BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

In the Matter of California’s Request for

Waiver Action Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(b) for California’s HeavyDuty On-Board Diagnostic Program

__________________ _______________ ) ) ) ) ) )

CLEAN AIR ACT § 209(b) WAIVER REQUEST

SUPPORT DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

September 27, 2010

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Pursuant to section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), t he California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) requests that the Administ rator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take appropriate action to grant California a waiver from the preempti on set forth in CAA section 209(a), which prohibits states from adopting and enfor cing emission standards relating to the

control of emissions from new motor vehi cles or new motor vehicle engines. At a public hearing on May 28, 2010, CARB , by Resolution 09-37 (enclosed herewith), approved the adopt ion of amendments to it s regulation entitled “Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines” (HD OB D Requirements) and the adoption of a new enforcement regulation entitled “Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and S ubsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines” (HD OBD Enforcement Regulation) . The regulations are respectively codified at title 13, California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs.) sections

1971.1 and 1971.5. 1 After, proposing modifica tions to the regulations on October 29, 2009, the Board fo rmally adopted the amended HD OBD Requirements and the new HD OBD Enforc ement Regulation on April 5, 2010.

The California Office of Administra tive Law approved the amendments and the new regulation on May 18, 2010, and they became operative on June 17, 2010, after being certified by the Calif ornia Secretary of State.

CARB initially adopted the HD OBD Requ irements in December 2005, and EPA issued a waiver under CAA section 209(b) in August 2008. 2 The regulation, as initially adopted, required manufacturers to install a fully compliant HD OBD

1 Unless otherwise noted, all section referenc es are to title 13, CCR section 1971.1.

2 The decision was signed on August 13, 2008 a nd published at 73 Fed.Reg. 52042 (September 8, 2008).Waiver Request Support Document

2 system on both diesel and gasoline powered heavy-duty engines (engines used in vehicles having a gross vehicle we ight rating greater than 14,000 pounds). The requirements are to be phased in on a single engine family for model years 2010 through 2012 before requiring manufacture rs to incorporate fully compliant HD OBD systems on all 2013 and later mode l year engines. The phase-in was designed to allow manufacturers to gai n experience on a smaller number of engines prior to wide scale implementation, promoting more effective use of their personnel and testing resources.

Among other things, the initially adopted regulation requires engine manufacturers to do the following on vehi cles subject to the 2010 model-year phase-in:

• Implement OBD systems that monito r for engine misfire as well as

emission-related malfunctions in va rious systems, including, but not limited to, fuel injection, catalyst, tu rbocharging, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), particulate matter (P M) filter, cooling, and variable valve timing and control (VVT).

• Calibrate major emission control monitors so that malfunctions are detected before tailpipe emission leve ls exceed thresholds correlated to

certification emission standards.

• Design the OBD system to monitor other emission-related components and systems for proper performa nce and functionality.

• Conduct post-assembly testing on a sample of production engines and vehicles to ensure that the OBD syst ems, as built, are able to properly detect malfunctions, store the appropria te fault codes, and illuminate the

MIL.

• Use a standardized methodology to determine and track whether most OBD monitors operate with sufficient frequency during in-use driving.

Sections II and III of this document res pectively describe the amendments to the HD OBD Requirements and the new HD OBD Enforcement Regulation. Section

IV first describes the crit eria that EPA considers in taking waiver actions for California rulemakings that adopt or am end standards relating to the control of

emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, including the criteria it considers in confirming that amendments fall within the scope of previously granted waivers. Section IV then presents CARB’s analysis that the amendments to the HD OBD Requirement s fall within the scope of the HD OBD waiver granted in August 2008. Alte rnatively, CARB requests that the Administrator confirm, at a minimum, that those amendments which relax the stringency of or clarify previously waived requirements fall within the scope of the previously granted waiv er and that a new waiver be granted for those requirements that are determined to cr eate new, more stringent requirements. Finally, CARB requests that the Admi nistrator confirm that the HD OBD Enforcement Regulation is within the scope of the previously granted HD OBD

waiver.Waiver Request Support Document

3 II. SUMMARY OF AMENDMEN TS TO HD OBD REQUIREMENTS 3

In amending the HD OBD regulation, t he Board addressed recent developments in HD OBD technology. The amendments include revisions to several of the monitoring requirements for diesel engines to ensure that t he requirements are technologically feasible in the lead ti me provided. These amendments include changes that relax the malfunction thres holds until 2013 model year for three major emission controls: PM filters, oxi des of nitrogen (NOx) catalysts, and NOx sensors. The Board also recognized that it was necessary to provide manufacturers with greater lead time in several instances to allow for proper development of emission control strategi es. In this regar d, the Board approved amendments to delay certain monitoring re quirements, includi ng those that apply to catalyst-based components, until 2013. With better understanding of emission control strategies that manuf acturers will be using in 2010 and later model-year engines, the Board further am ended the regulation to address these new strategies. For example, the B oard amended the regulat ion to expand the monitoring requirements for EGR and boost control system strategies. Finally, the regulation has been amended, as necessa ry, to provide clarification to the initially adopted regulation. A summa ry of the subst antive amendments is provided below.

A. General Requirements.

1. Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) and Fault Codes

a. Sections (d)(2.2.1)(E) and (d)(2. 2.2)(E): MIL Illumination and Fault Code Storage Protocol.

The sections were relaxed to allow manuf acturers to delay illumination of the MIL when the engine has entered a default or “ limp home” mode of operation that can affect emissions or the performance of the OBD system. Formerly, the OBD system was required to illuminate and stor e a fault code within 10 seconds of detecting such a condition. Under the amendments, illuminati on is not required until the condition causing the default or “limp home” mode of operation is again

detected before the end of t he next driving cycle.

b. Sections (d)(2.3.1)(C) and (d)( 2.3.2)(A) and (D): Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) Exting uishing and Fault Code Erasure

Protocol.

