State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text and Availability of Additional

Documents and/or Information

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TECHNICAL STATUS AND PRO POSED

REVISIONS TO ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENT S FOR PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS, AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES AND ENGINES, HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTIC SYST EM REQUIREMENTS, AND TO CONSIDER ENFORCEMENT PROVISION S FOR

HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM REQUIR EMENTS

Public Hearing Date: May 28, 2009 Public Availability Date: October 20, 2009 Deadline for Public Comment: November 13, 2009

At its May 28, 2009, public hearing, the Air Resour ces Board (ARB or Board) approved adoption of amendments to the California Code of Re gulations, title 13, sections 1968.2 and 1971.1, and adoption of California Code of Regu lations, title 13, section 1971.5. Upon becoming operative, the amendments to sections 1968.2 and 1971.1 would respectively update the on-board diagnostic (OBD II ) requirements for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles and engines and the heavy-duty on-board diagnostic (HD OBD) requirements for heavy-duty vehicles and engines. Section 1971.5 would establish enforcement procedures and requirements for HD OBD systems.

At the hearing, the Board adopted Resolution 09-37, approving the proposed amendments to sections 1968.2 and 1971.1 and approv ing section 1971.5 as proposed

but with such modifications that staff deemed neces sary to address the comments received in response to the text attached to the In itial Statement of Reasons: Staff Report that was released on April 10, 2009. In the Resolution, the Board directed the Executive Officer to incorporate the modifications into the regulatory text, and to make such modifications available for a supplemental com ment period of at least 15 days.

Attachment I to this notice contains relevant porti ons of those sections of the regulations affected by the modifications being pro posed with this notice. Proposed amendments that were initially published in the Sta ff Report released on April 10, 2009 are denoted by single underline for additions to the text and single strikeout for deletions to the text. Additions to the text propo sed with this notice are denoted by

double underline and the deletions by double strikeout . The rationale for the

modifications is set forth below.

The resolution and all other regulatory documents f or this rulemaking are available online at the following ARB website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/hdobd09/hdobd09.h tm2

Summary of Proposed Modifications

Modifications to OBD II Regulation (section 1968.2)

1. Section 1968.2(d)(2.5.2)(B)(iii)d.: As part of t he 45-day notice, staff proposed this new criterion that must be met before erasing a per manent fault code to maintain consistency with the HD OBD regulation. Specifical ly, if a permanent fault code has been stored for a monitor not subject to the minimu m in-use ratio requirements and the fault information in the on-board computer has subsequently been cleared, staff proposed that the permanent fault code may be clear ed if, in addition to the other conditions set forth in section 1968.2(d)(2.5.2)(B) (iii), the affected monitor has not re-detected the previously identified malfunction. However, when inserting the language in the OBD II regulation, staff mistakenly omitted the model year that this requirement would first be implemented. Staff has corrected the omission by specifying that manufacturers would be required to meet this requirement starting with the 2013 model year.

2. Section 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(G): To address confusio n by manufacturers as to which specific monitors were required to meet the criteri a set forth in the section and the conditions that must be met when incrementing the i n-use monitor performance denominator, staff has added language that more pre cisely identifies the monitors covered by the section and has clarified the criter ia for incrementing the denominator. Specifically, the language has been m odified to clarify that a monitor’s

denominator cannot be incremented if the vehicle ha s cumulatively travelled less

than 500 miles since the denominator was last incre mented.

3. Sections 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(I): As part of the 45- day notice, staff proposed new criteria that must be met for incrementing in-use monitor pe rformance denominators for monitors that rely on regeneration events to mainta in consistency with the HD OBD regulation. However, when inserting the language i n the OBD II regulation, staff mistakenly omitted the model year in which the requ irement would first be implemented. Staff has corrected the omission by s pecifying that manufacturers would be required to meet this requirement starting with the 2013 model year. Additionally, the initially proposed language did n ot include monitors of catalysts that are used to assist other aftertreatment systems dur ing regeneration. The section

has been amended to include these monitors because they are tied to regeneration events and it is appropriate that they be required to meet the denominator incrementing criteria in this section.

