p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1190 Prepped by Candice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 42 ) ll-A-3 4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

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

Sheet 42 of 106P. 2

* STAT E O F CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNI A ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y PET E WILSON . Governo r AI R RESOURCE

S BOAR D 202 0 L STREE T P.O . BO X 281 5 SACRAMENTO . C A 9581 2 Jun e U , 199 5
Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r Administrator U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc

y (A-100 ) 40 1 M Street , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2046 0 Dea r Ms . Browner : I . 

### Introductio n 

## J U AU G 15199 5 l!i

J ERA-AI R DOCKE T I n aletter date d Jul y 21 , 1994 , th e Californi aAi r Resource s Boar

d (ARB ) requeste d tha t th e Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc

y (U.S . EPA ) dela

y consideratio n o

f th e ARB' s reques t

tha t awaive r b e grante d unde

r sectio n 209(b ) o f th e Federa

l Clea n Air Ac t (CAA ) fo r it s regulation s regardin g On-Boar d Diagnosti c I I (OB D II ) Syste mRequirement s fo

r 199 4 an d Later Passenge r Cars , Light-Dut

y Truck s (LDT) , an

d Mediu mDut y Vehicle s (MDV) . Th e AR

B requeste d th e dela

y t o provid e i t

the opportunit

y to conside

r furthe r amendment s t

o th e regulation s tha

t woul d addres s manufacture

r concern s regardin g technologica

l feasibility . Th e AR

B considere d an

d approved amendment s to th e regulation s a t it s Decembe

r 8 , 199 4 Boar d hearing . Thos e amendments wer e formall y adopte d b y di e AR

B o n Apri l 26 , 1995 , an

d submitted t

o the Californi aOffic

e o f Administrativ e La

w (OAL ) fo r approval . Th e OA

L approve d th e regulation s o n June 8 , 1995 . Wit

h approva l o f th e regulations , th e AR

B respectfull

y request s tha

t the U.S . EP

A reactivat

e California' s waive

r reques t an d conside r th e OB D I I regulations , a s amended , a t it s earlies t

convenience . I n it s submission , dated Septembe r 15 , 1992 , the AR

B initially requeste d tha

t th e U.S . EP A fin d th e OB D I I regulation s t o b e within the scop e o

f existin g waivers . I

n tha t submission , th e AR

B provide d asummar

y o f th e OB D I I regulation , a s amended o n Jul y 22 , 1992 . I

n aletter dated Septembe

r 14 , 1993 , the AR

B reconsidere d it s reques t

an d asked fo r ane w waiver , rather

tha n afindin g tha t the regulation s are withi n th e scop e o f existin g waivers . I

n tha t letter , the AR

B informed the U.S . EP

A tha t i t ha d amende d th e regulation s fo

r asecon d tim e o n Jul y 9 , 199 3 t

o addres s certificatio n problem s tha t afe w manufacturer s wer

e experiencin g i

n th e 199 4 an d 199 5 mode

l years . A

t thi s time , th e AR

B request s tha

t th e U.S . EP

A incorporat

e b y referenc e the summar

y o f the regulation s a s se

t fort h i n th e Septembe

r 15 , 1992 letter , an

d the entir e Septembe

r 14 , 199 3 letter , includin g th e waive r analysis .P. 3

, • , 4
Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r
A t th e Decembe

r 8 , 199 4 Boar d hearing , the Boar

d approve d amendment s t

o th e regulation s tha

t address , amon

g othe r things , continuing manufacture r concern s wit

h developin g full

y complian

t monitoring system s b

y th e 199 6 mode

l year . ( A copy o f th e "Notic e o f Publi c Hearin g t

o Conside r Technica l Statu s an d Propose d Revision s to Malfunction an

d Diagnosti c Syste

mRequirement s fo

r 199 4 Model-Yea

r Passenge r Cars , Light-Dut y Trucks , an

d Mediu mDut y Vehicle s an

d Engines " (Notice) , th e "Staf f Report : Initia l Statemen t o f Reason s fo

r Rulemaking " (Staf

f Report) , Resolutio n 94-67 , an d "Notic e o

f Availabilit y o f Modified Text " are enclosed herewit h an d respectively identifie d a s Attachment s 1-4. ) Specifically , the amendment s relat e t o problem s manufacturer s hav e experience d i

n developin g enhanced diagnosti c system s t o monitor catalyst s used i

n low

emission vehicle s (LEV ) an d misfir e detection . I

n recognizin g the technolog y forcing natur e o f th e regulation s an

d th e numbe

r o f differen t monitoring strategie s manufacturer s ar e require d to develo p i

n th e early year s o

f implementatio n o

f th e regulations , th e Boar

d als o adopte d amendment s tha

t would affor

d manufacturer s additiona

l complianc e flexibility . A t th e hearing , th e Boar

d als o approve d amendment s t o the monitoring requirement s fo r evaporativ e syste mleak s an

d fo r th e monitorin g o

f diesel an d alternat e fue l vehicles . Regardin g th e las t amendment , t

o mak e th e amendmen

t consisten t wit h the requirement s fo

r alternativ e fuele

d retrofi t systems , th e Boar

d amende d section s 203 0 an

d 203 1 o f Titl e 13 , Californi aCode o f Regulation s (CCR) , an

d th e incorporate d "Californi aCertificatio n an d Installatio n Procedure s fo r Alternativ e Fue l Retrofi t