3 A detailed discussion of the adopted HD OB D Requirements and the HD OBD Enforcement Regulation discussed in Section III, infra, is set forth in the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (Staff Report) issued on April 10, 2009, the Notice of Availability of Modified Text issued on October 29, 2009 (15-Day Notice), and the Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR), issued on April 5, 2009. Copies of the aforement ioned documents are enclosed herewith.Waiver Request Support Document

4 Sections (d)(2.3.1)(C) and (d)(2.3.2)(D) were amended to clarify the protocol for erasing permanent fault codes to ensur e consistent implementation by manufacturers and consistent methods to be followed by repair technicians in preparing vehicles for re-inspection. The proposed amendments would, in general, only allow a permanent fault code to be erased once the vehicle has run and passed the relevant monitor and has been driven a minimum amount (i.e.,

an amount sufficient to m eet the criteria of a general denominator of §1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(B)). 4

The amendments to section (d)(2.3.2)(A) clar ify that diesel fuel system monitors use a different MIL extinguishing prot ocol than the standard protocol used by

other monitors.

c. Section (d)(2.4.1)(A): Exc eptions to MIL and Fault Code Requirements

The amendments eliminate a circular re ference and clarify t hat the exemption

from MIL illumination for default strategies is not allowed if the engine enters a default strategy that is caused by or in voked to protect a component required to be monitored by the OBD system.

2. General Monitoring Requirements – Sections (d)(3.1.3) and (d)(3.2.1): Monitoring Conditions for All Engines

Section (d)(3.1.3), as initially adopted, allowed manufacturers to use monitoring

conditions that are not enc ountered on the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) cycle if, among other things, they were able to demonstrate that their monitoring conditions would meet the minimum accept able in-use monitor performance ratio requirements. The amendments clarify t hat manufacturers may include in-use driving data that meet t he minimum requirements.

The amendments to section (d)(3.2.1) add new requirements for tracking and reporting of diesel fuel syst ems, specifically diesel fuel pressure and secondary oxygen sensor monitors starting with the 2013 model year. 5

3. In-Use Monitor Perf ormance Ratio Definition

a. Section (d)(4.2.2)(F): Numerator Specifications

The amendments clarify how monitors that use an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) strategy for MI L illumination are to increment the

numerator after a reset or erasure of the EWMA resul t. Specifically, following this reset or erasure, the numerator c annot increment until the requisite number of decisions necessary for MIL illuminat ion have been met. Previously, monitors

4 Staff Report at pages 48-49.

5 See Id. , at pages 12-14 and 32-35.Waiver Request Support Document

5 that used the EWMA strategy had to s ubmit and receive CARB staff approval for their plan for incrementing the numerator of the in-use performance monitoring

ratio. The amendments set forth the criteria that CARB has followed in approving such plans.

b. Section (d)(4.3.2)(B)(ii) and (i v): In-Use Performance Ratio

Performance Definition.

Currently, the HD OBD regulation require s manufacturers to track monitor performance by counting the number of m onitoring events and the number of driving events. The number of monito ring events is defined as the numerator and the number of driving events is defi ned as the denominator. The ratio of

these two numbers is referred to as the monitoring frequency and provides an indication of how often the monitor is oper ating relative to vehicle operation.

To address engine manufacturers concer ns regarding the definition of the denominator drive cycle for diesel engi nes, the definition was amended to delete

the five cumulative minutes above a ca lculated 15 percent load parameter and replace it with a parameter of five cumulative minutes of engine speed at or above 1150 rpm. Alternatively, manufacture rs could elect to continue to use the 15 percent load parameter thr ough the 2012 model year.

c. Sections (d)(4.3.2)(B )(iii), (E), (F), (G), and (H): -- Incrementing the

Denominator.

Currently, the HD OBD regulation require s manufacturers to track monitor performance by calculating the ratio of the number of monitoring events (the numerator) and the number of driving events (the denominato r). The definition of “idle” operation in section (d)(4.3.2)(B)(iii), which is used in determining the denominator in tracking performance of the diesel PM filter/NMHC catalyst was relaxed to define idle operation in terms of revolutions per minute as well as vehicle speed. 6
Section (d)(4.3.2)(E) was relaxed ov erall by adding additional criteria 7 that

manufacturers must follow in increm enting the denominator and by allowing

manufacturers to use the denominator criteria of the OBD II regulation. 8

Section (d)(4.3.2)(F) was relaxed by adding additional components/monitors – temperature sensor rational ity monitors and PM f ilter frequent regeneration monitors – to the list of components/m onitors for which a manufacturer may request Executive Officer approval to use al ternate or additional criteria for incrementing the denominator.

6 Id. , at page 66.

7 Adding additional criteria is a relaxation because it results in the denominator incrementing less often with the consequence that the performance ratio will be larger and more likely to be in compliance.

8 15-Day Notice, at page 5.Waiver Request Support Document

6 Section (d)(4.3.2)(G) was relaxed by addi ng the diesel NMHC converting catalyst

used for other aftertreatment assistance functions to the list of components/monitors that are r equired to meet the criteria of this section before the HD OBD system is required to increment the in-use performance

denominator. 9 Additionally the regulation, as initially adopted, required manufacturers to request Executive Of ficer approval for proposed alternate

criteria to increment the denominator for PM filters and NMHC converting catalysts. The amendment s clarify manufacturer obligations by specifically setting forth acceptable denominator-incre menting criteria that CARB has previously approved under t he regulation since initial adoption. Finally, the

Board amended the section to set forth an additional specific criterion that

manufacturers must follow in increm enting the denominator for PM filter monitors. In the past, manufacturers needed to obtain Executive Officer approval

for the use of additional criteria beyond the general de nominator criteria. The amendments replace that prov ision with a specific requi rement that before the denominator may be incremented, the denominat or of the PM filter monitor must, in addition to meeting the general denominat or criteria, the engine must have 800

minutes of cumulative run time. 10

Section (d)(4.3.2)(H) was relaxed by requi ring additional criteria to be met before the HD OBD system needs to increment the in-use monitor performance

denominators for monitors that rely on regeneration events. 11

d. Section (d)(4.5.3): Disablement of Numerators and Denominators

This section allows the HD OBD system to disable incrementing of the

numerators and denominators if a fault of a component used to determine the incrementing criteria in sections (d )(4.3.2)(B) and (C) is detected. The amendments clarify that this is defined as a pending, c onfirmed, or MIL-on fault code being stored for this component.

5. Standardized Tracking and Repor ting of Monitor Performance – Section (d)(5.1.2):

This section lists the specific monitors on gasoline engines that are required to track and report the in-use monitor per formance data. The amendments clarify that “oxygen sensor bank 1 and 2” are refe rring to the “primary” oxygen sensors.

9 Staff Report, at pages 65-66 and 15-Day Notice, at pages 5-6.

10 Id. , at pages 63-66, and Notice of Availability of Modified Text (15-Day Notice), at page 5. Although the specific 800-minute cumulative run- time requirement is a new requirement, this requirement is effectively no more stringent than what was previously a llowed by the Executive

Officer.