4. Section 1968.2(f)(3.2.4): As part of the 45-day notice, staff proposed language that eliminated certain misfire conditions from the type s of misfire that the OBD II system is required to detect. Specifically, misfire condi tions where the misfire rate was more than 50 percent were excluded except in the ca se where a single component failure could cause a 50 percent or higher rate. T o address confusion expressed by3

manufacturers as to what the 50 percent or higher r ate referred to, staff has added language to clarify that it is 50 percent “of all e ngine firings.”

5. Section 1968.2(f)(7.2.3): For boost pressure con trol systems with variable geometry turbochargers, the current language requires functi onal monitors to indicate a fault when “proper functional response of the system to c omputer commands does not occur.” Staff recently proposed modifications to s imilar language in the heavy-duty OBD regulation (section 1971.1(e)(4.2.3)), requirin g malfunction detection when “no detectable response to a change in commanded turboc harger geometry occurs,” as part of the 45-day notice. However, staff mistaken ly forgot to propose the same changes to section 1968.2. Thus, to maintain consi stency between the mediumduty OBD II and HD OBD diesel requirements, staff i s proposing to change the language in section 1968.2(f)(7.2.3) to parallel th at of section 1971.1(e)(4.2.3).

6. Section 1968.2(f)(17.6): As previously adopted, this section allows manufacturers to disable monitors affected by power take-off (PTO) o peration, provided readiness status is cleared (set to “not complete”) while the PTO unit is activated. This was

done to allow valid disablement due to the unknown outside influences of the PTO device while still providing an indication to inspe ctors or technicians during PTO operation that the system is not fully functioning. Manufacturers have expressed concern that the provision as presently written doe s not cover applications that involve extensive mobile PTO operation (e.g., hydra ulic pump operation for applications such as a salt spreader) and have requ ested a change to delay immediate clearing of the OBD readiness status unti l 750 minutes of cumulative PTO operation has occurred with the affected monito r disabled. With some further discussion, staff developed the proposed language t o allow such an alternative strategy in the near term. Specifically, the chang e would allow manufacturers to continue to use the existing strategy or to use thi s new strategy that would not immediately clear all readiness status whenever the PTO is active. The new strategy would keep track of the cumulative time th at the PTO device has been activated and the time since the affected monitor(s ) had last run. Only if cumulative PTO operation reached 750 minutes and the affected monitor(s) had not run (e.g., neither during PTO operation where it was disabled nor during periods of engine operation between PTO operation, if they occurred) would the readiness status be cleared. This would allow vehicles with frequent P TO activation (including perhaps, PTO devices that cannot be easily disabled during a n emission inspection) to output

a valid readiness status that would allow for vehic le inspection of emissions and proper OBD II operation in all situations except wh ere a sufficiently long period of time has passed since the monitor(s) last ran.

7. Section 1968.2(g)(6.1): As part of the 45-day no tice, staff proposed a change to the criteria that must be used to keep track of cumulat ive engine idle time to address manufacturers’ concerns that not all engines had ac cess to vehicle speed, yet vehicle speed was a required element of the engine idle definition. This change was made for the HD OBD regulation and, for consistency , also included in the OBD II4

regulation. However, when inserting the language i n the OBD II regulation, staff mistakenly omitted the model year for which this ch ange in the criteria would mandatorily apply. Staff has corrected the omissio n by specifying that manufacturers would have the option of using this n ew criteria immediately or to continue to use the old criteria through 2012 model year. The new criteria would become mandatory starting with the 2013 model year.

Modifications to HD OBD Regulation (section 1971.1)

8. Sections 1971.1(c), (k)(6.1), (l)(1.2.1), and (l )(2.1): In response to questions from industry regarding various possible interpretations , a few changes have been made regarding use of the term “start of production”. I n section (c), staff is now proposing modifications to the definition of “start of produc tion” to include references to sections (k) and (l), which use the term in referen ce to engine and vehicle production.