System s fo

r Moto r Vehicle s Certified fo

r 199 4 an d Subsequen

t Model Years. " (Se e Notic e an d Staf f Report , Attachment s 1 an d 2 respectively. ) A summar y o f th e substantiv e amendment s adopted b y th e Boar d a t th e 199 4 hearin g follows . A detaile d explanatio n o f th e technologica

l feasibilit y and th e cos t

effectivenes s o f th e amendment s ar e provide d i n Attachmen

t 2 , the Staf

f Report . II . Summar

y o f Amendment s A . Catalys t

Monitoring : Th e adopte d amendment s remov e th e requiremen t fo r independen

t evaluatio n o f

fron t catalys t efficiency o

n LE V applications , an

d instea d requir e a n overal l catalys t

syste m evaluatio n i

n whic h th e malfunctio

n criteri awill b e based o

n tailpip e emissions . Specifically , th e amendment s require th e manufacture r t o monito r the catalys t

syste ms o tha t malfunction s ar e indicate d befor

e tailpip e emission s exceed 1. 5 time s the hydrocarbo n standar d o f th e vehicle . Th e resultin g monitoring o f th e entir e syste maddresse s manufacture

r concern s tha

t th e regulation s affor

d the mgreate r flexibilit y i n designing catalys t

systems . A

t th e sam e time ,P. 4

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r th e amendment s provid e th e AR B wit h greate r assuranc e tha

t malfunction s wil l b e properl y detecte d i n al l catalys t

configurations . I n adoptin g th e abov e amendments , the Boar d determine d tha

t manufacturer s ma

y hav e t o modif y som e o f their current monitoring syste

mdesign s t

o full y mee t th e revise d requirements . Th e Boar

d thu s provide d manufacturer s wit h additiona

l lea d tim e fo r complianc e an

d determine d tha

t the ne w monitoring requirement s b e phase d i n ove r thre e year s beginnin g i

n th e 199 8 mode

l year . Th e propose d phase-in schedul e would requir e tha t 3 0 percent o f amanufacturer' s projecte d LE V sale s fo r th e 199 8 mode

l yea r comply wit

h th e ne w catalys t requirements ; 6 0 percen

t i n the 199 9 mode

l year ; an d 10 0 percent i n th e 200 0 mode

l year . I n th e interim(mode

l year s 199 6 an

d 1997) , all vehicle s certifie d t o th e transitiona

l LE V (TLEV ) standar

d would b e require d t

o indicat e amalfunctio

n whe n emission s exceede d 2. 0 time s th e TLE

V hydrocarbo n (HC ) standar d plu s the 400 0 mil e emissio n leve l rathe r tha n th e 1. 5 time s th e standar

d whic h i s require d i

n the 199 8 mode

l year . Al l vehicle s certifie d t

o th e LE V standar d would b e require d t

o indicat e amalfunctio

n a t 2. 5 time s th e LE

V H C standar d plu s th e 400 0 mil e emission level . The interimstandard s wil l permi t manufacturer s t o implemen

t catalys t monitoring strategie s o

n existin g vehicl e design s without requirin g hardwar e modification s an

d shoul d provide manufacturer s wit h the necessar

y lea d time t o properl y design system s tha t will mee t the 1. 5 time s the standar

d requirement . B . Misfir e Detectio n Monitoring : Th e OB D I I regulation s initially adopted by th e Boar d i n 1989 , require d tha

t commencing wit

h th e 199 4 mode l year , manufacturer s wer

e expected t

o monitor engin e misfir e throughout

th e ful l engin e operatin g spee

d an d loa d range . I n 1991 , afte

r reviewin g industry' s progres s i

n developin g the necessar

y technology t

o mee t th e misfir e detectio n requirements , th e Boar

d delayed implementatio n fo r monitoring ove

r th e ful l spee d and loa

d rang e unti l th e 1997 mode

l year , an d i n th e interimrequire d misfir e detectio n onl

y durin g operatin g condition s within th e scop e o f aFedera l Tes t Procedur e test . A t th e Decembe

r 199 4 Boar d hearing , afte

r afurthe r review o f industry' s progress , th e Boar d concluded tha

t by th e 1997 mode

l yea r manufacturer s should b e abl e t o certif y a significan t percentag e o f

vehicle s wit

h misfir e detectio n system s tha

t operat e ove r almos t th e ful l speed an d loa d engin e operatin g range . Th e onl y portio n o

f th e rang e tha

t coul d no t b e full y monitore d would b e a

t engine speed s abov e 3000 revolution s pe r minut e wit h ver y light engin e load . Suc

h operatin g condition s ar e not encountere d often . Upon consideratio n o f industry' s progress , th e Boar d amende d the regulation s t

o provid e tha

t th e manufacturer s ma

y disabl e th e monitorin g syste move r tha t portio n o f the rang e identifie d above . I n addition , th eP. 5

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r Boar d amended th e implementatio n schedul e t o allo w manufacturer s t

o certif y thei r produc t lin e accordin g t

o th e followin

g phase-i n schedule : 5 0 percent

o f th e manufacturer' s projecte d sale s volum

e i n the 1997 mode

l year ; 7 5 percen

t i n the 199 8 mode

l year ; 9 0 percent

i n th e 199 9 mode

l year ; an d 10 0 percen t i n the 200 0 mode

l year . Th e phase-in schedul e provide s manufacturer s wit

h additiona

l lea d tim e t o implemen

t misfir e detectio n o

n th e mor e challengin g engin e designs , includin g engine s wit h ahig h numbe r o f cylinders . C . Evaporativ e Syste

mLea k Detection : I n 1991 , th e Boar

d adopted arequiremen

t tha t manufacturer s develop fo

r 199 6 an d later model yea

r vehicle s amonitoring strateg y t o detec t evaporativ e syste

mleak s a s small a s .04 0 inche s i

n diameter . Realizing the increasin g relativ e contribution s o f evaporativ e H C emission s i

n th e formation o

f ozone , the Board , a

t the Decembe

r 199 4 hearing , amended th e regulation s t

o require tha

t manufacturer s phase-in amor e stringen t monitorin g strateg y commencing wit

h th e 200 0 mode

l year . Th e amende

d regulatio n would requir e tha t manufacturer s develop astrateg y t o detec t leak s a s smal

l a s .02 0 inche s i

n diameter . Dat a take n fro min-us e vehicle s indicat

e tha t asignifican

t numbe r o f vehicle s hav e evaporativ e system s leak s approximately equivalen t i n magnitud

e t o a.02 0 inc

h leak , an d tha t th e exces s evaporativ e emission s fro

msuc h vehicle s are significant . Thes e dataare presente d i n th e attache d Staf