11 15-Day Notice, at page 6.Waiver Request Support Document

7 6. Section (d)(6.2.3): Malfunction Criteria Determination, Alternatives for Calculating Infrequent Regenerati on Adjustment Factors (IRAFs)

The regulation, as initially adopted, r equired that manufacturers must follow certain procedures on engines equipped with emission c ontrols that experience infrequent regeneration events. Specifically, they were required to adjust the

emission test results used to determine the malfunction cr iterion for those

monitors that indicate a malfunction bef ore emissions exceed a certain emission

threshold. The amendments relax these requirements to allow manufacturers to

use alternative methods to calculate t he adjustment factors for determining the adjusted emission values in addition to t he procedures described in CFR title 40, part 86.004-28(i).

B. Monitoring Requirements for Diese l/Compression-Ignition Engines.

1. General – Sections (e)(1.2.4), (e)(3.2.4), (e)(4.2.5 ), (e)(6.2.2)(D), (e)(7.2.3), (e)(8.2.7), (e)(9.2.1)(A)(iii),(B)( iii), (e)(9.2.2)(C): Feedforward control

The amendments clarify that , as used in the regulati on, the term feedback control

also refers to feed-forward control.

2. Fuel System Monitoring

a. Section (e)(1.2.7): Dete rmining Malfunction Criteria

The regulation, as initially adopted, in tended that manufactu rers determine the appropriate malfunction criteria for monito ring fuel pressure, fuel quantify, and timing by calibrating the vehicle’s fuel syst em to both single injector faults and faults that affect all cylinders equally. The amendments relax the requirements to

allow manufacturers in m odel years 2010-2012 to elect to calibrate for either single injector faults or faults that affect all cylinde rs. They would not be required to monitor both types of faul ts until the 2013 model year. 12

b. Section (e)(1.3.2): Monitoring Fuel Injectors that Build Pressure Internally.

Recognizing that it would be difficult to continuously monitor the fuel pressure on fuel injection systems that ac hieve injection fuel pressure within the injector or increase pressure within the injector, the Board amended the r egulation to allow once per trip monitoring of fuel pre ssure rather than continuous monitoring. 13

c. Section (e)(1.3.4): Disabli ng of Continuous Monitoring

12 Staff Report, at page 13.

13 Id.Waiver Request Support Document

8 The regulation was amended to allow manufacturers, upon Executive Officer approval, to temporarily disable continuous monitoring to ensure robust detection of malfunctions and to avoid false passes and false indications of malfunctions. 14

d. Section (e)(1.4.2 ): MIL Illumination and Fault Code Storage for Diesel Fuel System Monitoring

The amendments added a MIL illumination and fault code storage protocol for fuel pressure control monitoring that is similar to the curr ent requirements for gasoline fuel system monitoring. Spec ifically, the amendments require fault

detection to be more robust for failures that occur within specific operating conditions by requiring subsequent monito ring in the same operating conditions

before a fault is confirmed or erased. 15

3. Misfire Monitoring, Section (e )(2.2.4): Multi-cylinder Misfire

The requirements for misfir e monitoring were relax ed when multiple cylinder

misfire occurs that results in a misfire rate greater t han or equal to 50 percent of all engine firings. In such situations , the HD OBD system w ould only be required to detect malfunctions caused by a single component failure.

4. EGR System Monitoring

a. Section (e)(3.1.2): General Requirements

The intent of HD OBD regulation is t hat HD OBD systems detect virtually any

malfunction that leads to an emission in crease. The regulation, as initially adopted, required manufacturers to monitor faults that disable, prevent, or delay EGR from properly op erating and faults that caus e the strategies to reach adaptive or authority limits that make it unable to achieve the desired goal under

conditions where it should be able to ac hieve them. The am endments clarify this intent by specifically stating that, if there is an emission control strategy being used by the engine, manufacturers should, to the extent possi ble, monitor this strategy for proper operation.

b. Sections (e)(3.2.1) and (3.2.2): Malfunction Criteria for EGR Low and High Flow

The regulation, as initially adopted, r equired functional monitoring of EGR system low flow and high flow faults if faults did not cause emissions to exceed the emission malfunction thresholds. Specifica lly, a malfunction was required to be

detected if the EGR system had reached its control limit s such that it could not

increase or decrease EGR flow to ac hieve the commanded flow rate. In response to questions from manufacturers as to what is covered under functional

14 Id. , at page 47.

15 Id. , at page 14.Waiver Request Support Document

9 monitoring for non-feedback controlled EGR systems, the requirement was clarified to require detection of a malfunc tion when there is either no detectable

amount of EGR flow when EGR flow is ex pected or when there is to much EGR flow when little or none is expected.

c. Section (e)(3.2.3): Malfunction Criteria for EGR Slow Response

The amendments clarify what an EGR syst em “slow response” malfunction is. Specifically, it is a malfunction if t he EGR system cannot achieve the specified flow rate within a manufacturer-specified ti me. The amendments also clarify that HD OBD systems are to detect slow res ponse faults under both increasing and decreasing EGR flow rate conditions.

d. Section (e)(3.2.6): Malfuncti on Criteria for EGR Catalyst

Performance

The amendments require t hat manufacturers monito r EGR catalysts beginning with the 2013 model year if such components are used. 16

e. Section (e)(3.2.9): Malfunction Criteria for EGR Cooler Performance

The regulation originally envisioned t hat systems using an EGR cooler would utilize a single EGR cooler and structur ed the language accordingly. However, as manufacturers developed their engines, many started to use configurations with multiple individual coolers in se ries and had several questions on how to interpret the requirements (e.g., applyi ng the monitoring requirements to each cooler independent of the other s or to the collective EG R cooler system). This amendment clarifies the requirements for multiple cooler systems. Under the amendments, manufacturers are to consi der the coolers as a system and present monitoring plans for review and approval that consider the typical aging and deterioration mechanisms and patterns that will affect the syst em of coolers.

f. Section (e)(3.3.4): EGR Monitoring Requirements

This section, as initiall y adopted, allowed manufacturers to temporarily disable continuous monitoring of EGR system faults under specific conditions in which it is difficult to distinguish properly -working EGR systems from failing EGR systems. The amendments clarify the si tuations in which disablement is appropriate (e.g., disable EGR low flow m onitoring when no or very little flow is commanded).