Staff is proposing modifications to section (k) to refer to “start of engine production” instead of “normal production.” Staff is also prop osing to modify the timeline in section (k) for when the Executive Officer may issu e retroactive deficiencies to be consistent with the timeline for manufacturers to p erform verification of monitoring requirements under section (l)(2) -- specifically, the Executive Officer may issue a retroactive deficiency during either the first 6 mo nths after commencement of the start of engine production or the first 3 months af ter commencement of the start of vehicle production, whichever ends later. This cha nge is consistent with other parts of section (k), which already provides that retroac tive deficiencies may be granted for problems found during this verification testing . Further, section (k) currently states that the deficiency would be “retroactive to the start of production.” However, since the definition of “start of production” in se ction (c) designates the start as when two percent of the projected engine or vehicle volu me have been built, the current language in section (k) would technically exclude e ngines built before the two percent cut-point has been reached from receiving r etroactive deficiencies, which was not staff’s intent. Thus, staff is proposing t o modify the language in section (k) to have the deficiency retroactive to “all affected engines within the engine family.”

Lastly, staff is proposing clarifications to sectio ns (l)(1.2.1) and (l)(2.1) because of a manufacturer’s confusion about the requirements. S pecifically, the current language states that production engine/vehicle testing of st andardized requirements and monitoring requirements is required to be done “wit hin” a number of months after the start of engine or vehicle production. However , the manufacturer interpreted this to mean that testing could not be done on engines/v ehicles built “before” the defined start of production (i.e., before the two percent m ark), which was not staff’s intention. Thus, staff is proposing modifications to clarify that testing may be done at any point before the specified number of months since start of production has expired.5

9. Section 1971.1(d)(2.3.2)(D)(ii)b.3.: As part of the 45-day notice, for purposes of maintaining consistency with the OBD II regulation, staff proposed language more explicitly defining the conditions that must be met for HD OBD systems to clear a permanent fault code. This proposed language also included the one additional new criterion added for OBD II systems (described i n item 1. under modifications to section 1968.2 above). However, when inserting thi s criterion in the HD OBD regulation, staff included this criterion only unde r the requirements for engines using the ISO 15765-4 protocol, mistakenly omitting this criterion for engines using the SAE J1939 protocol. Thus, staff has corrected the omission by including this criterion for engines using the SAE J1939 protocol.

10. Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(E): As part of the 45- day notice, staff proposed that for monitors such as variable valve timing systems, the denominator be incremented when, among other conditions, the component is comm anded to function “on two or more occasions for greater than two seconds ... or fo r a cumulative time greater than or equal to 10 seconds, whichever occurs first .” Some of the manufacturers have requested that the condition regarding command ing the component to function

“on two or more occasions” be deleted as it results in very few opportunities for this

criterion to be satisfied without the other criteri on also being satisfied and eliminating the former requirement would reduce the software co mplexity. Other manufacturers, however, requested they be given the option to use the criteria in the OBD II regulation (section 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(F)) for engines that are utilized in medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. The OBD II cr iteria includes both of the aforementioned criteria originally proposed in the HD OBD language mentioned above. Staff agreed to these requests and is propo sing changes to section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(E) to reflect this.

11. Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(G): As part of the 45- day notice, staff proposed new criteria that must be met for incrementing in-use monitor pe rformance denominators for components that experience infrequent regeneration events. Specifically, the monitor for these components would be required to i ncrement the denominator when, among other conditions, 750 cumulative minute s of engine runtime had passed since the last time the denominator had incr emented. Staff calculated this 750-minute time based on discussions with industry about the expected regeneration frequency of particulate matter (PM) f ilters. Industry, however, has since requested that this 750-minute time not inclu de engine runtime while the engine is idling, indicating that heavy-duty engine s meeting California’s idling rule will have very little filter loading during idle, s o including this idle time would not be critical and may result in more frequent incrementi ng of the denominator with less PM filter regeneration events. Staff, however, disagrees with this request which seems overly conservative but believes increasing t he 750-minute time requirement to 800 minutes would address the idling concern. A dditionally, staff did not specify when manufacturers were required to mandatorily use this 800 minute criterion and is proposing changes to correct this omission. Spe cifically, manufacturers would be allowed the option of using either the newly propos ed 800 minute criterion or the old6

criterion through the 2012 model year. Starting wi th the 2013 model year, manufacturers would be required to use the new crit erion. Lastly, manufacturers expressed confusion as to when the denominator coul d be incremented relative to this engine run timer because the proposed language used a phrase of ‘at least 800 minutes’ which led some to believe they could choos e different values that were higher or lower than that specified in the regulati on. Accordingly, staff rewrote the language to ensure that the denominator would be in cremented as soon as all of the criteria have been met, including the 800 minute ru n time requirement.

12. Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(H): Staff is proposing modifications to this section similar to those being proposed in section 1968.2(d)(4.3.2)(I) of the OBD II regulation (described as item 3. under the modifications to se ction 1968.2 above).

13. Section 1971.1(e)(2.2.4): Staff has added langu age in this section for the same reasons given in item 4. under the modifications to section 1968.2 above.

14. Section 1971.1(f)(1.2.1): As part of the 45-day notice, staff proposed that, except as provided in section 1971.1(f)(1.2.6), manufacturers monitor for air-fuel ratio cylinder imbalance faults starting in the 2014 model year. A similar requirement already existed in the OBD II regulation. However, in sect ion 1971.1(f)(1.2.6), staff mistakenly carried over language from the OBD II re gulation related to a phase-in that explicitly requires vehicles equipped with sep arate exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) flow delivery passageways (that deliver EGR t o individual cylinders) to monitor for these faults starting in a specific mod el year (proposed section). Because all 2014 and subsequent model year heavy-du ty engines are required to monitor for cylinder imbalance faults, there is no analogous phase-in that would necessitate special handling for vehicles or engine s with such EGR systems and the language in section 1971.1(f)(1.2.6) is not necessa ry. Thus, staff is now proposing to delete section 1971.1(f)(1.2.6) and to modify se ction 1971.1(f)(1.2.1) accordingly.

15. Section 1971.1(f)(1.3.1): This section indicate s which fuel system monitors are required to run continuously. Staff mistakenly omi tted fuel system monitoring of adaptive feedback control and thus is proposing to correct this error.

16. Section 1971.1(g)(3): Staff is proposing langua ge (section 1971.1(g)(3.1.6)) to clarify the monitoring requirements for vehicle speed infor mation if the information is used for another OBD monitor. Engine manufacturers have expressed concern about having to comprehensively monitor vehicle speed sen sors that are located in the transmission since they have no control over compon ents located outside the engine or of the diagnostics performed by other com ponent suppliers on such sensors. Despite this lack of control, manufacture rs have indicated that, historically, they have relied on such outside information and ta ken appropriate default action when the other components have been identified as f aulty. Under the current requirements, such diagnostics would become part of the OBD system and subject to all of the OBD system requirements. Based on di scussions between staff and7

industry, a compromise was reached solely for vehic le speed information where engine manufacturers would monitor the vehicle spee d information to the extent they can and the OBD system would additionally indi cate a fault if the vehicle speed information was identified as faulty by diagnostics outside of the engine manufacturer’s OBD system (e.g., by the transmissio n supplier’s diagnostics). This proposed change would allow engine manufacturers to continue to follow their historical practice of using outside speed informat ion to ensure engine and emission-related performance and have components th at derive such information remain largely outside the scope of the OBD require ments. At the same time, the proposed modification would provide some level of p rotection that a fault of the vehicle speed information will be remedied in a tim ely manner to prevent continued disablement of other OBD system monitors.

17. Section 1971.1(g)(5.6): Staff is proposing chan ges to this section regarding readiness handling during PTO device activation sim ilar to those being proposed in section 1968.2(f)(17.6) of the OBD II regulation (d escribed in item 6. under the modifications to section 1968.2 above). However, u nlike the OBD II regulation where manufacturers can elect to use the existing o r new readiness handling strategy, the proposed HD OBD language requires use of this alternate readiness handling strategy for 2013 and subsequent model yea rs. Given the much more common expected usage of PTO devices in the heavy-d uty market, the new strategy will be required in that it should provide inspectors and technicians with

more accurate and useful information about the curr ent state (and recent history) of the diagnostic system.