f Report . Th e amende

d regulation s woul

d requir e tha t manufacturer s phase-i n th e ne w requirement

using th e followin

g schedule : a

t leas t 5 0 percent

o f amanufacturer' s projecte d sale s volum

e mus t compl y wit h th e .02 0 inc

h diamete r monitorin g strateg y in th e 200 0 mode

l year ; a t leas t 7 5 percen t i n the 200 1 mode

l year , an d 10 0 percent i n th e 200 2 mode l year . D . Requirement s Fo r

Diese l Vehicles : I n 1991 , th e Boar

d adopted amendment s t

o th e regulatio n makin

g th e OB D I I requirement s applicabl e t

o diesel engine s beginnin g wit h th e 199 6 mode

l year . However , a

t tha t time th e Boar

d recognize d tha

t som e OB D I I requirement s fo

r spar k ignitio n vehicle s would no t b e applicabl e t

o diesel engines , an

d tha t insufficien

t informatio n o

n necessar y technolog y wa s no t

availabl e t

o specificall

y se t fort h monitorin g requiremen

t fo r diese l engines . Therefore , th e regulation s onl y require d diesel manufacturer s to submi t a n OB D I I monitorin g pla

n fo r th e ARB' s review . A t th e Decembe

r 199 4 hearing , th e Boar

d concluded tha

t sufficien t informatio n presentl y exist s t

o mor e specificall

y detai l the minimu

mmonitorin g requirement s fo r diese l applications . Accordingly , the regulation s wer e amende d t o provid e tha

t manufacturer s o

fTh e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r diese l vehicle s implemen

t monitoring strategie s fo

r misfire , the fue

l system , th e exhaus t

ga s recirculatio n (EGR

) system , an

d an y electroni c component s tha t ca n affec t emission s whe

n malfunctioning . A s fo r misfir e monitoring , additiona

l lea d tim e (unti l th e 199 8 mode

l year ) wa s provided . Beginning wit

h thi s mode

l year , manufacturer s are require d t o develo p astrateg y capabl e o f detectin g the . complet

e los s o f combustion i

n on e or mor e cylinders . Th e amendmen

t provide s tha

t th e strategy would nee

d t o b e activ e onl

y durin g certai n operatin g condition s (e.g. , durin g idle) , an d tha t monitorin g woul

d b e require d onl

y onc e per

drivin g cycle . Fo r

fue l syste mmonitoring , th e amendment s require tha t manufacturer s attemp t

t o develop , to th e extent

feasible , monitoring strategie s tha t ca n detec t fue l syste mmalfunction s tha t caus e diese l vehicle s t

o excee d 1. 5 time s an

y o f th e applicabl e emission standards . Manufacturer s woul d no t

b e responsibl e fo

r detectin g malfunction s fo

r which th e syste

mi s incapabl e o

f providin g necessar

y feedback , suc

h a s afue l injecto r wit h abroken tip . Th e monitorin g requirement s fo r EG R performanc e an

d electroni c component s would b e th e sam e a s fo r spark-ignitio n vehicle s unde r the amendments . E . Alternat

e Fue l Vehicles : Prio r to th e 199

4 amendments , th e regulatio n require d vehicle s designe d to operate o n alternate fuel s t

o compl y wit h the OB D II requirement s beginnin g wit h th e 199 6 model year . Recognizin g manufacture

r concern s tha

t insufficien

t leadtim e existe d t o develop full

y complian t OB D II monitorin g strategie s tha t are compatibl e wit

h the us e o

f alternate fuel s by th e 199 6 mode

l year , th e Boar

d amende d the regulatio n t

o provid e a

n additiona

l thre e year s o

f leadtime fo

r ful l compliance . Fo r

the 1996-199 8 mode

l years , manufacturer s woul d b e require d to implemen

t diagnosti c strategie s t

o the exten

t feasible , bu

t would no t

b e require d to includ e monitorin g strategie s directly relate d to th e us e o f alternate fuels . Similarly , th e Boar d amended California' s certificatio n procedure s fo r alternat e fue l retrofi t vehicle s t o permi t retrofi t syste mmanufacturer s th e sam

e flexibilit y a s provide d to origina

l equipmen

t manufacturers . Accordingly , ful l complianc e wit

h th e OB D I I requirement s i s no t require d unti l th e 199 9 mode

l year . Thes e procedure s ar e reference d by section s 203 0 an d 203 1 o f Tid e 13 , CCR . F . Tampe

r Resistance : Th e Boar d adopte d amendment s tha t mak e mor e specifi c th e anti-tamperin g requirement s tha

t motor vehicl e manufacturer s nee d t o follow t o protec t OB D I I syste

m calibrations . Unde

r th e amendments , manufacturer s ar e require d t o us e reprogrammin g strategie s tha

t require acces s t

o acentralize d compute

r maintaine d b

y th e manufacturer , an

d th e us e o f ful l dataencryption . However , manufacturers , wit h th e Executiv e Officer' sP. 7

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r approval , ma

y develop alternative , bu

t equivalent , programmin g protection . Recognizin g tha t manufacturer s will nee

d lea d tim e t o implemen

t thes e protections , the regulatio n doe s no t require ful l complianc e unti l th e 1999 mode l year . G . 1996-2000 Model Yea r Compliance : A t the Decembe

r hearing , th

e Boar d acknowledged tha

t the OB D I I regulation s require th e implementatio n o

f asignifican

t numbe r o f technology forcing monitorin g strategie s an d tha t manufacturer s ma

y experienc e unanticipate d problem s i n developin g system s despit e goo d fait h effort s t o compl y wit h th e regulations . Accordingly , th e Boar d amended th e regulation s t o provid e manufacturer s wit h som e complianc e relief

fo r th e 1996-2000 mode

l years . Th e amendment s are simila r i n natur e t o the relie f

provide d i

n 199 3 fo r th e 199 4 an d 199 5 mode

l years . I n 1993 , th e Boar d amende d th e regulation s t

o permi t 199 4 mode l yea r vehicle s equipped wit

h OB D I I system s t

o b e certified eve

n i f one or mor e o f th e monitorin g strategie s di d not

mee t th e minimu

mrequirement s o

f th e regulation . Fo r

199 5 mode

l yea r vehicles , certificatio n i s als o permitte d eve n thoug h the OB D I I syste

mma y hav e deficiencies . However , i

f aparticula

r engin e famil

y ha s mor e tha n tw o deficiencies , th e manufacture r wil l b e assesse d fine s o f