5. Boost Pressure Control System Monitoring

a. Section (e)(4.1.2): General Requirements

16 Id. , at pages 14-15.Waiver Request Support Document

10 See discussion above in section B.4.a.

b. Sections (e)(4.2.1) and (e)(4.2.2): Under and Over Boost Pressure

The regulation, as originally adopted, required functional monitoring of under and overboost faults of the boost pressure c ontrol system if faults did not cause

emissions to exceed the emission ma lfunction thresholds. Specifically, a malfunction was required to be detect ed if the boost system had reached its

control limits such that it could not increase or decrease boost to achieve the commanded boost pressure. In response to questions from manufacturers as to

what is covered under functional monito ring, the Board amended the regulation to clarify that for non-feedback contro lled boost systems, a malfunction is required to be detected when there is eit her no detectable amount of boost when boost is expected or when there too mu ch detectable boost when little or no boost is expected.

c. Section (e)(4.2.3 ): Boost Pressure Slow Response Rate

The regulation, as originally adopted, required only boost systems using variable geometry turbochargers (VGT) to be moni tored for slow response failures. CARB staff subsequently determined that malfunctions that delay the boost pressure control system from achiev ing desired boost levels can affect emissions, regardless of the boost system architecture. Accordingly, for the 2013 model year, manufactur ers are required to moni tor the boost pressure control system for slow response failures regardless of whether the system uses a VGT. The regulation was further am ended to require manufacturers to use specific criteria based on t he response of the system to achieve the actual boost rather than on the response of one of the individual actu ators to achieve a certain position. 17

d. Section (e)(4.2.8): Boost Pressu re Charge Air Cooling Performance

Identical to the amendment made in se ction (e)(3.2.9) for EGR coolers listed above, this amendment clarifies the requi rements for systems utilizing multiple charge air coolers in lieu of a single charge air cooler.

e. Section (e)(4.3.4): Disableme nt of Continuous Boost Pressure Monitoring

The regulation was amended to allow manufacturers, upon Executive Officer approval, to temporarily disable continuous monitoring to ensure robust detection of malfunctions and to avoid false passes and false indications of malfunctions. 18

17 Id. , at page 15.

18 Id.Waiver Request Support Document

11 6. NMHC Converting Catalyst Monitoring

a. General

To be consistent with the OBD II regulati on update in 2006, the amendments add specific language detailing t he requirements for manufac turers to functionally monitor an NMHC-converting catalyst used to prevent ammonia slip downstream of an SCR system. Under the regulat ion, as initially adopted, all NMHCconverting catalysts were to be monito red (under the “Other Emission Control System” monitoring requirements) but specif ic criteria were only provided for the most common types of catalysts such as catalysts used to generate an exotherm for PM filter regeneration or catalyzed PM filters.

b. Section (e)(5.2.2)(B): Conversion Efficiency

The amendments added specific NOx thres holds for detecting malfunctions of the NMHC converting catalyst in additi on to the preexisting NMHC detection thresholds. Specifically, starting with the 2013 model year, manufacturers are to

detect a fault before NMHC emissions ex ceed 2.0 times the applicable standard or NOx emissions exceed the applicable NOx standard by more than 0.2 gram per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr), whichever occurs first. 19

c. Section (e)(5.2.3)(B): Delay Im plementation Start Date to 2013.

The regulation, as initially adopted, pr ovided that, starting in the 2010 model year, manufacturers were to monitor cata lysts that were used to generate a feedgas constituency to assist SCR systems. The start date for monitoring has been delayed until the 2013 model year. 20

d. Section (e)(5.2.4)(A) and (B): Aging of NMHC Converting Catalyst

Monitor

In order to determine the malfunction crit eria for NMHC catalyst monitoring, the regulation, as initially adopted, required manufacturer s to age catalysts using methods representative of catalyst deter ioration in-use. The amendments clarify that for catalyst systems with catalysts in parallel, the parallel catalysts are to be simultaneously deter iorated.

7. NOx Converting Catalyst Monitoring

a. Section (e)(6.2.1)(A): Conversi on Efficiency Monitoring - Increase

NOx Threshold

19 Id. , at pages 16-21.

20 Id. , at pages 19-20.Waiver Request Support Document

12 The regulation originally required 2010 through 2012 model year engines to detect NOx catalyst conversion efficiency faults before emissions exceeded the applicable NOx standard by more than 0.3 g/bhp-hr. The amendments increase the threshold to the applicable NOx standard plus 0.4 g/bhp-hr. 21

b. Section (e)(6.2.1)(B): Dete ction of NMHC Emissions Increase

Section (e)(6.2.1)(B) was amended to add specific NMHC thresholds for

detection of malfunctions of the NOx c onverting catalyst in addition to the preexisting NOx detection thresholds st arting in the 2013 model year. Specifically, NOx converting catalyst ma lfunctions must be detected before NOx emissions exceed the applic able NOx standard by mo re than 0.2 g/bhp-hr or NMHC emissions exceed 2.0 times the appl icable standard, whichever occurs

first. 22

c. Section (e)(6.2.2)(A): Detecti on of Reductant Delivery Malfunctions

Section (e)(6.2.2)(A) was amended to add specific NMHC emission thresholds for detection of malfunctions of the selective catalytic reduction delivery system catalyst in addition to the preexisting NO x detection thresholds starting in the 2013 model year. Specifically, malfuncti ons of the reductant delivery system

must be detected before NOx emissions exceed the applicable NOx standard by more than 0.2 g/bhp-hr or NMHC emissions exceed 2.0 times the applicable standard, whichever happens first. 23

d. Section (e)(6.2.2)(A): SCR or Other Active/Intrusive Reductant Injection System Performanc e Monitoring – Increase NOx

Threshold

The regulation originally required 2010 through 2012 model year engines to detect reductant delivery performance faults before emissions exceeded the applicable NOx standard by more than 0.3 g/bhp-hr. The amendments increase the threshold to the applicable NOx standard plus 0.4 g/bhp-hr. 24

e. Section (e)(6.2.3)(A) and (B): Aging of NOx Converting Catalyst

Monitor

In order to determine the malfunction cr iteria NOx catalyst monitoring, the regulation, as initially adopted, required manufacturer s to age catalysts using methods representative of catalyst deter ioration in-use. The amendments clarify that for catalyst systems with catalysts in parallel, the parallel catalysts are to be simultaneously deter iorated.

