p. 1

- 1 

# OAR Box 1190 Prepped by Candice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 47 ) ll-A-3 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:51 AM

Sheet 47 of 106! 

## fi. . V ' P. 2

Stat e o f Californi a Ai r Resource s Boar

d 

# § U O l i g 

## I S 1 1 f 

## f i AU G I 5199 5 EP A AI R DOCKE T Fina l Statemen

t o f Reason s fo

r Rulemaking Includin g Summar y o f Comments an

d Agenc y Respons e PUBLI C HEARIN

G T O CONSIDE

R TECHNICA

L STATUS AN

D PROPOSE

D REVISION S T O MALFUNCTIO N AN D DIAGNOSTI

C SYSTE M REQUIREMENT S FOR 199 4 MODEL-YEA

R PASSENGE

R CARS , LIGHT-DUT

Y TRUCKS , AN

D MEDIUM

DUT Y VEHICLE S AND ENGINE S (OB D II ) Considered : Agend aItemNo : December

8 , 199 4 94-12- 2 I . GENERA

L Th e "Staf f Report : Initia

l Statemen t o f Reason s fo

r th e Propose d Rulemaking : ("Staf f Report") , release d Octobe r 21 , 1994 , i s incorporate d herein b y reference . I n thi s rulemaking , th e staf f proposed anumbe

r o f modification s t

o it s regulation s establishin g on-boar

d diagnosti c syste

mrequirement s fo

r 199 4 an d late r model yea

r passenge r vehicles , light-dut

y trucks , an

d medium-dut

y vehicle s an

d engine s (OB D II) , Titl e 13 , Californi aCod e o f Regulation s (CCR) , Sectio n 1968.1 . Thes e amendment s addres s manufacture

r concern s relate d t

o th e implementation o

f OB D I I systems . Thes e amendment s includ e near-ter

mrelie f fro mbot h th e catalys t monitoring requirement s fo r low-emissio n vehicles , an

d th e requirement s fo

r enhance d misfir e detection . Regardin g th e latte r requirements , the amendment s provide som e additiona

l leadtime fo

r complianc e an d restric t th e regio n o

f engin e operatio n fo

r whic h misfir e detection i s required . Th e amendment s als o provid e manufacturer s wit h additiona

l leadtim e fo r complianc e wit

h th e OB D I I requirement s fo r alternativ e fue

l vehicle s an

d additiona

l flexibilit y i n certifying OB D I I system s wit h on e o r more deficiencies . Th e staf f als o propose d amendment s intended t o increas e th e effectivenes s o f OB D I I systems . First , i t

propose d a

n amendmen

t tha t woul d require th e phase-in o f

evaporativ e syste mlea k detectio n strategie s capable o f detecting leak s equivalen

t i n magnitud e to a0.02 0 inch diamete

r hole . Th e propose d phase-in woul d exten d fro mth e 199 8 mode l yea

r t o the 200 0 model year . Second , i t propose d to strengthe

n the tampe

r resistanc e requirement s to better ensur e tha t th e integrit

y o f OBD I I system s i s maintained in-use . Finally , th e amendment s provide manufacturer s wit h additiona

l leadtime to develop full y complian

t OB D I I system s fo

r vehicle s usin

g alternat e fuels . Fo r

purpos e o

f consistency , the AR

B als o amende

d Titl e 13 , CCR , Section s 203 0 an d 203 1 and th eP. 3

certificatio n procedure s fo

r alternat e fue l retrofi t system s whic

h ar e incorporate d b y referenc e therein . Th e amendment s provid e manufacturer s wit h simila r leadtim e t o compl y wit h th e OB D performanc e requirements . Followin g apubli c hearin g o n Decembe

r 8 , 1994 , i

n which extensiv e testimon y fro m manufacturer s an

d othe r intereste d partie s wa s considered , th e Air Resource s Boar

d (AR B o r Board) , b y Resolution 94-67 , approved th e amendments , wit h modifications , fo

r adoption . Th e modification s to th e amendment s were mad e availabl e to th e publi c betwee n Januar y 19 , 1995 , an d Februar y 3 , 199 5 a s par

t o f a"Notic e o

f Availabilit

y o f Modified Text " (Notice) , acop y o f whic h i s incorporate d by referenc e herei n an d enclose d a s par

t o f th e rulemakin g recor d tha t ha s bee n submitted . The AR

B maile d acop y o f th e Notic e t

o eac h perso n describe d i

n subsection (a

) through (d) , inclusiv e o f

Section 44 , Tid e 1 , Californi aCod e o f Regulations , o

n Januar y 19 , 1995 . A s se

t fort h i n th e Notic e th e AR

B modified : Section (b)(1.2.2 ) wa s modifie d t o reduc e th e 199 8 an

d 199 9 mode

l yea r phase-i n percentage s fo

r th e lo w emissio n vehicl e catalys t monitorin g requirements . Th e staf f ha d originall y proposed tha

t manufacturer s b e require d t o certif y 4 0 percent

o f it s lo w emission vehicl e application s t

o th e 1. 5 time s th e standar d emission threshol d fo

r th e 199 8 model year , 60 percent fo r th e 199 9 model year , an

d 10 0 percent i n th e 200 0 mode

l year . I n respons e t

o comment s fro

mindustry , th e AR

B modifie d th e phase-in percentage s fo r th e 199 8 and 1999 model year s t

o 3 0 an d 6 0 percent

respectively . Section (b)(4.2.2 ) wa s modifie d t o dela y implementatio n fo

r the phase-i n o

f evaporativ e syste

mlea k detectio n strategie s capabl e o f detectin g leak s as small a s th e equivalen t o f a0.02 0 inch diamete

r hole . A s propose d by th e AR B staff , th e more stringen

t requirement

was t o b e phased-i n beginnin g wit h th e 199 8 mode

l year . A s modified , section (b)(4.2.2 ) delay s initia

l introductio n o

f suc h system s fro

mth e 199 8 mode

l yea r to th e 200 0 model year . Th e projecte d sale s volum e phase-i n percentage s would b e 5 0 percen t wit h th e 200 0 mode

l year , 7 5 percen t

fo r 2001 , an d 10 0 percent fo r th e 200 2 mode

l year . Small volume manufacturer s woul d not b e require d to mee

t th e 200 0 an

d 200 1 model yea

r phase-in percentages . Section (b)(10 ) wa s modifie d t o require illuminatio n o

f th e Malfunction Indicato r Light (MIL) onl

y fo r affecte d component s an

d system s tha

t ar e capabl e o

f causin g emission s t o increas e by mor

e tha n 1 5 percent

o f th e FT P standard . Sectio n (b)(10.4 ) wa s modified t o eliminat e the nee d fo r manufacturers , i

n most instances , t

o illuminat

e th e MIL fo

r thos e component s not

capabl e o f

causing suc

h a n emission s increase . Fo r suc h components , manufacturer s woul

d onl y b e require d t

o stor e afaul t code . However , if

suc h a n electroni c componen t or syste mi s use d a s par

t o f th e diagnosti c strateg y t

o satisf y anothe r monitorin g requirement , manufacturer s woul d stil l b e require d to hav e th e MIL illuminated . Thi s exceptio n would ensur

e tha t vehicl e operator s ar

e alerte d t o malfunction s tha

t ma y potentially impair th e functionin

g o f th e OB D I I system . Section (a)(2.2 ) wa s modifie d t o require tha

t th e readines s cod

e b e cleare d (i.e. , allP. 4

bit s set t o "tes t no t complete" ) while the powe r take-of f (PTO ) unit

i s active , bu t

that , onc e th e PT O unit

i s de-activated , the readines s cod e ca n b e restore d t

o th e stat e tha t existe d prio r t o activation . Sectio n (b)(1.1.2 ) wa s modifie d t o allo w manufacturer s o

f spark-ignite d lean-bur

n engine s to reques t

Executiv e Office

r approva l fo r exemption fro

mth e OB D I I catalys t monitorin g requirement s i f th e manufacture

r ca n demonstrat

e tha t technolog y i s no t

availabl e tha t woul d allo w fo

r reliabl e monitoring o

f th e catalys t

system . Sectio n (b)(1.2.1 ) wa s modifie d t o clarif y tha t i n instance s whe

n th e malfunctio n criteri aar e base

d o n th e applicabl e emissio

n standards , th e certificatio n reactivit y adjustmen

t facto r would b e applie d t o hydrocarbon emission s o n lo w emissio n vehicl e applications . Sectio n (b)(3.2)(B ) wa s modifie d t o remov e a

n unnecessar

y restrictio n on th e establishmen

t o f th e malfunction criteri afo r misfir e monitoring . Wit

h th e modification , manufacturer s would b e permitted , bu t not required , t

o us e th e datafro

masingl e durabilit

y demonstratio n vehicl e fo

r al l engine s tha

t hav e the sam

e numbe r o f cylinder s a s th e demonstratio n vehicle . Th e titl e fo

r sectio n (g) , an

d section (g)(1.0 ) itself

wer e t o furthe r clarif y tha t th e demonstratio n requirement s d o no t appl y solel y to engin e familie s fo

r which aDurabilit

y Demonstratio n Vehicl e (DDV ) i s available . Similarly , i n sectio n (g)(4.5 ) th e ter

m"DDV " wa s replace d by "vehicle. " Sectio n (g)(2.6.1 ) wa s modifie d t o clarif y th e catalys t

monitorin g demonstratio n requirement s fo

r non-lo w emission vehicles . Consisten t wit h th e monitorin g requirement s fo r suc h vehicles , th e modificatio n make s clea r tha t th e baselin e emissio n tes t

i s to b e conducte d wit h arepresentativ e 400 0 mil e catalys t system . Sectio n (g)(3.0 ) wa s modifie d t o furthe r clarif y tha t fo r successfu l completio n o f

OB D I I demonstrations , manufacturer s shal l no t requir e th e demonstratio n vehicl e t o b e col d soaked prio r

t o runnin g preconditionin g cycles . Sectio n (m)(5.1 ) wa s modifie d t o clarif y tha t th e implementatio n requirement s specifie d i n th e sectio n apply t

o alternat e fue l engine s as wel l a s vehicles . Th e AR B issue d asecon

d Notic e o f Availabilit

y o f Modified Text

an d Supportin g Document s an

d Informatio n o

n April 3 , 199 5 an

d wa s availabl e fo

r publi c comment

through Apri l 18 , 1995 . I n th e second notice , th e AR B notifie d th e publi c abou

t additonal document s an d informatio n tha

t th e AR B relie d upo

n in adopting th e subjec t

amendments . Th e secon

d notic e als o modifie

d sectio n 1968.1(k)(5.0 ) o f th e regulation s to correc t

a n inadverten t referenc e t

o Draf t SA E Practic e J1939 , "Seria

l Contro l an

d Communication s Vehicl e Network, " Januar

y 1994 .P. 5

Pursuan t t o Governmen

t Cod e section 11346.9 , the AR

B ha s determine d tha

t thi s regulator y actio n doe s no t

impos e amandat

e o n loca l agencie s o r

schoo l districts . Titl e 13 , CCR , sectio n 1968. 1 incorporate s b y referenc e severa l Societ y o f Automotiv e Enginee

r (SAE) an d Internationa

l Standard s Organizatio n (ISO ) recommende d practice s an

d documents . Mos t

o f thes e document s wer

e include d in th e regulation s a s the y existe d prio r

t o thi s rulemakin g an

d severa l hav e bee n updated by thes e amendments . Th e SA E an d IS O document s tha

t ar e incorporate d by referenc e i n th e regulation s include : SA E Recommended Practic e J1930 , "Electrical/Electroni c System s Diagnosti c Terms , Definitions , Abbreviations , an d Acronyms, " Jun e 1993 ; SA E J193 9 Committe e Draf

t "Recommende

d Practic e fo

r aSeria l Controlle d Communication s Vehicl e Network, " Januar y 1994 ; SA E Recommended Practic e J1962 , "Diagnosti c Connector, " Jun e 1992 ; SA E Recommende d Practic e J1978 , "OB D I I Sca n Tool, " Jun e 1994 ; SA E Recommende d Practic e J1979 , "E/ E Diagnosti c Tes t