$2 5 o r $5 0 pe r vehicl e fo r eac h deficiency abov e th e second . Th e amendment s adopted i n Decembe

r provid e tha

t fo r 199 6 mode

l yea r vehicles , th e Boar d wil l continu e to provid e th e sam e relie f tha t i t ha s bee n providin g fo

r 199 5 model yea

r vehicles . I

n calculatin g deficiencies , electroni c transmissio n deficiencie s would b e counte d a s asingl e deficiency . Fo r th e 1997-200 0 mode

l years , the amendment s would continu e t o permi t manufacturer s t

o certif y OB D II system s wit

h deficiencies . However , i n mos t instances , th e numbe r o f permitte d deficiencie s fo

r avehicl e mode

l withou t incurrin g afin

e woul d b e reduce d to one . A manufacture r woul d incu r afin e o n it s firs t deficiency i

f amonitorin g strateg y were completely absen t fro mth e monitoring system . I n addition , amanufacture

r would no t b e allowe d t

o carr y ove r monitoring syste

mdeficiencie s fro

mon e yea

r t o th e nex t unles s i t were abl e t

o demonstrat

e tha t vehicl e hardwar

e modification s woul d b e necessar y t o correc t th e deficiencies , i

n whic h cas e aone yea

r carry-ove r would b e permitted . I n providin g fo

r suc h latitude i

n certifying OB D I I systems , th e Boar d recognize d th e complexit y o f th e monitorin g requirement s fo r catalysts , evaporativ e syste mleaks , an

d misfir e detection . I t

furthe r recognize d the hig

h degre e o f technica l innovatio n require d o f manufacturer s to properl y appl y th e requirement s t

o newl y introduce d LEVs .P. 8

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r
H . Othe r Modifications : I n additio n t

o th e above , the Boar

d adopted severa

l othe r les s substantiv e amendment s fo f th e purpos e o

f clarifyin g th e regulations . Thes e amendment s ar e identified , wit h explanations , i

n th e Staf f Repor t tha t i s enclosed herewith . 

### III . Waive r

Analysi s A . Th e OB D I I Regulation s Shoul d B e Granted aWaive

r as a n In-Us e Enforcemen

t Procedure : I n m y Septembe

r 14 , 199 3 letter , the AR

B submitted adetaile d waive r analysis . I

n tha t analysis , th e AR

B followed the principle s outlined b y the Administrator

an d th e court s i

n th e consideratio n o

f waiver s o f enforcemen

t procedures . Fo r

suc h analyses , th e U.S . EP

A consider s onl

y whethe r th e subject

enforcemen

t procedur e undermine s apreviousl y determine d protectivenes s determinatio n an d whethe r the enforcemen

t procedur e i s consisten

t wit h the intent o f section 202(a

) o f th e CAA . (Moto

r an d Equipmen

t Manufacture s Ass

n [MEMA] v . EP A [1979 ] 627 F.2 d 1095 , 1120. )

1 . Protectivenes s Determination : I n th e above-reference d analysis , I note d tha t the AR B ha s adopted emission standard s fo r each clas s o f

vehicle s fo

r whic h th e OB D I I regulation s would apply . I n tha t letter , I furthe r explaine d tha

t Californi aha

d requested an

d receive d fro

mth e U.S . EP

A section 209(b ) waiver s fo r eac h o f th e classe s o

f vehicle s fo

r whic h the AR B ha d adopted standards . (Se e e.g. , 4 9 F R 1888 7 [Ma

y 5 , 1984] ; 4 7 F

R 101 5 [Januar

y 8 , 1982] ; 4 6 F

R 3623 7 [Jul y 14 , 1981]. ) More recently , th e Administrator ha s approve d waiver s fo

r ne w standard s adopte d b y th e AR

B fo r California' s LE

V progra man d fo r LDTs , MDVs , and light

heavy

dut y vehicle s an

d engines . (5 8 F

R 468 8 [Januar

y 7 , 1993 ] an

d 5 9 F R 4862 5 [Septembe r 22 , 1994]. ) I n th e Septembe

r 14 , 199 3 letter , I concluded tha t th e OB D II regulation s d

o no t undermin e th e previousl y issued waiver s fo r on-roa d moto r vehicles . Tha

t conclusio n i s consisten t wit h th e finding s mad

e b y the AR B i n eac h o f th e resolution s tha

t wer e adopte d a

t th e time o f approvin g th e OB D II regulations . Specifically , i n th e letter , I stated tha

t th e OB D I I regulation s would no t undermine th

e existin g emission standard s becaus e th e mandated OB D I I system s ar e significantl y mor e advanced tha

n the firs t generatio n monitorin g system s tha t ar e replaced . Th e OB D II regulation s shoul d thu s bette

r assur e tha t th e emissio nP. 9

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r reduction s promise d b

y th e adopted standard s are actuall y achieved in-use , becaus e the y will b e mor e effectiv e i

n detectin g an

d aidin g i n the diagnosi s o

f emission-relate d malfunctions . Th e AR B staf f ha d estimate d tha

t b y the yea r 201 0 th e OB D I I regulation s would achiev e in

us e emissio n reduction s o

f 12 5 ton s pe r da y o f HCs , 12 5 ton s pe r da y o f Oxide s o f Nitrogen (NOx) , an d 200 0 ton s per

da y carbon monoxid

e (CO) . Further , i n m y letter , I compared the OB D II regulations , a s the y existe d i n Septembe

r 1993 , t o the federa

l OB D regulation s tha

t wer e promulgate d i

n Februar y 1993 , an

d concluded tha t th e Californi aregulation s wer e significantl

y mor e stringent . I reache d thi s conclusio n upo n findin g tha t the OB D I I regulation s requir e the monitoring o