21 Id. , at page 22.

22 Id. , at page 24

23 Id. , at pages 21-24.

24 Id.Waiver Request Support Document

13 d. Section (e)(6.3.1): Once Per Trip Monitoring for Improper Reductant

Recognizing that it would be difficult to continuously monitor for faults where an improper reductant is being used, the r egulation was amended to allow once per trip monitoring of this fault.

e. Section (e)(6.3.3): Disable ment of Continuous Monitoring

In addition to specifically providing that reductant monitoring need only occur once per trip, the regulation was am ended to allow manufacturers, upon Executive Officer approval, to temporarily disable continuous monitoring of other

malfunctions to ensure robust detection of malfunctions and to avoid false passes and false indications of malfunctions. 25

8. NOx Adsorber Monitoring

a. Section (e)(7.2.1)(B): NMHC Thresholds

The section was amended to add specific NMHC thresholds for detection of

malfunctions of the NOx ads orbers in addition to the preexisting NOx detection thresholds starting in the 2013 model year. Specifically, NOx converting catalyst

malfunctions must be detec ted before NOx emissions exceed the applicable NOx standard by more than 0.2 g/bhp-hr or NMHC emissions exceed 2.0 times the applicable standard, whichever occurs first. 26

b. Section (e)(7.2.6): Multip le NOx Adsorber System Aging

The regulation, as initially adopted, required monitoring of the NOx adsorber capability. The amend ments clarify that manufacture rs must submit their aging and monitoring plans to CARB for approval to make sure that they are calibrating

the malfunction criteria corre ctly, that the agi ng of the adsorber is representative of aging in-use, and that the monitor is able to pinpoint the adsorber at fault.

c. Section (e)(7.3.3): Disable ment of Continuous Monitoring

The regulation was amended to allow manufacturers, upon Executive Officer approval, to temporarily disable continuous monitoring to ensure robust detection of malfunctions and to avoid false passes and false failures. 27

9. PM Filter Performance Monitoring

a. Section (e)(8.2.1)(A): Increasing PM Threshold

25 Id. , at page 47.

26 Id. , at page 25.

27 Id.Waiver Request Support Document

14 The regulation originally required 2010 through 2012 model year engines to detect PM filter performance faults before emissions exceeded either 0.05 g/bhp-hr from an applic able emission-test cycle or the applicable PM standard plus 0.04 g/bhp-hr. The amendments increase the threshold to either 0.07 g/bhp-hr or the applicable PM standard plus 0.06 g/bhp-hr. 28

b. Section (e)(8.2.2)(B): NMHC and NOx Monitoring.

The amendments added specific oxides of nitrogen (NOx) thresholds for

detection of malfunctions of the PM filt er in addition to the preexisting NMHC detection thresholds. Specifically, starting with the 2013 model year, manufacturers are required to detect a fault before NMHC emissions exceed 2.0 times the applicable standard or NOx em issions exceed the applicable NOx standard by more than 0.2 g/bhp- hr, whichever occurs first. 29

c. Section (e)(8.2.4): NMHC Conversion Monitoring – Delay Implementation Start Date to 2013

The regulation had provided that starting in the 2010 model year manufacturers were to monitor catalyzed PM filters for proper NMHC conversion capability. The start date for monitoring has been delayed until the 2013 model year. 30

d. Section (e)(8.3.2): Continuous Monitoring

The regulation, as originally adopted, required that PM filter feedback control

faults be monitored whenever the conditi ons for monitoring were met during the driving cycle. However, by definition, monitoring of feedback control faults can only be achieved if the monitor runs c ontinuously. The amendm ents clarify that

these faults must be m onitored continuously.

e. Section (e)(8.3.3): Disable ment of Continuous Monitoring

The regulation was amended to allow manufacturers, upon Executive Officer approval, to temporarily disable continuous monitoring to ensure robust detection of malfunctions and to avoid false passes and false indications of malfunctions. 31

10. Exhaust Gas Sensor Monitoring – Section (e)(9.2.2): NOx and PM

Sensors

The regulation, as originally adopted, required manufacture rs to establish specific monitoring requirements for NOx sensors while PM sensors were covered under

28 Id. , at page 26.

29 Id. , at pages 28-29.

30 Id. , at pages 18-19.

31 Id. , at page 47.Waiver Request Support Document

15 section (e)(9.2.3). The latter secti on required manufacturers to submit a monitoring plan for approval. Staff s ubsequently determined that the monitoring requirements for NOx sensors were also applicable to PM sensors, so the amendments clarify that t he monitoring requirements of section (e)(9.2.2) apply

to both NOx and PM sensors. Additiona lly, the regulation originally required 2010 through 2012 model year engines to det ect NOx sensor performance faults before emissions exceeded the applicable NO x standard by more than 0.3 g/bhphr. The amendments increase the threshol d to the applicabl e NOx standard plus 0.4 g/bhp-hr. 32

11. Cold Start Emission Reduction Strat egy Monitoring – Section (e)(11)

The amendments added section (e)(11), whic h requires manufacturers to monitor cold start emission reduction strategies starting with the 2013 m odel year. If an engine incorporates such strategies, the OBD system must be capable of monitoring the system to veri fy that the selected strate gy achieves its desired goals (e.g., accelerated catalyst light-off temperature) and t hat the strategy’s commands to required elements of implement ation of the strategy (e.g., engine speed or ignition timing) are carried out as directed. Malfunction criteria include the inability of a requir ed element to respond to a command and a failure or

deterioration of the strat egy that causes NMHC, NOx, or carbon monoxide (CO) emissions to exceed 2.0 times the applic able standards or the PM emissions to exceed the applicable st andard plus 0.02 g/bhp-hr. 33

C. Monitoring Requirements for Gasoline/Spark-Ignited Engines.

1. Fuel System Monitoring

a. Section (f)(1.2.1)(B): Malf unctions of Feedback Control System

The regulation, as initially adopted, sect ion (f)(1.2.1) required that manufacturers

detect malfunctions of the fuel deliv ery system, including malfunctions of feedback control based on the performance of secondary oxygen sensors. The amendments separately list secondary feedback control faults, but the malfunction threshold for determining a f ault remains at 1.5 times the applicable

standard.

b. Sections (f)(1.2.1)(C): Malf unctions Caused by Air-Fuel Ratio Cylinder Imbalance