Modes, " Jun e 1994 ; SA E Recommende d Practic e J1850 , "Clas s B DataCommunication s Networ k Interface, " Ma

y 1994 ; SA E Recommended Practic e J2012 , "Diagnosti c Troubl e Cod e Definitions, " Januar

y 1994 ; IS O 9141-2,"Road Vehicle s - Diagnosti c System s - CAR B Requirement s fo

r Interchang e o

f Digital Information, " Februar y 1994 . Existin g administrativ e practic e o f the AR B ha s bee n t o hav e technica

l recommende d practices , suc

h a s th e SA

E documents , an

d tes t procedure s o

f th e typ e foun

d in Titl e 13 , CCR , section 2030-203 1 incorporate d by referenc e rathe r tha n printe d i n th e CCR . Thes e procedure s are highl

y complex an

d technica l documents . The

y include "nut s an

d bolts " engineerin g protocol s and hav e aver y limite d audience . Becaus e th e AR B ha s neve r

printe d SA E document s or

tes t procedure s i

n th e CCR , th e affecte

d publi c i s accustome d to th e incorporatio n forma

t utilize d in section s 1968. 1 an d 2030-2031 . SAE , ISO , an d AR B tes t procedure s ar

e extensiv e an

d comple x procedure s wit

h alimite d audience . Moreover , printin g portion s o

f th e document s i

n th e CC R whe n th e bul k o f th e procedure s ar e incorporate d b

y referenc e woul d b e unnecessaril y confusin g to . th e affecte

d public . I n the Notic e o

f Propose d Rulemaking , Mail-out #94-38 , pursuan

t t o forme r Governmen

t Cod e sectio n 11346.5 3 (no

w section 11346.5) , th e AR B declare d tha

t th e propose d regulation s ma

y hav e a n advers e economi c impac t o n Californi abusinesse s engaged in th e manufactur

e o f aftermarket

parts . Accordingly , i t

solicite d propose d alternative s fro m intereste d partie s tha

t woul d lesse

n an y advers e economi c impac t upo n suc h businesses . T o date , th e industr

y ha s suggeste d n

o alternative s othe

r tha n deletin g th e tampe

r resistanc e requirement s tha

t hav e bee n proposed . A s discussed in th e summar y o f comment s and Agency Response s below , th e AR B ha s not foun d tha t suggestio n t

o hav e merit . Th e AR

B continue s t

o believ e tha

t th e OB D I I system s ar

e avita l par t o f the State' s pla

n to achiev e significan t emission reduction s fro

mon-roa d moto r vehicle s an

d tha t the potentia

l fo rP. 6

tamperin g i s great , wit

h th e consequenc e tha

t th e OB D I I progra

mwould b e undermined . Thus , th e AR

B ha s no t foun d th e suggeste d alternativ e t

o b e mor e effective i

n carryin g ou

t th e purpose s fo

r whic h th e regulation s wer

e propose d or

which would b e a s effectiv e an d les s burdensom

e t o affecte d privat e person s o r

t o smal l busines s tha

n th e adopted regulation s an d procedure s an

d procedures . . II . SUMMAR

Y O F COMMENT S AN

D AGENC

Y RESPONSE S Prio r t o th e publi c hearin g o

n Decembe

r 8 , 1994 , writte n comment s wer e receive d from : America

n Automobil e Manufacturer s Association (AAMA) , Automotiv e Part s an d Accessorie s Association , Inc . (APAA) , Californi aNatura l Ga s Vehicl e Coalition , Chrysle r Corporatio n (Chrysler) , Engin e Manufacturer s Association (EMA) , Fia t Aut o R&D U.S. A (Fiat) , For

d Moto r Compan y (Ford) , Th e Gas Company , Genera l Motor s (GM) , IMPC O Technologies , Inc . (IMPCO) , Nissa n Research an

d Development , Inc . (Nissan) , an d Specialt y Equipmen

t Manufacturer s Association (SEMA) .

c Jac k Heyle r o f th e Automotiv e Service s Counci l (ASC ) commented i

n respons e t

o the 15 . da y "Notic e o

f Availabilit

y o f Modifie d Text. " A t th e Boar d hearing , AAMA , Ford , GM , Chrysler , Cummin s Engin e Compan y (Cummins) , Lamborghini , (SEMA) , Motor & Equipmen

t Manufacturer s Associatio n (MEMA) , APAA , ASC , an d Chri s Weave

r testified . Vehicl e manufacturer s generall y supported the amendment s tha t provid e clarificatio n o f th e requirement s and addres s OB D I I implementation concerns . However , concern s wer e expresse d wit

h respec t t o certai n requirements , most prominently , the staffs propose d requirement

fo r th e detectio n o

f smalle r evaporativ e syste

mleaks . Aftermarke

t manufacture

r representative s opposed th e propose d enhancement s t o th e tampe

r resistanc e requirement s specified i n the regulation . A summar y o f thes e comment s an

d th e agency response s are se t fort h below . Catalys t Monitorin g 1 . Comment : Manufacturer s woul d b e abl e t

o compl y i n amuc h more cos t

effective manne r wit h th e mor e stringent

malfunctio

n criteri atha

t i s t o b e phased-in betwee n th e 199 8 an d 200 0 mode

l year s i f th e phase-in percentage s wer e modifie d fro m40 , 7 0 an d 10

0 percen t t o 30 , 6 0 an

d 10 0 percent . (AAMA

) (Ford ) (GM

) Agenc y Response : Th e staf f ha s modifie

d th e phase-i n percentage s accordin g t o industry' s suggestion . 2 . Comment : Th e AR

B shoul d hold aworksho

p i n calenda

r yea r 199 6 to asses s manufacturers ' progres s i

n meetin g th e revise d catalys t

monitorin g requirement s fo r low

-P. 7

emissio n vehicles . (AAMA ) (Ford) (Nissan) Agenc y Response : Th e staf f stated i n the Staf f Repor t tha t i t intend s t o conduc t suc h aworkshop , an

d th e Boar

d i n it s resolutio n ha s directed th e staf f t o repor t bac k to th e Boar

d shoul d modification s to th e adopted requirement s b e necessary . 3 . Comment : Fo r

Lo w Emission Vehicle s (LEVs ) an d Ultr aLo

w Emissio n Vehicle s (ULEVs) , th e requirement fo r catalyst s t

o b e detected as malfunctioning befor e hydrocarbo n emission s excee

d 1. 5 time s th e standar

d shoul d b e delayed unti l feasibilit y ha s been demonstrated . Making necessar y catalys t syste mdesign change s ma

y b e extremel y expensive . Further , i t

ha s not bee n demonstrate d tha

t vehicle s ca

n b e designed to mee

t th e LE V an d ULE V emissio n standards , includin g ne w off-cycle requirement s (know n a s Ba g 4 requirements) , an

d th e OB D I I catalys t

monitoring requirements . Onc e thi s ha s been demonstrate d t

o b e feasible , th e requiremen t must b e phased-in ove

r aperio d o

f man y year s to avoi d prohibitiv e expense . (GM ) Agency Response : I

n formulatin

g th e propose d amendment s t o the catalys t monitorin g requirements , th e staf f conducted testin g o

n aprototyp e ultr alow-emissio n vehicl e (ULEV) a

t th e ARB' s facilities . Th e data , whic h are presente d i

n th e Staf f Report , show tha t asignifican

t decreas e i

n fron t catalys t efficienc y ca n occu r without vehicl e emission s exceeding 1. 5 time s th e standard . Base

d o n suc h data , an d discussion s wit

h othe r manufacturers , th e staf

f believe s th

e feasibilit y o f th e propose d amendment s ha s been demonstrated . A s par t o f it s comment , G

M state s tha

t modification s t

o existin g catalys t

configuratio n plan s ma y hav e t o b e changed . The staf

f ha s acknowledged tha

t suc h change s ma

y b e necessary . Fo r

thi s reason , th e staf

f propose d t

o phase-in th e requirement s throug h th e 1999 mode l yea r t o allo w for

suc h change s t

o b e mad e consisten

t wit h othe r planne d powertrai n modifications . I

n thi s manner , th

e cos t o f makin g whateve r catalys t syste mdesig n change s ar e neede d shoul

d b e significantly reduced . I n fact , the Boar

d reduce d th e 199 8 an

d 1999 model-yea r phase-in percentage s a

t the reques t

o f industr y t o furthe r minimiz e suc

h cost s (see Commen t 1) . Th e commentor

lastl y state s tha

t i t ma y not b e possibl e t

o design vehicle s to mee

t ne w an d existin g emission standard s as wel l a s the OB D I I catalys t

monitorin g requirements . Th e staff s testing , however , reveale d tha t monitorin g system s meetin g th e OB D I I standard s ca n b e successfull

y designe d fo

r ULEV s (th

e most stringen t emissio n category) . Currently , off

cycl e emissio n standard s (o r Ba g 4 standards) , hav e no t

bee n adopted ; therefore , i t

i s difficul t t o commen t wit h an y grea t certaint y o n th e challeng e o

f designing avehicl e tha

t ca n mee t off-cycle requirement s an d th e catalys t monitoring requirement s simultaneously . However , i

n discussion s relate d t

o th e developmen

t o f off-cycle standards , i t

appear s tha

t manufacturer s wil l no t

hav e t o mak e significan

t catalys t syste mdesign change s a s aresult o f th e requirement s currentl y unde r consideratio n by th e staff

. Th e staf f believe s tha

t fue l syste mcalibration s (rather

tha n th e design o f the catalys t

system ) will b e mos t

impacte d b

yP. 8

suc h standards . Nevertheless , a s mentioned previously , th e staf f wil l continu e t

o follow manufacturers ' progres s regardin g thes e requirements.