f mor e emission-relate d component s an

d system s an

d establis h lowe

r emission s threshold s fo

r indicatin g malfunctions , particularl y o

n LE V applications , tha

n d o the federa

l regulations . Th e most recen t amendment s t

o the OB D I I requirements , althoug h providin g manufacturer s wit

h increase d flexibilit

y fo r compliance , still requir

e the implementatio n o

f diagnosti c system s tha

t ar e fa r mor e effective tha

n thos e require d b

y firs t generatio n on-boar

d diagnosti c regulation s (OB D I , Titl e 13 , CCR , sectio n 1968) , an

d d o no t undermin e th e waiver s tha

t hav e bee n issued fo

r th e on-roa d Californi amoto

r vehicl e program . Th e OB D I I regulation s wil l continu e t

o assur e tha t in-us e vehicl e emission performanc e wil l remain nea r certificatio n level s fo

r th e lif e o f the vehicle . Additionally , th e OB D I I regulations , a s amended,.continu e t o mandat e mor e comprehensiv e an

d stringen t on-boar d monitoring strategie s tha n the recentl

y notice d direc t fina l rulemakin g issue d b

y th e U.S . EPA . (6 0 Fed.Reg . 15242 [Marc h 23 , 1995]. ) Th e stated purpos e o f

tha t rulemakin g wa s t

o alig n the federa

l regulation s wit

h th e adopte d OB D I I amendments . Upo

n revie w o

f th e federa l rulemaking , i

t i s clea r tha t th e OB D I I requirement s fo r catalys t an d misfir e monitorin g remain mor

e stringen t tha n the federa

l requirements . Lik

e th e OB D I I regulations , th e federa l regulation s wer

e als o amended t

o provid e simila

r type s o f complianc e relie f

t o manufacturers . Th e federa l rulemaking allow s manufacturer s t o certif y system s wit

h limite d deficiencie s an

d provide s the

mwit h additiona

l lea d tim e t o develop som

e monitorin g strategie s fo

r alternat e fue l vehicles . 2 . Consistenc y wit

h CA A Sectio n 202(a) : I n m y Septembe

r 14 , 199 3 letter , I stated tha t afte r athorough revie w o f

applicabl e cas e la w an d th e U.S . EP

A waive r determinations , the AR

B believed th

e OB D I I regulations , a s amended o

n tha t date , t o b e consisten

t wit h section 202(a

) o f the CAA . Upo

n consideratio n o f th e mos t recent amendments , I reaffir

mm y conclusion o

n thi s point . Unde

r establishe d precedent , the U.S . EP

A wil l fin d California' s regulation s t o b e consisten

t i f (1 ) the y provid e adequat e lea d tim e t o permi t the developmen

t o f technology necessar

y t o mee t th eTh e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r requirements , givin g appropriat e consideratio n t

o the cos t o f compliance , an

d (2 ) th e Californi ates t

procedure s se

t fort h i n th e regulation s permit

manufacturer s t

o mee t bot h th e federa l an d Californi ates t

procedure s wit

h th e sam e tes t vehicle . A s stated i n m y previou s letter , th e AR

B ha s provided manufacturer s wit h substantia

l lea d tim e sinc e initiall y approvin g th e regulation s fo r adoption i

n 1989 . Fo r

th e 199 4 an d 199 5 mode l years , th e firs t

year s subject

t o the regulations , manufacturer s wer e afforde d nearly fou r year s o f lea d tim e t o develo p enhance d monitoring systems . Moreover , th e requirement s applicabl e t

o 199 4 an d 1995 mode

l year s onl y applie d t

o thos e model s fo

r whic h manufacturer s voluntaril y electe d t o install enhanced monitoring systems . Fo r th e 1994-9 5 mode

l years , severa

l manufacturer s wer

e abl e t o certif y full y complian t monitorin g systems ; however , othe r manufacturer s applied fo

r an d receive d exemption s an

d wer e no t require d t o compl y wit h the monitoring requirements . I n addition , a s describe d i

n th e summar

y above , the Boar

d amende d the regulation s i

n 199 3 t o provid e certificatio n relie f

fo r thos e manufacturer s wh

o wer e unable t o compl y wit h th e requirement s fo r th e 1994-9 5 mode

l year s despit

e goo d fait h efforts . Beyon d it s effort s t

o provide certificatio n flexibilit y a s i t did wit h th e 199 3 amendments , the AR

B ha s committed itself

t o assuring th

e technologica

l feasibilit y o f th e regulation s b

y periodicall y reviewin g th e regulations . A s par t o f thi s review process , the Boar d approve d amendment s t

o th e regulation s i

n 1991 . Thes e amendments , in part , addresse d manufacture

r concern s abou

t th e technica

l feasibilit y o f meetin g th e monitorin g requirement s a s originall y adopted . Th e amendment s als o attempted t o mak e th e regulation s more effectiv e an

d consisten

t wit h th e OB D requirement s the n bein g propose d b y th e U.S . EPA . Th e amendment s primarily focuse d o n ne w monitoring strategie s fo

r catalyst s o

n LEVs , evaporativ e syste

mleaks , an

d engin e misfire . T o th e exten

t tha t th e 199 1 amendment s require d ne w monitoring strategies , manufacturer s wer

e provide d wit

h additiona

l lea d tim e an d greate r complianc e flexibility . Th e Septembe r 199 3 letter

describe d i

n detai l thes e ne

w requirement s an

d th e ARB' s reason s fo

r believin g tha

t th e regulations , a s amended , wer e technologicall

y feasible i

n th e timeframe s provided , give

n th e cost s fo

r compliance . A t th e Board' s direction , th e AR B staf f ha s continued t

o monito r th e progres s o

f manufacturer s i

n achievin g compliance . Ove r the pas t severa l years , th e AR

B staf f ha s me t wit h manufacturer s i

n bot h private an

d genera l workshops . A

t it s Decembe

r 199 4 hearing , i

n respons e t o continuin g concern s expresse d b y manufacturer s regardin g developmen t an d implementatio n o

f monitorin g strategie s fo

r LE V catalyst s an

d engin e misfir

e detection , th e Boar d adopted th e aforementione d amendment s tha t ar e summarized i

n th e previou s section .P.1 1

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r 1 0 I n additio n t

o addressin g the complianc e concern s raised b y the manufacturers , th e Boar d provide d the