The amendments require that manufacturers detect air- fuel cylinder imbalances that cause the fuel delivery system to be unable to maintain tailpipe emissions below a specified emission level. To pr ovide manufacturers sufficient lead time to comply with the new requirements, sect ion (f)(1.2.1)(C) a llows manufacturers

32 Id. , at page 22.

33 Id. , at pages 35-37.Waiver Request Support Document

16 to phase-in the requirement dur ing the 2014-2016 model years with a

malfunction threshold of 3.0 times the standards. All engines covered by the section are required to meet the final threshold of 1.5 times the standards in the 2017 model year. 34

c. Sections (f)(1.2.5): Engine Sh ut-Off Strategies Not Requiring Restart (Hybrids)

The originally adopted regulation requires manufacturers to detect a malfunction whenever the fuel system fails to enter closed-loop operation within a certain amount of time after “engi ne start.” For hybrid v ehicles with engine shutoff strategies that do not require the driver to restart the engine to continue driving (e.g., a vehicle that turns off the engi ne at idle and restarts the engine when the vehicle starts to move again), it wasn’t clear as to whether this requirement applied to these engine restarts. The am endments clarify that manufacturers are required to detect faults that occur after su ch restarts. 35

d. Sections (f)(1.3.1) to (1 .3.4): Monitoring Conditions

The regulation, as initially adopted, had a general provision requi ring that the fuel system was to be monitored continuously. The amendments specifically identify different types of malfunctions that mu st now be monitored, and the regulation now specifically identifies specific monitoring conditions for each type of

malfunction. e. Section (f)(1.3.5): Disabl ement of Continuous Monitoring

The regulation was amended to allow manufacturers, upon Executive Officer approval, to temporarily disable continuous monitoring to ensure robust detection of malfunctions and to avoid false passes and false failures. 36

f. Section (f)(1.4.5)(B): Similar Conditions Definition for Secondary

Feedback Control Faults

The regulation was amended to allow m anufacturers to use an alternate

definition of “similar conditions” in lieu of the definition in se ction (c) for fuel system faults detected using feedback c ontrol based on a secondary oxygen (or equivalent) sensor. 37

2. Misfire Monitoring

a. Section (f)(2.2.1)(C): Multi-cylinder Misfire

34 Id. , at page 30.

35 Id.

36 Id. , at page 47.

37 Id. , at page 14.Waiver Request Support Document

17 The requirements for misfir e monitoring were relax ed when multiple-cylinder

misfire occurs that results in a misfire rate greater t han or equal to 50 percent of all engine firings. In those situat ions, the amendments require the HD OBD system to detect only those malfunctions caused by a single component failure.

b. Section (f)(2.3.1)(B): Monito ring While Under Positive-Torque

Conditions

The regulation originally required the HD OB D system to monitor fo r misfire at all times while engine speed rises and settles before the engine reaches the desired idle engine speed at engine start-up. The amendments limit this to just positivetorque conditions. 38

c. Section (f)(2.3.5): Hybr id Vehicle Misfire Monitoring

Under the regulation, as originally adopted, manufacturers were required to start misfire monitoring no later than the end of the second crankshaft revolution after “engine start.” For hybrid vehicles with engine shuto ff strategies that don’t require the driver to restart the engine to continue driving (e.g., a vehicle that turns off the engine at idle and restarts the engine when the vehicle starts to move again), it wasn’t clear whether this requirement applied to these engine

restarts. The amendments clarify that the manufac turer must design the HD OBD system to start misfire monitori ng no later than the end of the second

crankshaft revolution after each these engine restarts.

3. Cold Start Emission Reduction St rategy Monitoring – Section (f)(4.2.2)

The section was amended to add more spec ific requirements starting with the 2013 model year. The changes paralle l those discussed above in section

II.B.11. 39

4. Secondary Air System Monitoring – Section (f)(5.1.2) : Exemption from Monitoring:

For engines using secondary air systems with multiple air flow paths, the amendments would exempt monitoring of air flow to each bank if complete blockage of air delivery to one bank does not cause a measurable emissions

increase. 40

5. Evaporative System Monitoring

a. Section (f)(7.1): General Requirements

38 Id. , at page 31.

39 Id. , at pages 35-37.

40 Id. , at page 32.Waiver Request Support Document

18 The amendments clarify that vehicl es without evaporative systems are not subject to this section.

b. Section (f)(7.2.5): Mu ltiple Purge Flow Paths

The regulation, as initially adopted, requir ed monitoring of the purge flow from the evaporative system to the engi ne. The amendments clar ify that manufacturers must monitor all purge flow paths.

6. Exhaust Gas Sensor Monitoring – Sect ions (f)(8.2.1)(A) and (f)(8.2.2):

Malfunction Criteria for Pr imary and Secondary Sensors

The HD OBD regulation, as initially adopted, detailed specific monitoring requirements that applied to all “exh aust gas sensors,” with monitoring requirements split for exhaust gas sensor s that are considered “primary” sensors and those considered “secondary” sens ors. Since gasoline engines are generally not expected to utilize other ex haust gas sensors as much as oxygen sensors, the section was amended to set forth specific requirements for primary and secondary oxygen sensors and require m anufacturers to submit a plan to the

Executive Officer for other exhaust gas sensors.

CARB amended section (f)(8.2.1)(A) to al so clarify the regulation’s existing requirement that manufacturers are required to monitor a primary oxygen sensor’s response rate for both asymme tric and symmetric malfunctions. The amendments identify the six types of res ponse rate fault conditions that the HD OBD system must detect. Under the init ially adopted regulation, manufacturers were to determine an appropriate response m onitor threshold(s) to ensure that all response failures are detected prior to exceeding 1.5 times the standards. Beginning in the 2013 model year, manufac turers are required to submit data

and/or documentation demonstr ating that they have used a calibration method

that ensures that these criteria have been satisfied. 41

Section (f)(8.2.2)(C) was amended to cl arify the monitoring requirements of secondary oxygen sensors and what is meant by the previously adopted requirement that the OBD system “detect a malfunction of the exhaust sensor when the sensor [is] no longer sufficient for use as an OBD system monitoring device [for other monitoring systems] (e.g ., for catalyst monitoring.” The

amendment clarifies that t he OBD system must be desi gned to detect failures of the secondary sensor, with failure being defined as the secondary sensor not able to detect the best-performing unacc eptable system or component (e.g., a catalyst deteriorated right to the emission detection threshold). 42