18. Section 1971.1(h)(4.1): Given recent questions from several manufacturers, staff is proposing modifications to further clarify how read iness status is required to be implemented. In the past, monitors that are requir ed to run continuously were typically excluded from readiness because they, by definition, run continuously and would be completed so quickly that waiting to set r eadiness status to complete would be negligible. However, several recently ado pted monitoring requirements that were originally envisioned to run continuously have been revised to allow justified disablement in fairly common operating co nditions. As such, the previous assumptions are not valid as these monitors can ind eed be disabled for substantial periods of engine operation and waiting for them to run before setting readiness would not be a negligible period of time. Thus, st aff is proposing additional language that more precisely specifies which monito rs (e.g., circuit/out-of-range monitors, feedback control monitors) can be exclude d from the determination of readiness status. Additionally, the original langu age indicated that the readiness status for the gasoline fuel system monitor should always indicate “complete,” since prior to the 45-day notice, all monitors under the fuel system monitoring requirements were required to run continuously. Ho wever, with the recently proposed inclusion of the gasoline fuel system moni toring requirement for air-fuel ratio cylinder imbalance faults, which are not requ ired to run continuously, staff is proposing to have the readiness status for the fuel system set to “complete” only8

when the cylinder imbalance monitor has run and com pleted and have changed the language accordingly. As this cylinder imbalance m onitoring requirement is not required until the 2014 model year, sufficient lead time is already being provided to ensure compliance with the proposed changes to the readiness handling requirement.

19. Section 1971.1(h)(4.5.7): This section indicate s which specific monitors are not required to meet the standardized test results requ irements. Staff mistakenly omitted feedback monitors for diesel exhaust gas se nsors and is proposing language to address this.

Modifications to HD OBD Enforcement Regulation (sec tion 1971.5)

20. Section 1971.5(d)(2): Upon receiving word from the Executive Officer that an engine class has a non-conforming OBD system, the manufact urer may “within 45 days

from the date of service of such notification, elec t to conduct an influenced OBDrelated recall” and “shall submit an influenced OBD -related recall plan for approval.” Manufacturers have interpreted this language to me an that they would have 45 days to both elect to conduct an influenced recall and to submit a plan for approval, which was not staff’s intention. Thus, staff is pr oposing revisions to the regulation to indicate that, upon election by the manufacturer to conduct a recall within 45 days of receiving the notice, manufacturers would have an a dditional 45 days to submit the recall plan for approval.

Other Minor Modifications

21. In addition to the modifications described abov e, staff is proposing various nonsubstantive modifications to the regulatory text in sections 1968.2, 1971.1, and 1971.5 to improve clarity and to correct errors tha t have found by staff and industry.

Additional Document Added to the Record

In the interest of completeness, staff has also add ed to the rulemaking record and invites comments on ARB Mail-Out MSC#09-22, “Guidel ines for Heavy-Duty On-Board Diagnostic (HD OBD) Certification Data,” July 7, 20 09. ARB staff proposed

modifications to a few sections in section 1971.1 t o reference this document. This document is available at the following ARB websites :

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/obdprog/obdupdates.htm

and http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc0922/msc09 22.pdf

Written comments will only be accepted on the modif ications to the originally proposed regulatory text approved by the Board and set forth in Attachment I, and the additional9

document that was added to the record. The written comments may be submitted by postal mail or electronic mail submittal as follows :

Postal mail: Clerk of the Board, Air Resources Boa rd

1001 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814

Electronic submittal: http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php

Please note that under the California Public Record s Act (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.), your written and oral comments, attachments, and as sociated contact information (e.g., your address, phone, email, etc.) become part of th e public record and can be released to the public upon request. Additionally, this inf ormation may become available via Google, Yahoo, and any other search engines.

In order to be considered by the Executive Officer, comments must be directed to ARB

in one of the two forms described above and receive d by the ARB by 5:00 p.m., on the deadline date for public comment listed at the begi nning of this notice. Only comments relating to the above-described modifications to th e text of the regulations shall be considered by the Executive Officer.

For individuals with sensory disabilities, this doc ument and other related material can be made available in Braille, large print, audiocasset te, or computer disk. For assistance, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (916) 322- 5594 as soon as possible.

Attachments

The energy challenge facing California is real. Ev ery Californian needs to take immediate action to r educe energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can red uce demand and cut your energy costs, see our websi te at

www.arb.ca.gov

.