- Should i t appea r afte r furthe r developmen

t tha t feasibilit y issue s d o exis t wit h respec t t o existin g o

r futur e emissio n requirements , the staf

f woul d propos e appropriat e amendment s fo

r th e Board' s consideration . 4 . Comment : Th e exemption fro mth e catalys t

monitorin g requirement s tha t ha s bee n given fo r diesel vehicle s shoul

d als o b e give

n t o lean-bur n natura l ga s engine s becaus e th e sam e technologica

l barrier s exi

t fo r compliance . (Chri s Weaver ) Agenc y Response : Base

d o n thi s comment , section (b)(l . 1.2 ) ha s been modified t

o allo w manufacturer s o f

spark-ignite d lean-bur

n engine s t

o reques t Executiv e Office

r approva l fo r exemptio n fro

mth e OB D II catalys t

monitorin g requirement s if th e manufacture

r ca n demonstrat

e tha t technolog y i s no

t availabl e tha

t would allo w fo

r reliabl e monitorin g o

f th e catalys t system . Evaporativ e Syste

mLea k Detectio n 5 . Comment : Majo

r monitoring syste

mdesig n change s ma

y b e neede d t

o detec t smalle r (i.e. , 0.02 0 inch diameter ) evaporativ e syste

mleak s whe

n using vacuum-base d monitorin g strategies . Shoul d thi s prov e t o b e tru e afte

r furthe r development , i t

wil l b e necessar y fo r the requirement

t o detect suc h leak s t o b e postpone d fro

mth e 199 8 model yea

r t o a t leas t the 200 1 model year . (AAMA ) (Ford ) (GM

) (Nissan) Agency Response : A

t th e Board' s direction , the staf f modifie d th e regulatio n t

o dela y th e phase-in o

f th e requiremen

t fo r detectio n o

f 0.02 0 inch diamete

r leak s fro mth e 199 8 mode

l yea r t o th e 200 0 mode

l year . Nevertheless , th e staf f wil l continu e to follow manufacturers ' progres s toward s meetin g th e mor e stringen t malfunction criteria , and wil l propos e modification s t o th e adopted requirements , whic h could include additiona

l leadtime , should tha t b e necessary . 6 . Comment : Prio r

t o requirin g th e detectio n o f evaporativ e leak s a s smal l a s 0.02 0 inche s in diameter , th e AR B shoul d better quantif y th e numbe

r o f small syste

mleak s in th e fiel d an d their emissio n impact . Also , feasibilit y an d cos t effectivenes s nee

d t o b e better addressed . (GM

) Agenc y Response : A s presente d i n the Staf f Report , th e staf

f analyze d extensiv e dat

a fro min-us e vehicle s whic h estimat e tha t aver y significan

t numbe r o f olde r vehicle s o

n th e roa d hav e smal

l evaporativ e syste

mleak s tha

t woul d likely no t

b e detected withou t

th e enhance d evaporativ e syste mlea k detectio n requirement . Nearl y 200 0 vehicle s wer e include d i n thi s analysis . Regardin g feasibilit

y an d cos t effectiveness , the staf

f conducte d test s on fou

r AR BP. 9

vehicles , rangin g fro

masmall passenge

r vehicl e t o aful l siz e pick-u

p truck . Thi s testin g indicate s tha

t the detectio n o

f smal l evaporativ e leak s (dow

n t o a0.02 0 inc

h hole ) appear s feasibl e using th

e monitorin g technolog

y currently being implemente d t o detec t large r leaks . A s such , i t

appear s tha

t onl y softwar e modification s t

o the monitorin g strateg y ar e necessar y t o mee t th e enhance

d requirement . Softwar

e costs , whe

n th e cos t i s sprea d out over a manufacturer' s produc t

lin e ove r severa l mode l years , generally d

o not resul t in an y significan t increas e i n vehicl e cost . Further , manufacturer s hav e fiv e mode l year s o f leadtime t o implemen

t thi s requiremen

t (the phase-in doe s not

star t unti l th e 200 0 model year) . Shoul

d cost s o r feasibilit y issue s exis t

tha t hav e no t been full y addressed , th e AR

B staf f would addres s suc

h concern s i

n fron t o f the Board . 7 . Comment : I t

i s critica l fo r thi s monitoring requiremen t tha t th e averag e ru

n lengt h restrictio n t

o b e increase d fro

msi x t o ten , s o as t

o allo w fo r optimizatio n o

f th e exponentially weighted moving averag e (EWMA ) protocol . (AAMA

) Agenc y Response : Manufacturer s hav e requeste d permissio n t o us e specia

l statistica l algorithm s i

n determinin g whe

n amalfunctio

n i s t o b e indicated . Th e adopte d amendment s permi t th e us e o f suc h algorithms , provide d the manufacture r ca n demonstrat

e tha t a malfunction will b e detecte d o n averag e i

n si x trip s o r les s (Sectio n (a)(1.8)) . Th e commentor

i s requestin g tha

t th e maximu

mnumbe r o f trip s b e increase d fro

m6 t o 1 0 t o improv e the reliabilit

y o f monitoring strategie s designe d t o detec t leak s as small a s a0.02 0 inc h hole . The staf

f i s generally oppose

d t o statistica l algorithm s taking mor

e tha n 6 trip s o n averag e t o detec t amalfunctio n (see Agenc y Respons e t

o Commen

t 35 ) Nevertheless , a s mentioned previously , th e staf f plan s t o follo w manufacturers ' progres s towar

d developin g strategie s t

o detec t smal l evaporativ e syste

mleaks . Shoul d i t

b e determine d tha

t modification s ar

e necessar y fo r the requiremen

t t o b e successfull

y met , th e staf f woul d propos e appropriate amendments t o th e Board . Thes e amendment s coul d include aspecia l provisio n fo

r th e us e o f th e requeste d slowe

r statistica l algorithm s t

o detec t evaporativ e syste

mleaks . 8 . Comment : Th e AR

B ha s greatly overestimate d th e emission impac t o f small evaporativ e syste

mleak s b y relyin g o

n dat afro m1990 vintag e vehicles . Thes e vehicle s d o no t emplo y th e lates t

evaporativ e syste

mimprovement s tha

t wil l b e include d on vehicle s meetin g th e ne

w evaporativ e syste

mtes t procedures . (GM

) Agenc y Response : Th e staf f ha s reviewed dat

afro mth e commento

r tha t i s base d o

n their lates t prototypes . Th e dat

ad o indicat e tha t evaporativ e emission increase s resultin g fro msyste mleak s ma

y b e significantl

y lowe r o n futur e vehicle s a s compare d t o curren t technolog y vehicles . However , i n discussing thi s issu e wit

h th e commentor , i t

appear s tha

t suc h improvement s ar e highl y dependen t o n evaporativ e syste

mdesign . Specifically , thos e system s tha

t ar e designe d to maintai

n low evaporativ e syste

mpressure s emi

t les s evaporativ e emission s whe

n alea k i s present . It

i s no t a t all clea r tha t al l manufacturer s wil l desig n thei r evaporativ e system s t

o operate a

t suc h low pressures . Th e requirement s fo r evaporativ e 8P.1 0

system s allow manufacturer s t o desig n system s tha

t achiev e pressure s u

p t o 1 0 inche s o

f water . A t suc h pressures , emission impac t o f leak s wil l b e muc

h greate r tha n th e commentor' s dat

asuggest . Eve n i f the emissio n impact

i s reduce d o

n futur e vehicles , th e dat

apresente d stil l indicate tha

t exces s emission s resultin g fro mleak s wil l b e significant , especially whe n compare d t

o expected tailpip e emissio n level s fro

mfutur e vehicles . Shoul

d exces s evaporativ e emission s b e reduce d t o a s low a s 3 gram s pe

r tes t whe n alea k i s present , th

e gra mper mile equivalent , base d o

n averag e drivin g patterns , would b e i n exces s o

f 0. 1 gram s pe r mile . Thi s emissio n rat

e i s greater

tha n th e 0.07 5 gra

mper mil e Lo w Emissio n Vehicl e standard , an

d mor e tha n double th e 0.0 4 gra

mpe r mil e Ultra-Lo w Emissio n Vehicl e standard . Further , i n term s o f cos t effectiveness , th e requiremen t would still b e reasonabl e should the emissio

n impac t o f leaks b e les s tha

n originally thought . Thi s i s especiall y tru e whe n considerin g tha

t only softwar

e change s should b e necessar y t o mee t th e enhance d requirement s (see Agency Respons e t o Commen

t 6) . Significan

t additiona l cost s shoul d no

t b e incurre d t

o implemen

t monitorin g system s t

o detec t smal l evaporativ e syste

mleaks . Nevertheless , th e AR

B staf f wil l continu e t

o follo w development s regardin g bot h evaporativ e syste

mdesign , an

d th e design o f monitoring strategie s fo

r thes e systems . Shoul

d i t becom e clea r tha t exces s evaporativ e emission s resultin g fro mleak s will no t

b e significant , o r tha t th e cost s involve d i n detecting smalle r leak s are excessive , th e staf f woul d conside

r amendment s t

o thes e requirements . 9 . Comment : Servic e technician s wil l no t b e abl e t o fin d evaporativ e syste

mleak s smalle r tha n 0.04 inche s i n diamete

r should the

y occur . Therefore , ther

e wil l b e n o significan t emission benefi t

resultin g fro

mth e detectio n o

f smalle r leaks . (GM ) Agency Response : Th e AR B staf f believe s tha

t th e servic e industr

y wil l b e abl e t

o fin d small evaporativ e syste

mleak s detecte d by th e OB D I I system . Technician s fo r decade s hav e been abl e t

o fin d ver y small leak s i

n vehicl e air

conditionin g unit s eve

n thoug h th e leak s ar e sometime s in location s tha t are ver y har d t o access , suc

h a s unde r th e instrumen t

panel . Further , th e AR

B staf f ha s ha d succes s i

n detectin g suc

h leak s using acommonl

y availabl e hydrocarbo n "sniffer " device . Misfir e Monitorin g 10 . Comment : Th e modification s propose d b y the staf f wil l significantly increas e th e probabilit

y o f meetin g thi s majo

r technologica

l challeng e (i.e. , meeting th e misfir e detectio n monitorin g requirements) . However , becaus e concer n stil l exist s wit

h respec t t o a fe w o f th e most difficul t engines , aworkshop i s requeste d fo r calenda r yea r 199 6 to asses s manufacturers ' progress . (AAMA ) (Ford ) (GM