mwit h additiona

l lea d tim e an d complianc e flexibility . T o th e exten

t tha t th e amendment s als o imposed new , tighte r restriction s fo

r evaporativ e lea

k detectio n monitoring , the Boar d provided manufacturer s wit h mor e tha n five year s o f lea d tim e befor e the y woul d hav e t o begi n phasing-in the mor

e stringen t requirements . A detaile d discussio n o

f the technologica

l feasibilit y o f the regulation s i s se

t fort h i n th e Staf f Report , Attachmen

t 2 . Fo r th e reason s se

t fort h i n th e Staf f Repor t an d i n th e precedin g discussion , th e AR

B believe s tha

t all o f the requirement s o

f the OB D II regulation s ar e technically feasibl e give

n the lea d tim e provide d an

d the cost s o

f compliance . Th e secon d pron g ofth e consistenc y test , as developed b y th e U.S . EPA , i s tha

t th e Californi astandard s an

d accompanying enforcemen t procedure s woul

d b e foun d t o b e inconsistent

wit h comparabl e federa

l regulation s i

f one vehicl e could not

compl y wit h bot h th e Californi aan

d federa l tes t procedures . A s explained i n th e Septembe

r 199 3 letter , thi s problemdoe s not

exis t fo r th e OB D regulation s i

n tha t the AR B an d the U.S . EP

A hav e worke d closely i

n developin g their

respectiv e OB D strategies . Th e federa l OB D rul e provide s tha t through the 199 8 mode

l yea r complianc e wit

h th e Californi aOBD II requirement s wil l satisf y th e requirement s o

f the federa l rule . (4 0 CF

R Par t 86 , section 86.094-17(j). ) Similarly , th e OB D I I regulation s provid e tha t afte r the 199 8 mode

l year , Californi awil l accep t complianc e wit

h the federa

l OB D requirement s fo

r non-LEVs . Presently , there ar e no federa l LE V standards ; thus , n

o inconsistenc y exist s betwee n federa l an d stat e regulation s a s t

o thes e vehicles . B . I n th e Alternative , i

f th e U.S . EP

A Wer e t o Fin d th e OB D I I Regulation s Establis h Ne

w Emission Standards , aWaive r Should , Nonetheless , b e Granted . Althoug h th e AR B strongl y continue s t

o believ e tha

t it s OB D I I regulation s ar e in-us e enforcemen

t measure s an

d th e Administrator

should gran

t awaive r unde r th e analysi s presente d above , i t

ha s bee n argued tha

t the OB D I I regulation s are , i n fact , ne w emissio n standard s tha

t require aful

l analysi s o

f the thre e criteri afo

r denying awaive

r set fort h i n sectio n 209(b ) o f

th e CAA . T o the exten

t tha t th e U.S . EP

A adopt s thi s view , th e AR B provide s th e following analysi s t o sho w tha t regardles s o

f ho w th e OB D I I regulation s are characterized , there i s no basi s fo r th e Administrator

t o den y thi s waive

r request . Unde r section 209(b) , t

o gran t awaive r fo r ane w emission standard , Californi amus t mak e adeterminatio n tha

t the adopted standard s wil

l be , i n the aggregate , a

t leas t a s protectiv e o f publi c healt

h an d welfar e as applicabl e federa

l standards . Onc e suc

h adeterminatio n i sP.1 2

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r 1 1 made , th e Administrator

must gran t th e waive r unles s sh e find s tha t the determinatio n by Californi ai s arbitrar

y an d capricious ; tha

t Californi adoe s no

t nee d stat e standard s t

o mee t compellin g an

d extraordinar

y conditions ; an

d the Californi astandard s an d accompanyin g enforcemen

t procedure s are no

t consisten t wit h sectio n 202(a ) o f the CAA . 1 . Protectivenes s Determination : I n it s Septembe

r 14 , 199 3 lette

r t o the Administrator , th

e AR B presente d adetaile d compariso n o

f the OB D II regulation s an d the federa

l OB D regulations . A s previousl y stated , in tha t letter I conclude d tha

t th e OBD II regulation s ar

e mor e stringen t tha n th e applicabl e federa l OB D regulations . Thi s conclusion was mad e afte r considerin g bot

h th e scop e o

f emission-relate d component s an d system s fo

r whic h a n on-boar d evaluatio n o

f performanc e i s require d an

d the leve l o

f performanc e a

t whic h amalfunctio

n i s t o b e indicate d b y th e diagnosti c system s unde

r the respectiv e regulations . (See Septembe r 14 , 199 3 letter , a

t page s 3-5. ) Th e most recen t amendment s d

o no t affec t th e comparabl e stringenc y o

f th e OB D I I regulations . Althoug

h th e amendments provide som e complianc e relief

t o manufacturer s fo

r meeting th e catalys t

requirement s fo

r LEV s an d fo r misfir e monitoring , the OB D I I requirement s continu e t

o b e mor e stringen t tha n th e federa l regulations . Wit

h respec t t o monitorin g catalys t

syste mperformance , the OBD I I emission threshold s fo

r th e Malfunction Indicato r Ligh t (MIL) illuminatio n o

n LEV s ar e significantl

y lowe r tha n the . 6 gram s per

mil e permitte d unde

r th e federa l regulation s (b

y afacto r a s grea t a s 1 0 o n Ultra-LEV s (ULEV)) . Fo r non-LEV s (i.e. , vehicle s meetin g the federa

l tie r one standards , or

California' s equivalent) , th e emissio n threshol d i s purposefull y comparabl e t

o tha t specifie d i n th e federa

l regulations . Regardin g misfir e detection , the OB D I I regulation s continu e t o require tha

t th e MI L b e illuminate d t

o indicat e misfir e detection whe

n emission s cause

d b y misfir e caus e emission s t

o increas e by mor

e tha n 1. 5 time s the applicabl e standard , whic h i s mor e stringen t wit h respec t t o al l current

emission standard s tha

n the federa

l OB D emission threshold s (0. 4 g/m i HC , 3. 4 g/m

i C O an d 1. 0 g/m i NOx) . Further , the OB D I I regulatio n require s misfir e detectio n ove

r agreater engin e operatin g rang e tha n doe s the federa

l requirements . I n addition , th e OB D I I regulations , a s amended , hav e bee n mad e mor e stringen t by requiring , commencing i

n th e mode

l yea r 2000 , tha t monitoring system s detec t evaporativ e syste mleak s a s smal

l a s 0.0 2 inche s i

n diameter . Th e federa

l regulation s presently provid e fo r MI L illuminatio n whe

n emission s equa

l or excee d the emission s tha

t woul d escap e fro

mahol e o f 0.0 4 inche s i

n diameter . Further , the federa l OB D requirement s permi t manufacturer s to foreg o monitorin g o

f th e evaporativ e syste

mi f evaporativ e diurna

l emission s d o no t

exceed 3 0 gram s per test . Base

d o n recen t dat afro mmanufacturers , th e evaporativ e syste mwil l likelyP.1 3

