed changes to section 1971.1.

Subsection (d)(3)(A)(iii) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the mandatory recall criteria fo r misfire monitors. The new proposed subsection (d)(3)(A)(iii)b. is needed to account for the proposed changes made to the diesel misfire monitor requirements in section 1971.1(e)(2).

Subsection (d)(3)(A)(vi) The purpose of th is new proposed subsection is to describe additional mandatory recall criteria for the PM filter m onitor. This subsection is

needed to ensure that monitors unable to detect PM filter missing substrate faults that85 do not fall under the mandatory re call criteria in subsection (d)(3)(A)(ii) would still be subject to mandatory recalls.

Subsection (d)(3)(A)(vii) The propos ed change from (d)(3)(A)(vi) to (d)(3)(A)(vii) is needed for formatting reasons.

Proposed amendments to Cal. Code R egs., title 13, section 1968.5:

Subsection (b)(3)(D)(ii)b. The purpose of this subsection is to describe the criteria for which engines are to be included in a test sa mple group for OBD II ratio testing. The proposed changes to subsection (b)(3)(D)(ii)b.2. is needed to ensure less difficulty in procuring applicable engi nes, since the engine would have needed to accumulate a very high mileage before the denom inators for the diesel PM filter, PM sensor, and NMHC converting catalyst monitors specified were acceptable for inclusion in the test sample group with the orig inal language. The proposed changes to subsection (b)(3)(D)(ii)b.1. and 3. are needed make clear what monitors are required to have denominators meeting the value in th ese subsections versus the value in subsection (b)(3)(D)(ii)b.2.

Subsection (b)(6)(A)(ii) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the criteria for determining nonconformance for OBD II emission testing of the intermediate diesel thresholds. The new proposed subsecti ons (b)(6)(A)(ii)d. and e. are needed to

account for the new interim thresholds bei ng proposed for the NOx converting catalyst

monitor and PM filter monitor in sections 1968.2(f )(2) and (f)(9).

Subsection (b)(6)(A)(iii) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the criteria for determining nonconf ormance for OBD II emission te sting of the final diesel thresholds. The proposed change to this subsection is needed to account for the changes being proposed for subsection (b)(6)(A)(ii) above.

Subsection (b)(6)(B)(i)a. The purpose of this subsection is to describe the criteria for determining nonconfo rmance for OBD II ratio testing of monitors certified to a ratio of 0.100. The proposed change of 2016 to 2018 is needed to account for the proposed addition of section 1968.2(d)(3.2.1)(D )(vi), which allows a minimum ratio of

0.100 for PM filter filteri ng performance and missing substrate monitors on 2016 through 2018 model year medium-duty vehicles.

Subsection (c)(3)(A)(i) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the mandatory recall criteria for OBD II ratio testing. T he proposed change of 2016 through 2018 is needed to account for the proposed addition of section 1968. 2(d)(3.2.1)(D)(vi),

which allows a minimum ratio of 0.100 for PM filter filtering performance and missing substrate monitors on 2016 through 2018 m odel year medium-duty vehicles.

Subsection (c)(3)(A)(ii) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the mandatory recall criteria for OB D II emission testing. Th e proposed change to allow the PM filter filtering performance monitor (section 1968.2(f )(9.2.1)) to be exempt from86 mandatory recall for 2013 model y ear medium-duty vehicles is needed to provide some

relaxation to manufacturers and to ensure manuf acturers are able to certify their OBD II system for the 2013 model year.

Subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) The purpose of this subsection is to describe the mandatory recall criteria fo r misfire monitors. The new proposed subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii)b. is needed to account for the proposed changes made to the diesel misfire monitor requirements in section 1968.2(f)(3).

Subsection (c)(3)(A)(vi) The purpose of this new proposed subsection is to describe additional mandatory recall criteria for the PM filter m onitor. This subsection is

needed to ensure that monitors unable to detect PM filter missing substrate faults that do not fall under the mandatory re call criteria in subsection (c)(3)(A)(ii) would still be subject to mandatory recalls.

Subsection (c)(3)(A)(vii) The pr oposed change from (c)(3)(A)(vi) to (c)(3)(A)(vii) is needed for formatting reasons.87 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Below is a list of documents newly incorporat ed by reference in the HD OBD regulation.

1) ARB Mail-Out #MSC 09-22, “Guidelines for Heavy-Duty On-Board Diagnostic (HD OBD) Certification Data,” July 7, 2009.

2) International Standards Organization (I SO) 15765-4:“Road Vehicles – Diagnostics

Communications over Controller Area Networ k (CAN) – Part 4: Requirements for emission-related systems,” February 2011.

3) Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1699-3 – “Vehicle OBD II Compliance Test Cases”, December 2009.

4) SAE J1930-DA “Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms Web Tool Spreadsheet”, March 2012.

5) SAE J1979 "E/E Diagnostic Test Modes," February 2012.

6) SAE J1979-DA “Digital Annex of E/E Diagnostic Test Modes”, October 2011.

7) SAE J2012-DA “Digital Annex of Diag nostic Trouble Code Definitions and Failure Type Byte Definitions”, July 2010.

8) SAE J2403 “Medium/Heavy-Duty E/E Syst ems Diagnosis Nomenclature,” February

2011.

9) SAE J1939 Recommended Practice for a Serial Control and Communications Vehicle Network, April 2011.

10) SAE J1939/01 On-Highway Equipment C ontrol and Communication Network, May

2011.

11) SAE J1939/13 Off-Board Diagnostic Connector, October 2011.

12) SAE J1939/21 Data Link Layer, December 2010.

13) SAE J1939/31 Network Layer, May 2010.

14) SAE J1939/71 Vehicle Application Layer (Through May 2010), March 2011.

15) SAE J1939/73 Application Layer—Diagnostics, February 2010.

16) SAE J1939/81 Network Management, June 2011.

17) SAE J1939/84 OBD Communications Compliance Test Cases For Heavy Duty Components and Vehicles, December 2010.88 REFERENCES

Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR): “Malf unction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model Y ear Heavy-Duty Engines (HD OBD),” June 3, 2005

Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR): “Techni cal Status and Revisions to Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirem ents for Heavy-Duty Engines (HD OBD) and Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II),” April 10, 2009