)P.1 1

Agenc y Response : I

n the Staf f Report , the staf

f state d tha

t a199 6 revie w o

f th e modified requirement s wil l tak e plac e shoul

d implementatio n concern s regardin g th e misfir e detectio n requirement s continu e t o exist . Further , Resolutio n 94-6 7 direct s th e staff , if necessary , t

o repor t bac k to th e Boar

d i n 199 6 wit

h amendment s t

o the adopte d requirements . 11 . Comment : Th e AR

B shoul d allo w fo r additiona l delay s i n complianc e wit

h th e misfir e monitorin g requirements , particularly fo r smal l volume manufacturers . Some smal l volum e manufacturer s lac k th e developmenta

l resource s necessar

y to ensur e complianc e wit

h thes e requirement s a

t th e present

time . Thi s i s especiall

y tru e fo r companie s lik e Lamborghin i tha

t hav e ver y limited sale s an

d produc e 1 0 and . 1 2 cylinde r engine s which ar

e mor e difficul t t o implement

misfir e monitoring on . (Lamborghini ) Agenc y Response : A s par t o f th e rulemaking , th e Boar

d adopted additional leadtim e fo r complianc e wit

h th e expanded misfir

e detectio n monitorin g requirements , up to th e 2000 mode l yea r fo r smal l volum e manufacturers . Wit h thi s additiona

l leadtime , smal l volum

e manufacturer s should b e abl e t o investigat

e an d implemen

t on e o f th e severa

l misfir e detectio n technologie s tha

t hav e bee n identified by the ARB . Nevertheless , th e AR B wil l continu e to follow manufacturer s progres s toward s meeting thes e requirement s and wil l ac t shoul d i t appea r tha t th e requirement s canno t

b e reasonabl

y satisfie d fo

r larger engines . Fo r vehicle s tha

t ar e not required t o mee t the expanded misfir

e detectio n monitorin g conditions , the regulatio n require s misfir e monitoring onl

y durin g condition s encountere d durin g a n FT P test . Thi s requiremen t ha s bee n show n t o b e feasibl e fo

r large r engine s i n tha t on e manufacturer , als o asmal l volum e manufacturer , ha s alread y certifie d a

n OB D I I equippe d vehicl e wit

h aV1 2 engine fo

r 1995 mode

l year . Therefore , th e staf f doe s no t believ e tha

t additiona l leadtim e wit

h respec t t o the curren

t misfir e detectio n requirement s i s necessary . Nevertheless , should amanufacture r fin d tha t i t canno t mee t thes e requirement s fo r aparticula

r model year , th e regulatio n in section s (m)(6.1 ) and (m)6.2 ) allo w for th e certificatio n o

f OB D I I system s althoug

h one o r mor e o f th e monitorin g requirement s i s no t full y met . 12 . Comment : Th e AR

B shoul d permi t manufacturer s t

o present dat ashowin g the necessit y o f suspendin g misfir

e diagnosi s unde

r certai n defined conditions , i n orde r t o prevent misdiagnosis . (Nissan ) Agenc y Response : Section s (b)(3.3.1 ) an d (b)(3.3.3 ) provid e fo

r temporar y disablemen

t o f misfir e detectio n systems whe

n condition s exis t

tha t could caus e th e syste

mt o b e unreliable . Diese l Misfir

e Monitorin g 13 . Comment : Although misfir e detectio n ma

y b e possibl e using cycli c variatio n detection , thi s technolog y ha s no t ye t bee n prove n feasible fo

r reliabl y detectin g misfir

e o n diese l engines . Additiona

l leadtim e ma y b e necessar

y i n order to successfull

y mee t th e 1 0P.1 2

requirement . Therefore , a199 6 worksho p i s requeste d t

o revie w manufacturers ' progress . (AAMA ) Agenc y Response : Shoul

d additiona

l leadtim e prov e necessary , th e staf f wil l propos e amodification t

o th e requirement

a t a199 6 Boar

d Hearing . 14 . Comment : I n additio n t o th e 199 6 workshop , th e diese l misfir e detectio n requirement s shoul

d b e delaye d fro

mth e 199 8 t

o th e 1999 model year . (GM) Agenc y Response : Th e misfir e detectio n requirement s fo r diesel s requir e muc

h les s sophisticate d diagnosti c strategie s tha n thos e cunentl y i

n productio n fo

r gasolin e vehicles . Thi s i s becaus e diesel engine s are no t subject t o man y o f the cause s o

f misfir e i n spark

ignite d engine s (i.e. , ignitio n syste mfailures) . A s aresult , th e AR B staf f believe s tha

t sufficien t leadtim e ha s been provide d fo

r diesel vehicle s t

o mee t thes e requirements . Shoul d uniqu e implementatio n problem s aris e i n the future , the AR

B could as par

t o f it s review , propos e additiona

l leadtim e fo

r thi s requirement . Comprehensiv e Componen t Monitorin g 15 . Comment : Th e OB D II regulatio n require s monitorin g o f an y electroni c componen t tha t ca n affect emission s durin g an

y reasonabl e in-us e drivin g condition . Manufacturer s d

o no t hav e th e resource s t

o perfor mth e extensiv e testin g an d analysi s wor

k tha t would b e necessar

y t o mee t thi s requiremen

t as written . Fo r

practica l reasons , testin g an d liabilit y shoul d b e limite d t

o define d tes t condition s an

d procedure s associate d wit h FT P cycl e conditions , o r

drivin g cycle s fo

r which ther

e i s a n emissio n standard . (AAMA ) (GM ) Agenc y Response : Th e AR B believe s tha

t i t i s necessar

y tha t the OB D I I monitorin g system s b e capabl e o

f detectin g malfunction s tha t ma y increas e off-cycle emission s a s wel l a s FT P emissions . I t

ha s become increasingly apparen t tha t excessiv e vehicl e emission s occu r fro moff-cycle emission s a s wel l a s fro mFT P cycl e emissions . I n passin g th e Californi a Clea n Ai r Ac t o f 198 8 (CCAA) , th e Legislatur e foun d tha t despite significan

t reduction s in vehicl e emission s tha

t ha d bee n achieved i

n recen t years , continue d growt

h i n populatio n an

d vehicle s mile s travele d throughou t the stat e wa s preventin g th e stat

e fro mattainin g stat

e standard s and , in fact , worsenin g ai r quality . (Healt

h an d Safet y Cod e sectio n 43000.5(a). ) Up unti l tha

t time , state emissio n contro l standard s ha d bee n directe d towar

d certifyin g vehicle s by measuring FT P cycl e emissions . I n addressin g th e seriou s problem s identifie d above , th e Legislatur

e specifically directe d th e AR B t o implemen

t short

- an d long-ter m program s t

o achiev e additiona

l reduction s i

n vehicl e emissions . (Healt h an d Safet y Code section s 43000.5(d ) an

d 43018(c). ) Th e OB D I I regulation s aris e i n par t fro mthi s vestmen

t o f authority . Similarly , th e nee d fo r th e AR B t o adopt OB D I I requirement s for

monitorin g off-cycle emission s aris e out fro mthes e sam

e legislativ e finding s an

d directives . Th e propose d amendment s t o thi s sectio n hav e bee

n mad e onl y t o clarif y th e regulation , an

d are no t considere d t

o constitut e ane w o r modifie d requirement . I

n previou s 1 1P.1 3

rulemaking s involvin g sectio n 1968.1 , th e staf f attempted t

o minimiz e concern s relate d t o havin g t o tes t ever y vehicl e componen

t fo r it s impact

o n emission s by modifyin

g th e regulatio n t

o mak e clea r tha t onl y electroni c powertrai n component s are subject t o th e requirement s o

f section (b)(10) . Manufacturer s hav e bee

n able t o avoi d burdensom

e testin g i n thi s are ab y meetin g wit h th e staf f an d reachin g agreemen

t o n wha t component s need t

o b e monitored . I

n most cases , manufacturer s hav e presente d t o th e AR B staf f alis t o f component s tha

t the y believe d require d monitoring . Upo n review o f th e lis t an d consideratio n o

f th e component' s function , th e AR B an d manufacturer s hav e bee

n abl e t o agre e upo

n th e potentia

l o f acomponent' s malfunction t

o caus e increase d emissions . I n othe r cases , th e partie s hav e bee n abl e t o agre e o n aspecifi c testing procedure t o provide th e dat

anecessar y t o determin e whether

o r not monitorin g i s appropriate . Thi s testin g i s limite d an

d th e burden associate d wit h i t i s no t great . Eve

n the limite d cost s associated wit h suc h testing i s minimized becaus e th e component s use

d i n vehicl e powertrain s ar e not expected t

o chang e significantl

y fro mmode l yea r to mode l year . Som e manufacturer s hav e expressed concer n wit h respec t t o having increase d recal l liabilit y should a

n unmonitore d componen

t b e foun d t o increas e emission s in-us e whe n malfunctioning . Th e AR

B believe s tha

t manufacturer s could avoi d increase d liabilit y b y discussin g their

monitorin g plan s wit

h th e AR B staf f prio r t o certification . Afte

r reviewin g a manufacturer' s monitorin g plans , th e staf f could assis t

the manufacturer s by identifyin g wha t i t believe s t o b e a n appropriate plan . I

f the partie s coul

d the n agre e o n aspecifi c monitorin g plan , th e AR

B woul d no t b e inclined t

o pursu e arecal l i

f i t i s subsequentl

y determine d tha

t additiona l component s shoul d hav e bee n monitored . Instead , o

n acas e b y cas e basis , th e AR B would b e willin g t

o wor k wit h th e manufacturer s t

o assur e implementatio n o

f alternativ e monitorin g strategie s fo r suc h component s i

n futur e mode l years . 16 . Comment : Sectio n (b)(10.1 ) should b e revise d t o appl y onl y t o electroni c powertrai n component s tha t ca n caus e exhaus t

emission s to increas e b y a n amount greater tha n 2 5 percent

o f th e applicabl e standard , unde r FT P tes t cycl e condition s only . (AAMA ) (GM ) Agenc y Response : Se e Commen t 1 5 abov e fo

r adiscussio n regardin g th e requirement

t o monitor component s tha

t ca n affec t emission durin g non-FTP drivin g conditions . Th e remainder o f thi s respons e wil l pertain t o th e commen

t tha t onl y component s tha t ca n substantially increas e emission s (b y mor e tha n 2 5 percent) shoul

d b e monitored . Th e requirement

to monito

r component s tha

t ca n measurabl

y affec t emission s wa s par

t o f th e regulatio n prio r

t o th e December , 1994 , rulemaking . I n originall y formulatin g th e OB D I I requirements , th e staf f considere d requirin g manufacturer s to detec t multipl e componen t failure s tha

t woul d lea

d t o excessiv e vehicl e emissions . Manufacturer s opposed suc h arequirement

du e to th e burde

n associate d wit

h tryin g to determin e whic h o f man y potential malfunctio

n combination s could caus e hig h emissions . A s a

n alternative , th e AR

B 1 2include d i

n th e OB D I I regulatio n separat e monitorin g requirement s fo r eac h componen

t tha t ca n measurabl

y affec t emissions . Thus , manufacturer s are no t require d t

o detec t emission increase s du e t

o th e deterioratio n o

f multipl e component s s o lon g a s amalfunction i s indicate d whe

n an y componen

t tha t ca n affec t emission s no longe r

function s properly . Monitorin g o

f al l electroni c powertrain component s tha t ca n affec t emission s i s necessar

y t o protec t agains t excessiv e vehicl e emission s resultin g fro mth e combined failur