41 Id. , at pages 32-33.

42 Id. , at pages 33-35. Arguably, this clarification is not a new more stringent requirement, but just an explanation of the pr eviously adopted language that was subsequently wa ived by EPA. This is especially true given the new “relaxed provisions of subparagraphs (f)(8. 2.2)(C)(ii) and (iii).Waiver Request Support Document

19 D. Monitoring Requirem ents for All Engines.

1. Engine Cooling System Monitoring

a. Section (g)(1.2.1)(B ) and (D): Malfunction Cr iteria for Thermostat Monitoring

Under the amendment to section (g)(1.2.1 )(B), starting with the 2016 model year, manufacturers must additionally hav e the OBD system monitor the engine coolant temperature (ECT) for failures that cause the ECT to drop below diagnostic enablement temperatures a fter they have initially been reached. 43

To address manufacturers’ concerns about truck cabin heat or other sources affecting coolant warm-up at lower tem peratures, section (g)(1.2.1)(D) was

amended to allow manufacturers to desensit ize the thermostat monitor on engine starts when temperatures ar e below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. 44

b. Section (g)(1.3.1)(B) and (E): M onitoring Conditions for Thermostat Monitoring

Section(g)(1.3.1)(B) was added to addr ess monitoring conditions that

manufacturers are to follow consistent with ECT monitoring. See subparagraph

a. above.

Section (g)(1.3.1)(E), as in itially adopted, requi red the thermostat to be monitored during conditions defined according to section (d)(3.1), which included requirements that ensured that monito ring occur under conditions that may reasonably be expected to be encountered during normal vehicle operation and during the FTP cycle. The amendments clarif y that for thermost at monitoring the conditions that may be expected to occur during the FTP cycle, refers to on-road driving following the FTP cycle and does not refer to testing on an engine dynamometer.

2. Crankcase Ventilation (CV) System Monitoring

a. Section (g)(2.2.3): Exemption from Monitoring

The amendments exempt manufacturers fr om monitoring a disconnection in the CV system if the disconnection results in a rapid loss of oil or any other overt indication of a CV system malfunction. 45

b. Section (g)(2.2.7): Malfunction Criteria

43 Id., at page 39.

44 Id. , at page 38.

45 Id. , at pages 40-41.Waiver Request Support Document

20 The regulation originally required manufac turers of diesel engines to submit a monitoring plan for Executive Officer approval for their CV systems. Upon further review, staff determined that the requirements in this section, which were initially specific to gasoline engines, are also appropriate for most diesel engine CV systems. Thus, the regulation was amended to clarify that the criteria for gasoline engines also apply to all diesel s engines, except those certified on an engine dynamometer with an open CV system.

3. Comprehensive Component Monitoring

a. Sections (g)(3.1.3) and (g)(3.1.4 ): Exemptions from Monitoring

The amendments exempt manufacturers from having to monitor electronic components that are not related to fuel or emission control of the engine; specifically, those components that eit her are driven by the engine or can increase emissions only by increasing el ectrical demand or load on the engine are exempt from monitoring. 46

b. Section (g)(3.1.6): Vehicl e Speed Information Monitoring

Under the original require ments, if the engi ne manufacturer used vehicle speed information for another OBD monitor, t hey were required to comprehensively monitor this information. In response to engine manufacturers’ concerns about having to perform comprehensive monitoring of vehicle speed sensors located in the transmission over which they have no control, the amendments relaxed the regulation to require monitoring of vehi cle speed information only to the extent that the engine manufacturer requires the OBD system to indicate 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 transmission supplier’s diagnostics). 47

c. Section (g)(3.2.1 )(D): Malfunction Criteria for Input Components

Not Otherwise Covered

The intent of HD OBD regulation is t hat HD OBD systems detect virtually any

malfunction that leads to an emission incr ease, so it would be inappropriate for systems to be certified with emission controls that are not monitored. Leading up to the 2009 Board hearing, staff had conc erns that some manufacturers were designing OBD systems without monitoring certain aspects of the emission control system solely because those emi ssion controls or aspects were not “specifically” identified in the regulation. Further, some manufacturers were not readily disclosing to ARB the presence of these controls or even considering

OBD monitors for these emission controls or strategies. The amendments clarify the obligations of manufacturer s by specifically stating t hat if there is an emission

46 Id. , at page 42.

47 Id. , at pages 43-44 and 15-Day Notice, at pages 6-7.Waiver Request Support Document

21 control strategy being used by the engine, manufacturers are required, to the extent possible, to monitor the strategy for proper operation.

d. Section (g)(3.2.2)(B)(ii): Malfunc tion Criteria for Diesel Idle Fuel Control Monitoring – Delay Implem entation Start Date to 2013 -

The regulation had provided that starting in the 2010 model year manufacturers

were to monitor the diesel id le control for faults related to fuel injection quantity. The start date for monitoring has been delayed until the 2013 model year.

e. Section (g)(3.2.2)(C) : Malfunction Criteria fo r Glow Plug Monitoring – Delay Fault Code Implementat ion Start Date to 2013

The amendments delay the st art date for requiring manufa cturers to store a fault code identifying the malfunctioning gl ow plug until the 2013 model year.

f. Section (g)(3.2.2)(D): Deletion of Malfunction Criteria for MIL Circuit Monitoring Requirement

Based on engine manufacturers’ concerns that they do not hav e control over the location of the MIL on the instrument panel , which is under the control of the heavy-duty vehicle manufacturer, and giv en the minimal additi onal benefit of monitoring the MIL during roadside ins pections, the amendments deleted the monitoring requirement for MIL circuit faults. 48

g. Section (g)(3.2.2)(E): Malfuncti on Criteria for Output Components

Not Otherwise Covered

See subparagraph c. above.

h. Section (g)(3.2.2)(F): Malfunc tion Criteria for Certain Output Components

Finding that fuel control system components (e.g., injectors, fuel pumps) that have tolerance compensation features implemented in hardware or software during production or repair procedures are prone to erroneous or incomplete repairs, which can result in undetected in creases in emission levels, the Board amended section (g)(3.2.2)(F) to ensure that the components are properly

monitored. Under the amendm ent, manufacturers must st art to monitor the fuel system components for proper compens ation with the 2013 model year. 49

The regulation was further amended as it applies to engines manufactured in 2013 and later model years to specify where diagnostic connectors on the

vehicle must be located. The am endments additionally require the engine

48 Id. , at page 43.

49 Id., at page 44.Waiver Request Support Document

22 manufacturer to ensure that the vehi cle can be operated while the diagnostic

scan tool is connected to the connector.