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r 1 2

no t hav e t o b e monitore d o

n man y vehicle s unde

r thi s provision . Th e OB D I I regulation s d o not contain suc

h aprovision . Finally , although th e amendment s provid e manufacturer s wit h additiona

l flexibilit y i n certifying non-full

y complian

t system s i n the 1996-200

0 mode l years , the amendment s d

o not provid e fo r suc h asignifican

t relaxatio n o

f standard s tha

t th e Californi aregulation s ar e n o longe r a s stringen

t a s th e federa

l regulations . A

s previousl y stated , the federa

l OB D requirement s wer

e recently amende

d t o provide fo

r certificatio n o

f vehicle s wit

h deficiencie s through th e 199 8 mode

l year . Althoug

h California' s deficiency provision s extend fo r a n additiona l tw o years , the

y restric t th e numbe r o f deficiencie s permitte d without penalt y t o one per vehicl e model , an

d impos e additiona

l restriction s regardin g the complet e absenc e o

f a monitorin g strateg y an

d the carry-ove

r o f monitoring deficiencie s fro mone mode

l yea r t o th e next . By the 1999 mode

l year , th e AR B expect s tha

t the nee d fo r certificatio n wit

h a deficiency wil l b e rar e sinc e manufacturer s will hav e ha d severa l year s experienc e wit

h OB D I I systems . Further , eve

n i f a n OBD I I equipped vehicl e i s certifie d wit h adeficiency , th e OB D I I syste mshoul d still b e mor

e effective overal l tha

n asyste mmeeting th

e federa l requirement s fo r th e reason s previousl y given . Tha t is , th e OB D I I regulation s require monitorin g o f man y mor e emission-relate d component s an d establis h malfunctio

n criteri asignificantl

y mor e stringen t tha n require d unde

r th e federa l regulations . Accordingly , fo

r al l the foregoin

g reasons , th

e AR B find s tha

t the Californi aOB D I I regulation s are , i

n th e aggregate , a

t leas t as stringen

t as th e comparabl e federa

l OB D regulations . Th e AR

B furthe r believe s tha

t n o basi s exist s fo

r the Administrator

t o conclude tha t thi s determinatio n by the AR B i s arbitrar

y an d capricious . 2 . Th e Regulation s Ar

e Necessar y t o Mee t Compelling an

d Extraordinar

y Condition s i n Californi a Californi aneed s it s ow

n moto r vehicl e progra

mt o mee t seriou s air

pollutio n problem s uniqu e t o th e state . Th e Administrator ha s previously an

d consistently recognize d thi s nee d whe n grantin g waiver s fo

r moto r vehicle s unde

r section 209(b ) o

f the CAA . Give

n th e seriou s ai r pollutio n problem s face

d by Californi aan

d the resultin g nee

d t o achiev e th e maximu

m reduction s i

n emissions , th e Californi aLegislatur e an d th e AR B continu e t

o believ e tha

t i t i s imperativ e tha

t Californi acontinu e it s emission contro l program s fo r moto r vehicles . (Se e Californi aHealt

h an d Safet y Cod e section s 43000.5 , 43013 , 43018 , an d 4310 1 et

seq. ) Th e relevant

inquir y unde r thi s criterio n i s whethe

r Californi aneed s it s ow

n emissio n contro l progra

mt o mee t compelling an

d extraordinar

y conditions , not

whethe r an y givenP. M

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r 1 3 standar d i s necessar

y t o mee t suc h conditions. 1 The Administrator ha s determine d i

n approvin g waiver s unde

r section 209(b ) tha

t the phras e "compelling an d extraordinar

y conditions " refer s to : ".. . certai n genera

l circumstances , unique t

o California , primaril y responsibl e fo r causin g it s ai r

pollutio n proble

m[including ] . . . geographica l an d climati c factor s [as wel

l as ] .. . the presenc e an

d growt h o f California' s vehicl e population , whos e emission s wer e though t t o b e responsibl e fo

r ninet y percent o f th e ai r pollutio n i

n certain part s o

f California. " Thus , th e Administrator

ha s stated : "I t i s evident . . . tha

t 'Compellin g an

d extraordinar

y conditions ' doe s no t

refe r to level s o f

pollutio n directly , but

primarily t

o th e factor s tha

t ten d t o produc e them : geographica

l an d climati c condition that , whe n combined wit

h larg e number s an

d hig h concentration s o

f automobiles , create seriou s ai r pollutio n problems." 2 California , an

d the Sout h Coas t Ai r Basi n i n particular , continue s t

o experienc e th e wors t air qualit y i n th e nation . (Se

e Approva l an d Promulgatio n o

f Stat e an d Federa l Implementatio n Plans ; California-Sacrament o an d Ventur aOzone ; Sout

h Coas t Ozone an d Carbo n Monoxide ; Sacrament o Ozon e Reclassification (4 0 CF

R Part s 5 2 an

d 81 , 5 9 Fed.Reg . 23264). ) Th e uniqu e geographica l an d climati c conditions , an

d th e tremendou s growt

h i n vehicl e populatio n an

d us e whic

h move d Congres s t

o authoriz e Californi at

o establis h separat

e vehicl e standard s in 196

7 ar e stil l i

n existenc e today . I

n th e Californi aClea

n Air Act o f 1988 , th e Californi aLegislatur

e found : Tha t despit e th e significan

t reduction s i

n vehicl e emission s whic

h hav e bee

n achieved i n recent years , continued growt

h i n populatio n an

d vehicl e mile s travele d throughou t

Californi ahav e th e potentia l no t onl y t o prevent attainment o f th e stat e standards , bu

t i n som e cases , t o result i n worsening o

f ai r quality . (Californi aHealt

h an d Safet y Cod e sectio n 43000.5. )