e o f multipl e components . Nonetheless , afte

r considerin g thi s comment , the Boar d modifie d th e requirement s o

f section (b)(10 ) suc

h tha t illuminatio n o

f th e MIL i s require d only fo r affecte d component s an d system s tha

t ca n potentiall y caus e emission s t o increas e b y mor

e tha n 1 5 percen t

o f th e FT P standard . 17 . Comment : I

n som e cases , whe

n acomponen

t malfunction s tha

t i s use d a s par

t o f anothe r monitoring strategy , th

e OB D I I monitoring strateg y wil l ignor e th e informatio n provide d b

y th e componen

t an d wil l continu e t

o operat e using defaul

t information . Th e AR

B should no t requir e monitorin g o

f suc h component s becaus e the

y wil l no t adversel y affec

t OB D I I syste

mperformanc e o

r emissions . Agenc y Response : Section (b)(10.1 ) require s monitorin g o f component s tha

t are use d a s par t o f anothe r monitorin g strategy . Thi s i s t o ensur e tha t th e drive r i s alerte d t

o an y malfunction s tha

t would caus e othe

r portion s o

f the OBD I I syste

mt o b e permanentl y disabled , or

unreliable . Should manufacturers , as the commentor suggests , stop usin g the componen t as par t o f other diagnosti c strategie s whe

n i t fails , illuminatio n o

f th e MI L o

r th e storag e o f afaul t cod e woul d no

t b e require d whe

n th e failur e occurs . However , suc

h component s must

stil l b e monitored b

y the on-boar

d compute r t o ensur e tha t OB D I I monitorin g strategie s d o no t us e information fro

mfault y component s or

systems . 18 . Comment : Th e Comprehensiv e Componen t Monitorin g Requirement s should b e a s stron g a s possibl e s o tha t technician s wil l hav e diagnosti c informatio n necessar y t o fix vehicle s wit

h hig h emission s wherei

n th e exces s emission s ar e th e resul t o f th e deterioratio n o f severa l mor e mino r malfunctions . (ASC ) Agenc y Response : Th e requirement s shoul d b e sufficientl

y stron g in tha

t an y componen t tha t ca n affect emission s will b e monitored . I n case s wher

e th e emissio n impact i s small , th e MI

L ma y no t illuminat e whe n afailur e occurs ; however , afaul

t cod e wil l b e store d t o hel p technician s repai r

vehicle s wit

h exces s emission s a s aresul t o f anumbe r o f minor malfunctions , whic h would satisf y th e commentor. . Tampe r Resistanc e Requirement s 19 . Comment : Th e proposed enhancement s t o the tampe

r resistanc e requirement s coul d require vehicl e manufacturer s t o mak e majo r investment s i

n orde r t o comply . (AAMA

) 1 3P.1 5

Agenc y Response : Th e tampe r resistanc e requirements , a s amended , requir e manufacturer s t

o implemen

t securit y measure s including th e us e o f dat aencryption , an

d a centralize d compute

r tha t would trac

k reprogrammin g activity . Th e purpos e o f thes e requirement s i s t

o prevent illega l alteratio n o

f OBD I I syste

mperformanc e o r

eve n complet e disablemen

t o f thes e system s o

n in-us e vehicles . Th e staf f recognize s tha

t investment s woul

d b e necessar

y t o develop reprogrammin g system s tha t us e suc h strategie s t

o deter tampering . Fo r thi s reason , the regulatio n provided th e vehicl e manufacturer s wit h severa l year s leadtime i n orde r t o allo w fo r suc h strategie s t

o b e developed efficiently . Further , th e regulatio n allow s fo

r equall y effective alternatives , giving th e manufacturer s th e opportunit y t o sugges t method s tha

t cos t less . 20 . Comment : Th e AR

B shoul d defe r revise d tampe

r resistanc e requirement s t

o a futur e rulemaking , followin g th e EPA' s final rul e o n servic e informatio n an

d afte r mor e evidenc e ha s bee

n obtaine d t

o indicat e tha t tampering will occur . (AAMA ) (GM ) (SEMA

)

• - \ 21 . Comment : Th e AR

B shoul d dela y adoption o

f th e anti-tamperin g amendment s unti l afte r workshop s between th e aftermarke t industr y an d vehicl e manufacturer s ar e conclude d s o tha

t bette r anti-tamperin g languag e ca n b e proposed . (MEMA

) Agency Response : Give

n the numbe

r o f know n incident s o

f frau d tha t hav e bee n committe d i

n the Inspectio n an

d Maintenanc e (I/M ) progra man d the hig h incidenc e o

f compute r tampering , i

n general , i t

i s reasonabl e t

o anticipat e tha t asignifican

t amoun t o f tamperin g wit

h OB D I I system s wil

l occu r in-us e absen

t effectiv e tampe

r resistanc e requirements . Th e staf

f i s especiall

y concerne d tha

t ahig h incentiv e t

o tampe r wit h OB D II syste mcalibration s wil l exis t

shoul d Californi aimplemen

t a n I/ M progra mtes t base d o n th e us e o f OB D I I systems , given the hig h cos t repair limit s tha t ar e likely t

o b e part o f th e program . A s acknowledge d by th e servic e industr

y a t the hearing , securit

y o f th e OB D I I system s i s crucia

l o r els e th e vehicl e an

d th e OB D I I syste

mcanno t b e repaired . (Testimon

y o f Jac k Heyler , Transcript , pag e 185. ) Th e staf f recognize s tha

t manufacturer s nee

d t o hav e adequat

e leadtime t o implemen

t tampe r resistanc e requirements . Shoul d th e AR B simpl y defe r th e issu e unti l tamperin g i s evident in th e field, and thi s i

n an d o f itsel f ma y b e difficul

t to detect , year s o f

leadtime would hav e t

o b e provide d fro

mtha t point . B y th e tim

e improve d tampe

r resistanc e strategie s woul

d g o int o production , agrea t numbe r o f OB D I I equipped vehicle s woul d b e o n th e roa d wit h inadequate on-boar

d compute r security , potentiall y reducin g th e effectivenes s o

f th e OB D I I program , an

d jeopardizin g th e us e o

f OB D I I system s fo

r amor e efficien t I/ M program . Therefore , th e staf f believe s i t

i s necessar

y to requir e tha

t reasonabl e tampe r resistanc e measure s b e implemented wit h thi s rulemaking . Th e AR B staf f wil l continu e t o mee t wit h bot h th e vehicl e manufacturer s an d th e aftermarke

t industr y to monito

r progress , includin g costs , i n developin g th e tampe r resistanc e measures . 22 . Comment : Shoul d the AR B determine tha

t enhanced tampe

r resistanc e requirement s ar

e neede d wit

h thi s rulemaking , the

y shoul d b e modifie

d t o requir e either 1 4electroni c acces s t o a n off-sit e compute r or the us e o f encryption , bu t

not both . (AAMA) (GM ) Agenc y Response : I n formulatin

g th e OB D II tampe

r resistanc e requirements , the staf f ha s determined tha

t bot h o f th e abov e securit

y measure s ar e neede

d t o adequatel y protec t agains t tampering . Th e us e o

f a n off-sit e compute r i s specified t

o allo w th e manufacture

r t o monito r reprogrammin g activit

y an d t o detec t unusua l reprogrammin g pattern s tha

t coul d indicate illega

l tampering . Wit

h informatio n generate d fro mth e centra

l computer , suc

h unusua l reprogrammin g pattern s could b e furthe r investigated . Knowin g tha t th e compute

r wil l generate suc

h information , the compute r wil l hel p dete r unlawful tampering . The us e o

f dat aencryptio n wil l dete

r individual s fro

mmonitorin g reprogrammin g dat

ausin g arecordin g devic e fo r th e purpos e o f

illegally modifying the dat a an d installin g the altere d calibratio n int o the on-boar

d computer . A s such , thes e strategie s are no t redundant , bu t

ar e supportiv e o

f eac h other . I f onl y on e or the othe r i s implemented , detenenc e will not

b e a s effective . Nonetheless , as mentioned previously , th e regulatio n doe s allo w alternative , equally protectiv e method s o f deterrence . I

f manufacturer s ca

n demonstrat

e tha t either metho d i s equall

y effective a s bot

h measure s take

n togethe r o r if the y ca n identif y othe r equally effective strategies , th e AR B will likely accept

them . 23 . Comment : Securit

y o f the OB D I I syste

mi s no t guarantee d b y restrictin g reprogramming . (ASC ) Th e staf f acknowledge s tha

t i t i s virtually impossibl e t

o mak e computer s tampe

r proof . Eve n th e most sophisticate d system s ar

e sometime s broken into . Th e inten t o f the tampe r resistanc e requirement s ar e t o dete r tampering t

o areasonabl e extent . I t

ha s bee n demonstrate d i

n othe r industrie s tha

t compute r securit y measure s ca

n b e implemente d tha

t adequately guar

d agains t unauthorize d acces s or

alteration . A goo d exampl e i s th e us e o f automate d telle

r machine s i n th e banking industry . Suc h system s ar e o

n occasio n violated ; however , a s awhole , th e securit y measure s take

n are adequat

e a s evidence d b y th e fac

t tha t virtuall y ever

y ban k utilize s thes e systems . I

n th e sam e manner , i t

canno t b e guarantee d tha

t OB D I I system s wil l no t

b e tampered wit

h i n the field; however , th e tampe r resistanc e requirement s shoul

d b e effectiv e i

n minimizing suc

h occunences . 24 . Comment : Th e AR

B doe s not

hav e authorit

y t o promulgat

e thes e anti-tamperin g provision s base

d o n sectio n 20 2 (m

) o f th e federa

l Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA ) which state s tha

t acces s to th e emissio n contro l diagnostic s syste mshall b e unrestricte d an

d shal l no t

require an y acces s cod

e or devic e availabl e onl

y fro mavehicl e manufacturer . (APAA) (SEMA) Agenc y Response : Th e legislativ e histor y o f th e 199 0 amendment s to th e CA A indicate s tha

t section 202(m) wa s amende d by the n Senato r Gor e t o protec t consumer freedomo f choic e in servicin g OBD system s an d competitio n in th e vehicl e service , diagnosti c an

d repai r industry . I

n reviewin g th e languag e o f th e amendment s an d th e legislativ e history , th e AR B believe s the ter

m"access " as use

d i n section 202(m)(4)(b ) refer s t o th e diagnosti c informatio n generated b y th e OB D syste

m(i.e. , faul

t code s and vehicl e 1 5operatio n parameters ) fo r us e i n repairin g malfunction s tha t hav e bee n detecte d b y th e system . Previously , some manufacturer s hav e permitte d onl y franchised dealer s to acces s suc h information , forcing independen t repai r establishment s t

o us e conventiona

l tool s suc h a s voltmeter s an

d vacuu mgauge s t

o diagnos e malfunctions , whic h ca n b e les s efficient . Therefore , suc

h dealer s woul d hav

e amarket advantage . Th e commentor s interpre t acces s wit h respe c t t o modifyin

g th e function o

f th e OB D syste

mfo r the purpose s o

f makin g aftermarke t

part s OB D compatible . Th e AR B doe s no t believ e tha

t suc h i s th e intent

o f th e section . Th e Californi aLegislatur

e ha s bee n equall y concerne d tha

t independen

t servic e an

d repai r facilitie s b e given equa

l acces s t o informatio n necessar

y fo r proper diagnosi s an

d repai r o f OB D system s a s i s give

n t o vehicl e manufacture

r franchised dealers . (Se e Healt h an d Safet y Cod e Section 44036.2. ) 25 . Comment : Th e AR

B ha s no t complie d wit

h th e CA A i n tha t th e CA A doe s no t delegat e t o Californi ath e authorit

y t o requir e anti-tamperin g restrictions . (SEMA ) Agency Response : Sectio n 209(b ) o

f th e CA A specificall

y allow s Californi at

o reques t waiver s fro

mth e genera

l preemption o

f section 209(a

) whic h prohibit s individua

l state s fro madopting emissio n standard s an d othe r requirement s fo

r moto r vehicles . Th e AR B ha s requeste d tha

t th e Administrato

r o f th e U.S . EP

A gran t Californi aawaiver

fo r th e OB D I I regulations . Tha

t reques t whic h i s presently pendin g wil l b e amended t o includ e th

e mos t recent amendment s to th e anti-tamperin g section s o f th e regulations . Th e AR

B believe s tha t th e Administrator

wil l approv e California' s reques t fo r awaiver . Although th e requirement s o

f section 202(m) o

f th e CA A are not expressl y considere d a s part

o f th e waive r determination , th e AR

B believe s tha

t th e anti-tamperin g provision s i n th e OB D I I regulation s are consisten

t wit h the inten

t an d purpos e o

f the CAA . 26 . Comment : Th e AR

B ha s no t complie d wit

h th e requirement s o f

th e Californi a Administrativ e Procedure s Act calling fo r necessity , non-duplicatio n an d authorit y in promulgatin g th e anti-tamperin g regulations . (SEMA ) Agenc y Response : Regarding necessity , th e commento r state s tha t there i s nothin g i

n th e record indicatin g tha

t th e anti-tamperin g provision s are mandate d by Californi ao r federa l statute o r tha t the y ar e necessar

y t o carr y out th e purpose s o

f th e OB D I I regulations . A s the commente r noted in Commen

t 23 , th e CA

A specificall

y require s th e U.S . EPA t o adop t OB D regulation s b y th e 1994 mode l year . (See 202(m). ) Although sectio n 202(m ) o f the CA A doe s no t

specificall

y direc t Californi ato adopt

OB D regulations , sectio n 43018(c ) o f th e Californi aClea

n Ai r Act mandate s th e AR

B t o adopt standard s an

d regulation s tha

t will resul t in the most-cos t

effectiv e combination o

f contro l measure s o

n al l classe s o f

moto r vehicle s an

d suc h measure s shall include , bu t no t b e limite d to , reduction s in moto r vehicl e exhaus t an d evaporativ e system s an

d reduction s in in-us e emission s fro mmoto r vehicle s throug h improvement s i n emission syste mdurabilit

y an d performance . Th e ARB' s authorit y '1 6to adop t

th e OB D I I regulation s aris e fro mthi s specifi c delegation . Th e anti-tamperin g provision s hav e bee

n a n integra l par t o f th e adopted regulation s fro

mtheir initial inceptio n an d ar e consisten

t wit h th e genera

l delegation o

f Healt h an d Safet y Cod e sectio n 39600 , which require s the AR

B t o d o suc h act s a s ma

y b e necessar

y fo r th e proper

executio n o

f the power s grante d t

o an d impose d upo

n the ARB . The provision s are als o consistent wit h the mor e specifi c delegatio n grante d t o the AR B b y section 43018 . A s t

o th e latte r

section , th e anti-tamperin g provision s hel p insur e th e integrit

y o f the OB D system s s o tha

t th e system s wil l remai n usefu

l ove r th e lif e o f th e vehicle . Th e AR B identifie d th e nee

d fo r th e anti-tamperin g amendment s i n th e Staf f Repor t an d in Respons e t

o Comment s 19-2 1 above . A s the regulation s hav e develope d sinc e 1989 , an d industr y progres s wit

h on-boar d computer s ha s developed , th e nee d fo r greate r securit y t o protec t th e reliabilit

y an d integrit y o f the OBD syste

mha s becom

e mor e apparent . Specifically , the AR

B i s concerne d wit

h the increasin g popularit

y o f vehicle s usin g electronicall y erasabl e programmabl e rea d onl y memor y (EEPROM) . Thes e computer chip s ca n b e recalibrate d withou t

physicall y modifyin

g or replacin g an

y on-boar d computer component s an

d th e concer

n i s tha t thes e chip s will b e reprogramme d illegally to enhanc e vehicl e performanc e an

d to escap e detection . A t th e AR B hearin g t

o conside r thes e regulator

y amendments , the AR

B staf f provide d additiona l detaile d testimon

y o f th e nee d fo r the anti-tamperin g provisions . A s state d b y Mr . Bo b Cross , Assistan

t Divisio n Chie

f o f the Mobil e Sourc e Division : [T]he problemi s tha

t the amoun

t o f information tha

t goe s o n thos e chip s no w i s basically th e complet

e calibratio n o

f the engine an

d th e complet

e calibratio n o f the diagnosti c system . An d so , th e chi

p basicall y ha s all th e parameter s tha t contro l emission s on i t

an d al l o f th e code s whic

h decid e whethe

r o r no t a componen t i s broke n or

no t o n it ; in othe

r words , al l th e faul

t codes ' [sic ] decisions . [S] And so , whe n you'r e talkin g abou

t programmin g acces s to thes e computers , you'r e reall y basicall y talking abou

t th e issu e o

f completely redoin g th e calibratio n o

f th e vehicl e o

r completely...tur

n of[f J OBD...an d hav e i t giv e asmo g chec

k station code tha

t ther e wa s nothin g wron g wit

h th e car . (Transcrip t

o f th e Meetin

g Befor e th e Californi aAi r

Resource s Board , Decembe r 8 , 1994 , to conside

r amendment s t

o th e OB D I I regulations , a t ' page s 194-195. ) Regardin g unnecessar

y duplication , the . commente r state s tha t bot h Californi aan

d federa l statute s an

d regulation s currentl

y prohibi t tampering wit

h vehicle s in amanne

r tha t would defea

t o r render inoperativ e vehicl e emission contro l systems . A s state d b y Mr . Cros s above , th e concer

n i s tha t present regulation s approac

h tamperin g b

y imposin g penaltie s i

f an d whe n tamperin g ca

n b e detected . Th e concer n o f staf f i s tha t wit h reprogrammabl e EEPROM s tamperin g ca

n b e difficult , i

f not impossible , t

o detect . Thus , presen t

statute s an d regulation s d o no t

sufficientl y protec t th e enhanced compute

r monitorin g system s require d by the OB D I I regulations . 1 7P.1 9

Finally , regardin g authorization , the commente r state s tha t th e Californi aLegislatur

e ha s no t addressed the need fo

r tampering preventio n regulation s i n connectio n wit

h th e OB D I I program . A s stated above , th e Californi aLegislatur e ha s delegate d t

o th e AR B authorit y t o establis h th

e OBD I I regulation s an

d t o mak e suc h regulation s enforceabl e an d effective . Th e anti-tamperin g provision s i s a n integra l par t o f the suc h regulations . 27 . Comment : Sufficien

t anti-tamperin g provision s alread y exis t i n federa l an d stat e statute s an d regulations . (MEMA

) 28 . Comment : Alteratio n o f softwar e program s ca

n b e detected a

t th e time o

f inspectio n unde

r th e I/ M programs . (MEMA

) Agency Response : Th e AR B disagree s wit

h the commenter . Presen

t statute s an

d regulation s althoug

h prohibitin g tampering an d providin g fo

r th e assessmen

t o f penaltie s are inadequate . Becaus e o

f moder n technology an

d skilled reprogramming , tamperer s could reprogra mOBD I I system s t

o shut-off , causing malfunction s t

o escap e detectio n durin g I/ M o r other testing . A s mentione d i

n the Agenc

y Respons e t

o Commen

t 25 , suc h action , onc e i t ha s take n plac e would presentl y b e ver y difficul t t o detect . Thus , ther

e i s aneed fo

r the adopted amendment s tha

t wil l dete r tampering befor

e i t take s place . T o no

t hav e th e ne

w amendment s woul

d risk th e reliabilit

y o f the OB D I I system s wit

h th e consequenc e o

f increase d vehicula

r emissions . Regarding th e second comment , i t ma y b e possible , a s th e commento r suggests , t

o verif y tha t vehicle s ar e properl y programmed as par t o f a n I/ M test . Th

e staf f wil l continu e t o discus s thi s issu e wit

h th e automotiv e industr

y a s apotentia

l alternativ e t

o th e curren t requirements , a s amended . Th e amendments t o the OBD I I regulatio n provid e th e AR B wit h thi s latitude . However , method s t o verif y compute

r programmin g i

n apractica

l manne r durin g a n I/ M tes t ar e no t currently available , an

d the effectivenes s o

f suc h astrateg y i

n deterrin g tampering ha s no t bee n full y evaluated . 29 . Comment : I n view o f th e ARB' s stated interes t

in minimizing unnecessar y conflict s wit

h federa l OB D regulations , i t

i s noteworth

y tha t th e U.S . EP

A recentl y withdrew it s anti-tamperin g provision s fro mth e federa

l OB D regulations . (SEMA ) Agenc y Response : Th e AR B acknowledge s tha

t th e U.S . EP

A vacate d it s regulation s regardin g anti-tamperin g a s par t o f asettlemen

t agreemen t wit h th e aftermarke

t industr y o f a challeng e i

n the federa

l appellate courts . Th e AR B understand s tha

t the U.S . EPA i s redraftin g th e regulation s an d i s plannin g t

o issu e anotic e o

f propose d rulemakin g o

n th e revise d regulation s in th e comin g months . A s stated above , th e AR B believe s tha

t th e OB D I I regulation s are consistent wit h the OB D provision s o

f sectio n 202(m

) o f th e CA A an d wil l b e consisten

t wit h th e regulation s being developed by th e U.S . EPA . 30 . Comment : Restricte d acces s t o the OBD syste

mwil l preven

t independent servic e provider s fro

mbein g abl e t

o reprogra mvehicles , and wil l als o hinde r th e 1 8P.2 0

developmen

t o f replacemen

t part s an d specialt y (modified

) part s by aftermarke

t companies . Therefore , ca

r owner s which wil

l fac e highe r repair cost s i n havin g t o obtain servic e an

d part s fro mfranchise

d dealers . (APAA

) (ASC ) (SEMA

) Agenc y Response : Th e AR B doe s no t believ e tha

t th e antitamperin g restriction s wil l resul t in vehicl e owner s havin g t o obtai n servic e fro

monl y franchise d dealers . Th e first par t o f th e commen

t appear s t o b e wit h respec t t o th e installatio n o f

revise d vehicl e programming . Fo r vehicle s using electronicall y erasabl e memor y device s (EEPROMs) , manufacturer s ofte n provid e dealership s wit

h softwar e change s (referre d t

o as "field fixes") tha

t th e dealership s the n instal l o n vehicle s t

o fix driveabilit

y or othe r problems . Currently , whe n independen

t servic e provider s hav e avehicl e whic h need s update

d software , the

y hav e t o tak e i t t o a franchise d dealer , which ca n result i n increase d cos t