However , whe n th e Californi aStandard s hav e bee n measure d agains t th e test s i n thes e cases , th e Administrato r

ha s recognize d tha

t suc h atest , if

applie d t o California , "woul d no t

b e applicabl e t o it s fulles t stringenc y du e t o th e degre e o f discretio n give n to Californi ain dealin g wit h it s mobil e sourc e pollutio n problems, " (4 1 Fed.Reg . 44209 , 44213 , [October 7 , 1976] ; 4 9 Fed.Reg . 18887 , 1889 2 [Ma y 3 , 1984]) . 2 See , e.g. , 4 6 Fed.Reg . 2371 , 2637 3 (Ma y 12 , 1981) ; 4 3 Fed.Reg . 3218 2 (Jul y 25 , 1978) .Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r 1 4 I n respons e t

o th e undisputed sever

e ai r qualit y problem s i

n California , th e Californi a Legislatur e authorize d th e Boar

d t o conside r adopting inte

r alia , th e mos t

cost-effectiv e combinatio n ofcontro l measure s fo r all classe s o

f moto r vehicles , includin g furthe

r reduction s i n exhaus t an d evaporativ e emission s an d reduction s i

n emission s fro

min-us e motor

vehicle s fro mimprovement s i

n emission syste

mdurabilit

y an d performance . (Californi aHealt h and Safet y Cod e section s 4301 3 an

d 43018. ) Accordingly , fo r all the aforementione d reasons , there ca n b e no doub t

o f the continuin g existenc e o f compellin g an

d extraordinar

y condition s justifyin g California' s continue d nee d fo r it s ow n moto r vehicl e an

d engin e emission s contro l program . 3 . Th e Regulation s Ar e Consisten

t wit h Section 202(a) : Fo r th e reason s se

t fort h abov e i n sectio n III . A.2 , th e AR

B believe s tha

t there i s no basi s fo r the Administrator

t o conclud e tha t th e OB D II regulation s ar e inconsisten t wit h th e two-pron g tes t

fo r consistency . IV . Conclusion Base d o n th e foregoing , I believ e tha t th e U.S . EP A should gran

t California' s waive

r reques t fo r the OB D I I regulations . The regulations , whic h the AR B believe s t

o b e accompanying enforcemen

t procedures , d

o no t endange r the protectivenes s finding s tha t th e AR B ha s mad

e fo r previously granted waive

r determination s an

d the regulation s ar e consisten t wit h th e inten

t o f section 202(a

) o f the federa l CAA . I n th e alternative , if

th e OB D I I regulation s ar e viewe d a s ne w emission standards , awaive r should als o b e granted . Th e regulations , a s amended , are , i n the aggregate , a

t leas t a s stringen

t a s the comparabl e federa

l OB D regulations , Californi aneed s it s ow n moto r vehicl e progra

mt o mee t compellin g an

d extraordinar

y condition s i

n th e state , and , a s stated , th e regulation s ar e consistent wit h th e intent o f section 202(a

) o f th e CAA . Wit

h regar d t o th e consistenc y criterio n unde r th e alternativ e analyses , th e AR B ha s demonstrate d tha

t the technolog y i s either

presentl y achievable , th e regulation s are'sufficiently flexibl e fo r compliance , o r

tha t th e lea d time provide d i s sufficient . I

n thi s lette r an d i n previou s submissions , th e AR B ha s addresse d th e criteri afo r lea d time se t fort h i n th e appellat

e cour t decision , Natura

l Resourc e Defens e Counci l v . EE

A (D.C . Cir . 1981 ) 65 5 F.2 d 318 , an d affirmativel

y answere d al l theoretica

l objection s t

o th e projecte d technology , identified th e majo r step s necessar

y in refinin g th e technology , an

d offered plausibl e reason s fo r believin g tha

t eac h o f th e identifie d step s ca

n b e complete d i

n th e time available .P.1 6 >" - . -s

<

Th e Honorabl e Caro l M . Browne r 1 5

Th e following lis t

o f document s relatin g t

o the boar d hearin g o

n Decembe

r 8 , 199 4 are enclosed : 1 . "Notic e o

f Publi c Hearing t

o Conside r Technica l Statu s an d Propose d Revision s t o Malfunction an

d Diagnosti c Syste

mRequirement s fo

r 199 4 Model-Yea

r Passenge r Cars , Light-Dut

y Trucks , an

d Mediu mDut y Vehicle s an

d Engines " 2 . "Staf

f Report : Initia

l Statemen t o f Reason s fo

r Rulemaking " 3 . Resolutio n 94-6 7 4 . "Notice s o

f Availabilit

y o f Modifie d Text, " issued Januar

y 19 , an d Apri l 3 , 199 5 5 . "Fina

l Statemen t o f Reason s fo

r Adoptio n o f Amendment s t

o th e Malfunction an d Diagnosti c Syste

mRequirement s fo

r 199 4 Model-Yea

r Passenge r Cars , Light-Dut y Trucks , an

d Mediu mDut y Vehicle s an

d Engines " 6 . Executiv e Orde

r G-95-016 , dated Apri l 26 , 1995 , formall y adoptin g th e 199

4 amendment s 7 . Fac e Sheet s fo

r th e filin g o f th e 199 4 rulemaking wit

h th e Californi aOAL , an

d attache d Titl e 13 , Californi aCod e o f Regulations , section 1968.1 , a s amended Should yo u hav e an y question s o r

nee d furthe r assistance , pleas e contac t Mr . Stev e Albu , Chief

, Engineerin g Studie s Branch , Mobil e Sourc e Division , a t (818 ) 575-7010 . Lega

l question s ma

y b e addressed t

o Michael Terris , Senior

Staf f Counsel , a t (916 ) 322-3283 . Sincerely ,

Enclosure s