an d inconvenienc e compare d wit h takin g th e vehicl e t

o afranchised deale

r i n the first place . The staf

f understand s franchise d dealer s hav e somewha

t o f a n advantag e i

n thi s sense ; however , thi s proble mexist s wit h respec t t o non-OB D I I vehicle s currentl y i n production an

d was no t create d by th e tampe

r resistanc e requirements , or

other OB D I I requirements . Vehicl e manufacturer s o n thei r ow n initiativ e restric t softwar e an d reprogrammin g equipmen t t o franchise d dealers . Thi s issu e i s currentl y bein g addresse d by th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency whic

h i s considerin g regulation s tha

t woul d requir e vehicl e manufacturer s t o provid e independen

t servic e companie s wit

h th e equipmen

t necessar y t o instal l manufacture

r develope d softwar

e modifications . Further , th e Californi aLegislatur e i s currently considerin g asimila r requirement

a s par t o f Assembl y Bil l 1457 . The OB

D I I tampe

r resistanc e requirement s would no t impact suc h arequirement . Regardin g the developmen t o f replacemen

t parts , the staf

f doe s not believ e tha

t acces s t o th e OB D I I softwar

e i s necessar

y i n most cases . A s long a s replacemen

t part s perfor

m comparably t

o stoc k components , the

y should not

b e falsel y detecte d a s malfunctionin g b y th e OB D I I system . Fo r

aftermarke

t companie s tha

t produc e replacemen

t component s tha

t function differentl

y tha n origina l equipmen

t components , an

d fo r companie s tha

t produc e specialt y part s t o enhanc e o r

otherwis e modif

y vehicl e performance , i t

ma y b e necessar

y fo r th e vehicl e softwar

e to b e modifie

d t o ensur e tha t the produc t

i s compatibl e wit

h th e OBD I I syste man d doe s no t increas e vehicl e emissions . Thes e companie s wil l mos t likel y hav e t

o wor k wit h vehicl e manufacturer s o

r intermediarie s t

o develo p necessar y softwar e modifications . Thi s typ e o f workin g relationshi

p i s alread y require d t

o som e exten t because , a s mentione d above , manufacturer s o n their ow n initiativ e restric t

acces s t o informatio n necessar y t o implemen

t suc h change s t

o vehicl e programming . However , a s manufacturer s implemen t improve d securit

y measures , thes e businesse s ma y hav e t o rel y increasingl y o

n th e manufacturer s fo

r help in developing an

d implementing vehicl e softwar e revisions . Cognizan t o f this , th e AR

B acknowledged i

n th e Staf f Repor t tha t th e amende d antitamperin g requirement s ma y hav e a n advers e economi c impac t o n som e member s o

f th e aftermarket

part s industr

y becaus e o

f thi s increase d difficult

y in developin g an

d certifying I part s fo r the marketplace . However , determinin g exact economi c impac t

o n thes e members ' i s difficul t give n the diversit

y o f product s manufactured . Th e AR B believe s tha

t an y advers e | 1 9 iP.2 1

impac t ma y b e mitigate d b y th e affecte d aftermarke

t an d vehicl e manufacturing industrie s developin g ongoin

g busines s relationship s tha t will allow the aftermarke

t part s manufacturer s t o acquire information necessar y t o desig n compatibl e parts . A

t thi s time , i t

i s impossibl e t

o determin e th e additiona

l cos t t o manufacturer s tha

t wil l resul t

fro mestablishmen

t o f thes e relationships , an

d how suc h additiona

l cost s will directly affec

t individua l manufacturers . Whil e som

e aftermarket

part s maker s ma

y b e adversel

y affecte d by th e OB D I I anti

tamperin g requirements , other aftermarke

t part s companie s ma

y benefi t economically a s a resul t o f the OBD I I regulations . OB D I I system s wil

l provid e fo

r mor e timely detectio n o

f deteriorate d and/o r

malfunctioning components , wit h th e consequenc e tha

t ther e wil l likely b e agreater deman d fo r replacement

parts . Realizin g tha

t som e manufacturer s ma

y benefit an d other s ma y b e disadvantaged , the staf f concluded tha

t o n balanc e th e impact

o n employmen

t an d busines s growt

h i n Californi awoul

d b e mino r a t worst . A s state d i n th e agency' s respons e t

o Comment

s 19-2 1 an

d 25 , the amendment s t

o th e antitamperin g requiremen t wer e necessitate d becaus e o

f increasin g likelihoo d o f tamperin g becaus e o

f EEPROM s an

d othe r advance d technology . T o assur

e th e reliabilit

y an d integrit y o f the OB D system , an

d t o achiev e th

e maximu memission reduction s possible , th e AR B balance d it s need s fo

r greate r securit y o f th e OB D syste

magains t th e need s o f

the aftermarke t industr y t o obtai n information necessar y fo r proper design o f replacement

an d performanc e parts . T o thi s end , th e AR B determine d tha

t th e mos t reasonabl e cours e o

f actio n would b e t

o tighte n securit

y measure s an

d concurrently t

o endeavo r t o facilitate the developmen

t o f ongoin g busines s relationship s betwee n th e aftermarke

t an d moto r vehicl e manufacturing industries . Th e AR B staf f believed tha

t thi s would ultimatel

y resul t i n the aftermarket

industr y bein g abl e t

o implemen

t modification s necessar

y fo r th e manufactur

e an d certificatio n o

f parts . Th e AR B determine d tha

t i t wa s necessar

y to impos e th e additiona

l antitamperin g measure s a

t thi s time becaus e o

f the leadtim

e tha t woul d b e require d i

n developin g secur

e system s an

d th e realizatio n tha

t i f technology forcing regulation s wer e not adopted , th e researc h an

d developmen

t o f necessar y technolog y woul

d no t likel y b e invested . T o achiev e maximu memission reduction s fro

mOB D I I system s i

t i s envisione d a

t thi s time tha

t suc h system s wil l becom

e a n integral par

t o f th e I/ M program . Tamperin g o f th e OB D systems , muc h o f which coul d g o undetected , coul d undermin e th e benefit s o f th e I/ M program s an

d dela y us e o f the OB D I I system s as par t o f thos e programs . Thi s would hav e a n advers e impac t on emission reduction s an d woul d imped e California' s effort s t

o achiev e stat e an

d federa l attainmen

t standards . A s stated , in adoptin g the amendments , the AR B full y realize d tha

t initiall y som

e burden s coul d b e impose d on aftermarke t par t manufacturers . T o thi s end , th e AR B schedule d the first

o f possibl y aserie s o

f workshop s t

o addres s th e problem s facing th e industr y an d t o attemp t t o facilitat e dialogu e betwee

n th e vehicl e manufacturing and aftermarket

part s industries . Ultimatel y i t i s hope d tha t thi s wil l foste

r development

o f busines s relationship s tha

t wil l assur e tha t aftermarke

t part s maker s wil l hav e th e abilit y t o 2 0P.2 2

mak e their product s compatibl e wit

h OBD I I system s an

d emission requirements . Th e firs t worksho p wa s hel

d on Februar

y 7 , 1995 . Th e AR

B plan s t o hol d othe

r workshop s a s i t continue s t

o develo p revision s t

o th e aftermarke

t certificatio n tes t

procedure s tha

t wil l specifically addres s th e issu e o f aftermarke

t part s an d OBD I I systems . Th e AR B believe s tha t th e successfu

l developmen

t o f busines s relationship s wil l assur e th e continue d viabilit

y of . the aftermarket

industry . 31 . Comment : A

n amendmen

t shoul d b e adde d tha t require s manufacturer s t

o provid e th e sam

e informatio n an

d equipmen

t provide d t

o franchised dealer s t

o independen

t repai r facilitie s o

n acontractual basi s a

t areasonabl e cost . (ASC ) 32 . Comment : A standardized syste m(methodology ) fo

r reprogrammin g mus t

b e mad e accessibl e t

o independen

t servic e repair

facilities . (APAA

) (ASC ) Agenc y Response : Th e OB D I I regulatio n addresse s servic e informatio n availabilit y relativ e t o th e us e o

f OB D I I systems i

n diagnosing an

d repairin g emission relate d malfunctions . Th e regulatio n contain s requirement s fo r standarizin g diagnosti c informatio n s o tha t independen

t servic e technician s wil l b e abl e t o acces s thi s informatio n wit h commonl

y availabl e diagnosti c equipmen t (sectio n (k)) . Further , thi s section require s publicatio n o f servic e procedure s tha

t referenc e th

e us e o f thi s typ e o

f equipment . However , th e AR B believe s requirement s fo

r information an

d equipmen

t no t directly relate d t

o th e us e o

f OBD I I systems , suc

h as informatio n an

d equipmen

t relatin g t o reprogrammin g o f

vehicles , woul

d b e inappropriate withi n th e contex t o f th e OB D I I regulations . Servic e informatio n concem s are currentl y being addresse d b y th e U.S . EPA an d th e Californi aLegislature . A s mentione d i n th e ARB' s respons e t

o Commen

t 2 9 above , bot

h ar e considerin g requirement s fo r acces s t o reprogrammin g equipment . Further , th e Californi a Legislature recently enacte d section 44036.2 , whic h require s manufacturer s to mak e th e servic e procedure s the

y provid e t

o franchise d dealer s availabl e a

t reasonabl e cos t

to independen

t servic e facilities . Wit h respec t to standardizatio n o

f reprogrammin g methodologies , neither th e EP A o r th e Californi aLegislature i s considering suc h arequiremen

t t o th e bes t o f th e AR B staffs knowledge . Th e AR

B believe s suc

h standardizatio n coul

d b e beneficia

l t o th e independen

t servic e industry ; however , reprogramming methodologie s ar e comple x an d ca n diffe r significantly betwee

n manufacturers . A significan t amoun t o f additiona l discussio n an

d developmen

t i s necessar

y befor e suc h arequiremen

t woul d b e reasonable . Nevertheless , the AR B staf f plan s t o continu e to investigat

e th e feasibilit

y o f standardize d reprogrammin g equipment , an

d th e potentia

l benefi t o f suc h equipmen

t t o reduc e vehicl e emission s in-use . 33 . Comment : Ther e i s anee d t o standardiz e an

d facilitat e acces s t o servic e informatio n database s b y requirin g the on-boar d syste mt o electronicall y identif

y th e vehicle , it s curren t calibratio n status , an

d an y approved modification s whic h hav e bee

n introduced . (ASC ) (MEMA

) 2 1Agenc y Response : Th e commenter s are refenin g t o th e developmen

t o f aservic e informatio n databas e tha

t could b e linked directl

y t o avehicle' s on-boar

d computer . Th e on boar d compute r would transmi t

th e vehicl e identification numbe r (VIN ) t o th e databas e alon

g wit h a n identificatio n numbe

r fo r th e softwar e version containe d i

n the on-boar

d computer . Th e databas e woul

d the n us e thi s information t

o automaticall

y acces s th

e relevant servic e procedure s fo

r th e vehicle , an

d woul d indicat e if th e vehicl e contain s th

e mos t recen t softwar e versio n available . Th e developmen t o f suc h adatabas e i s currently bein g considere d b

y th e Societ y o f Automotiv e Engineers ' E/ E Diagnosti c Standard s Committee . Th e AR B believe s tha

t the us e o f technology t

o improv e acces s t

o emissio n relate d servic e information wil l help the servic e industr y t o bette r diagnos e an

d repair vehicle s wit

h exces s emissions , an

d th e AR B i s intereste d i

n doing wha

t i t ca n t o furthe r suc h efforts . However , as mentioned in th e Agenc y Respons e t

o Comments 3 0 an

d 31 , i t i s no t th e ARB' s inten t t o addres s al l servic e information concern s as par t o f th e OB D I I regulation . Th e regulatio n onl

y require s manufacturer s t o implemen

t diagnosti c system s t

o detec t vehicl e malfunctions , an

d t o generate related diagnosti c information a s atoo l t o hel p in repairin g suc h problems . Statistica l MI L Illuminatio n Protocol s 35 . Comment : Th e curren t regulator y languag e limit s the averag e ru n lengt h fo r alternativ e MI

L illuminatio n protocol s t

o si x trip s o n average . Th e maximu

maverag e ru

n lengt h shoul d b e increase d t

o te n t o allo w fo r optimization o

f strategie s suc

h a s th e Exponentially Weighte d Moving Averag e (EWMA) . (AAMA ) (GM ) Agenc y Response : Th e AR B staf f has studied statistica

l algorithm s suc

h a s EWM

A an d believe s tha

t the y ca n b e use d effectivel

y as a n alternat e MI L illuminatio n protocol . Fo r thi s reason , the regulatio n contain s aprovisio n fo r their use , an d allow s u p t o six trip s o

n averag e fo r malfunction detection s t

o occu r (thre e time s longer

tha n generally specifie d i

n th e regulation) . Th e staf

f believe s i t

i s necessar

y t o limi t the "run-length " o

f thes e algorithm s t

o si x on averag e i

n order to ensur e th e detectio n o

f malfunction s i

n atimel y manner . Eve

n wit h alimi t o f si x o n average , som

e malfunction s will no

t b e detected unti l 1 0 o r

mor e trip s du e to th e variatio n associate d wit h the algorithm . Shoul

d th e limi t

b e extende d t

o 1 0 o n average , th e variatio n woul d als o increase , causin g malfunctio

n detection s to b e delaye d unti l 2 0 trip s o r

mor e i n some cases , whic

h i s not reasonabl y timely. In-us e Recal l Protoco l 36 . Comment : Th e in-us e recal l provision s are to o broa d an d could lea

d t o th e recal l o f avehicl e withou t

it s emission s havin

g exceeded th e standards . Further , becaus e manufacturer s are stil l gainin g experienc e wit h OB D I I systems , ther

e should b e a moratoriumo

n OB D I I syste

mrecall s fo

r mode l year s 199

4 through 1996 . A t

aminimum , th e curren t

tw o time s th e standar

d recal l threshol d fo

r mode l year s 199

4 an d 199 5 shoul d b e extende d t o mode l yea r 1996 . (AAMA

) (GM )

- . . 2 2Agenc y Response : A s discusse d previously (see Commen t 14 ) th e OB D I I regulatio n require s monitorin g o

f individua l components tha

t hav e a n impac t o n emissions , bu t

woul d not caus e vehicl e emission s t

o excee d 1. 5 time s the standard . Th e purpos e o f thi s requirement

i s t o prevent excessiv e vehicl e emission s tha t coul d resul t

fro macombinatio n o

f suc h malfunctions . T o thi s extent , i t i s necessar

y fo r th e AR B t o ensur e tha t thes e monitorin g system s b e abl e t o detec t malfunction s occunin g in-use . Withou t th e abilit y t o recal l vehicle s tha

t d o no t properl y detec t

suc h problems , th e AR

B could hav e n o recours e should vehicle s operat

e on th e roa

d wit h hig h in-us e emission s an

d no indicatio n o

f a malfunction becaus e manufacturer s ar e no t require d t o detec t combinationa

l failures . However , a s stated in th e respons e t o Commen

t 14 , the AR

B staf f i s willin g t

o wor k wit h individua l manufacturer s o

n acas e b y cas e basi s t

o hel p identif y component s tha

t nee d t o b e monitore d an

d whic h woul d subjec

t th e vehicl e t o recall . A moratoriu

mon in-us e recal

l throug h the 199 6 mode

l yea r woul d prevent th e AR B fro mseeking correctiv e actio n shoul d OBD I I systems fai

l t o perfor mreasonably in-use . I

t i s no t th e staffs intent

t o vigorousl

y pursu e in-us e recall s o

f OB D I I system s in th e early year s o f production , a s i s evidenced b y th e highe

r emissio n threshold s fo

r in-us e recal l throug h th e 1995 model yea r fo r non-low emission vehicles , an d through th e 200 0 mode

l yea r fo r lo w emission vehicles . However , withou t retainin g som

e authorit y to recal l vehicles , ther

e i s no assuranc e tha

t manufacturer s will tak

e adequat e measure s to ensur

e reasonabl e in-us e operatio n o f thes e systems . Finally , regardin g th e commenter' s reques t fo r a n extensio n o

f the highe r emission threshold s fo

r in-us e recal l o

n non-lo w emission vehicle s fro

mth e 199

4 an d 199 5 mode

l year s throug h the 199 6 model year , th e staf f believe s tha

t th e tw o year s o

f relie f tha t ha s alread y bee n provide d shoul d b e sufficien t fo r thes e vehicles . Thes e vehicle s ar e certifie d t o highe r emission standards , wit

h th e consequenc e tha

t ahighe r in-us e recal l emissio n margi n i s t o som e exten t inherent . Further , by th e 199 6 mode l year , manufacturer s wil l hav e ha d sufficien t leadtim e to ensure prope

r in-us e performanc e o

f thes e systems . Othe r Comment s 37 . Comment : Th e provisio n b y whic h retrofi t conversio n syste

mmanufacturer s ca

n reques t Executiv e Office

r approva l t o disabl e certain monitorin g strategie s shoul d b e extende d to a

t leas t th e 199 9 mode

l yea r s o tha t th e provisio n i s consisten

t wit h tha t fo r vehicl e manufacturers . (IMPCO ) Agenc y Response : A s amende d the regulation s allo w manufacturer s o f origina l equipmen t vehicle s certifie d t

o ru n o n alternativ e fuel s t

o reques t tha t the Executiv e Office

r waiv e specifi c monitorin g requirement s unti l th e 199 9 mode

l year . Th e waive

r woul d appl

y throug h th e 199 8 model yea r an d th e manufacture

r woul d b e expecte d t

o full y comply i

n the 199 9 model year . Similarl y the presen t rulemaking amende

d Titl e 13 , Californi aCod e o f Regulation s section s 2030-203 1 an d th e tes t procedure s incorporate d therein . Thes e amendment s allo w retrofi t

manufacturer s t

o reques t fro mth e Executiv e Office

r tha t OB D II 2 3monitorin g requirement s no t appl y u p throug h th e 199 8 mode

l year . Thus , th e regulation s a s the y apply t o origina l equipmen

t manufacturer s an

d retrofit manufacturer s ar e consistent . Th e AR B believe s thes e provision s provide vehicl e an d retrofi t manufacturer s wit

h adequat e leadtime t o ensur e tha t al l OB D II monitoring strategie s ar e compatibl e with.alternat e fuels . 38 . Comment : Th e AR

B ha s not gotte n a n EP A waive r fo r the OB D I I regulation , making i t withou t forc e o r effect . (SEMA

) Agenc y Response : T o th e exten t tha t thi s questio

n i s referrin g t

o California' s authorit y t o enforc e thes e regulation s without awaiver , the commen

t i s outside th e scop e o

f thi s rulemaking . Californi aha s adopte d th e regulation s an

d thes e amendment s under authorit y grante d t

o i t b y th e Californi aLegislature . T o compl y wit h the requirement s o

f sectio n 209(b ) o

f th e Federal Clea

n Ai r Act , the AR

B has formall

y submitted areques t

fo r a waive r t o the U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc

y (U.S . EPA) . However , knowin g tha t i t would b e proposin g thes e amendments i n respons e t

o concern s raise d fro

mindustry , the AR

B requeste d tha

t th e U.S . EP A dela y consideratio n o

f th e waive r reques t unti l thes e amendment s wer

e formally adopted . Th e AR B will b e requestin g i

n th e nea r futur e tha t the waive r reques t b e reactivated . 39 . Comment : Th e incorporatio n o f SA E J197 9 an

d J193 9 ma

y potentiall y represen

t afurthe r unlawfu l delegatio n o

f authority . Th e proposed regulatio n doe s no t clarif y whethe r later change s t o thes e SA

E standard s will hav e n

o effec t o n th e regulatio n or

if suc h late r change s will b e deeme

d incorporated . (SEMA

) Agenc y Response : A s wit h thes e amendments , the AR B will follo

w it s practic e o

f formall y amendin

g th e OB D I I regulation s if i t decide s t o adop t an d appl y alate r versio n o f th e incorporate d SA

E documents . (Se

e section k(2.0 ) i

n whic h th e regulation s were amende d to incorporate th e lates t

versio n o f SA E J1979. ) 40 . Comment : Th e regulatio n should allow fo r reactivit y adjustmen

t factor s t o b e applie d t o hydrocarbo n emission s i n determinin g malfunctio

n criteria . (Chri s Weaver) Agenc y Response : A footnot e wa s adde

d t o th e regulatio n t

o mak e clea r tha t reactivit y adjustmen

t factor s ca

n b e use d in thi s manner . 41 . Comment : Th e regulatio n shoul d giv e the Executiv e Office r th e discretio n t

o provid e lenienc y wit

h respec t t o complyin

g wit h th e OBD I I requirement s i n instance s wher

e th e introductio n o f

new technolog y ha s mak

e complianc e difficul

t to achieve . (Fiat ) Agenc y Response : A

n amendmen

t t o the regulatio n wa s adopted tha t allow s manufacturer s t

o certif y OB D I I systems wit

h identified monitorin g syste mdeficiencie s throug h th e 200 0 mode

l year . The provisio n permit s th e certificatio n o

f OB D I I equipped vehicle s wit

h two deficiencie s withou

t penalt y throug h th e 199 6 mode

l year , and on e 2 4deficienc y fo r mode l year s 1997 throug

h 2000 . Fine s i

n th e amoun

t o f 25 or 5 0 dollar s pe

r deficienc y woul

d appl y should additiona

l deficiencie s b e identified . The staf f believe s thi s provisio n provide s manufacturer s wit h adequat e leniency t

o addres s most

implementatio n concerns . Shoul

d i t b e determine d tha

t manufacturer s wil l no t

b e abl e t o mee t th e OB D I I requirement s withou

t additiona l leniency , th e AR

B staf f woul d propos e additiona

l amendment s t

o the Board .

2 5