4. Other Emission Cont rol System Monitoring – Section 4.3: Malfunction Criteria for Components Not Otherwise Covered

See subparagraph D.3.c. above.

5. Comprehensive Component Monitoring.

a. Section (g)(5.6): Disabli ng of Power Take-Off (PTO)

Section (g)(5.6), as originally adopted, allowed manufacturers to disable affected monitoring systems in vehicl es equipped with PTO while the PTO unit was active so long as the OBD readiness status was set to incomplete/not ready during the

activation. The section was amended to require Executive Officer approval to

disable affected monitors and to alter t he handling of readiness status during and after the activation. Specifically, the Exec utive Officer approval is to be granted if disablement occurs only while the PTO uni t is active, the manufacturer can show

that the affected monitors cannot robustl y operate while the PTO unit is active,

and the OBD readiness status is reta ined/erased based on cumulative PTO operation of 750 minutes. 50

b. Section (g)(5.7): Excepti ons to Monitoring Requirements

Several sections in the regulation, as originally adopted, re quired manufacturers to monitor a component/system for a specific fault “to the extent feasible.” The amendments to section (g)(5.7) clarify and c odify CARB’s practice in determining feasibility, which is based on “best av ailable monitoring technology.” By definition, this does not include softwar e or hardware technologies that are considered proprietary or confidentia l and known or able to be used only by a competitor. This has been CARB’s pr actice for almost a decade and ensures that equity is maintained among the manufac turers in meeting the requirements.

E. Standardization Requirements

1. Section (h)(1): Reference Documents

The amendments update the list of SAE and ISO documents that are incorporated by reference into the HD OB D regulation. As is common practice with technical standards, industry peri odically updates the standards to add specification or clarity.

2. Section (h)(2.2): Diagnostic Connector.

50 15-Day Notice, at pages 3 and 7.Waiver Request Support Document

23 The regulation was amended as it applie s to engines manufactured in 2013 and later model years to further specify w here diagnostic connectors on the vehicle

must be located. The amendments additi onally require the engine manufacturer to ensure that the vehicle can be operat ed while the diagnostic scan tool is

connected to the connector.

3. Section (h)(4): Required Emission Related Functions

a. Sections (h)(4.1) and (h)(4.1.4): Readiness Status

The amendments clarify which monitors (e.g., circuit/out-of-range monitors, feedback control monitors) can be excluded from the determination of readiness status because they run continuously.

b. Sections (h)(4.2.2)(E) and (F) and (h)(4.2.3)(B ) and (D): Data Stream through Data Link Connector.

Sections (h)(4.2.2) and (h)(4.2.3) we re amended as they apply to engines manufactured in 2013 and later model years to require manufacturers to provide

some additional data stream informat ion. The HD OBD system on diesel vehicles would be required to provide info rmation on such events as the status of PM filter regeneration, w hen regeneration is trigger ed, and how far a vehicle travels between regenerat ion events. The OBD system on both diesel and gasoline engines would be r equired, if so equipped, to report data stream information on such things as EGR te mperature, reduct ant level, and NOx adsorber regeneration and des ulfurization status. 51

c. Section (h)(4.3.1): Freeze Frame

This section refers to spec ific sections that contain requirements for freeze frame storage. The amendments add two sections (for diesel fuel system and diesel misfire monitoring) that were intended to be included, but mistakenly left out, when the regulation wa s initially adopted.

d. Sections (h)(4.4.1)(D), (4.4 .2)(D): Fault Code Storage and Availability on Scan Tool

The regulation, as initially adopted, requi red a permanent fault code to be stored

and made available to an SAE J1978 scan tool no later than the end of an ignition cycle in which the corresponding confirmed fault code had been stored. The amendments clarify that the “end of an ignition cycle” includes electronic

control unit shutdown.

e. Sections (h)(4.4.1)(F)(iv) and (4.4.2)(F)(iv): Eras ing of Permanent

Fault Codes

51 Staff Report, at page 50.Waiver Request Support Document

24 The regulation, as initially adopted, prohibited a permanent fault code being

erased when the control m odule with the permanent faul t code is reprogrammed

unless the readiness status of all control modules has been reset to “not complete” when the control module is r eprogrammed. The amendments clarify

but do not substantivel y change the requirement.

f. Section (h)(4.5): Test Results

The regulation, as initially adopted, c ontained specific requirements for test

results. The amendments clar ify and specifically identif y the continuous monitors covered by the section.

g. Section (h)(4.6.3): Software Calib ration Identification -- Multiple CAL IDs per Control Unit

The amendments allow manufacturers to request Executive Officer approval to respond with more than one CAL ID per di agnostic or emission critical control

unit. 52

h. Sections (h)(4.7.2) and (h)(4.7.5): Software Calibration Verification

The regulation, as initially adopted, r equired OBD systems to support parameters identifying the current softw are “version” or calibration (CAL ID) and an internal calibration verification number (CVN), the ca lculation verifying t he integrity of the software. These two paramet ers are intended to be used to help verify that valid

software is installed in the on-board computer and that the software has not been corrupted or tampered. With the rela xation allowing manufacturers to use multiple CAL IDs, the Boar d clarified that a CVN shal l be made available for each

CAL ID..

The regulation, as originally adopted, required the CVN and CAL ID information to be reported in a “standardized electr onic format” but did not provide any

information on what the standardized format entailed. Staff has since developed such a standardized template and sent it out to industry in a CARB mail-out, specifically CARB Mail-O ut MSC#09-22, “Guidelines for Heavy-Duty On-Board Diagnostic (HD OBD) Certification Data ,” July 7, 2009. The amendments to section (h)(4.75) specifically reference this document.

i Sections (h)(4.8) and (h)(4.9)(B) and (D): Engine Serial Number (ESN) and Electronic Control Unit (ECU) Number.

The regulation was amended to require t hat starting with the 2013 model year manufacturers are required to have the ESN of an engine available in a standardized format that can be accessed through a standardized data link

52 Id. , at page 51.Waiver Request Support Document

25 connector. Also, starting with the 2013 m odel year, manufact urers are required for each ECU that responds to a Society of Automotive Engineers J1978/J1939 scan tool to have a unique address or i dentifier that communicates the name and/or function of the ECU (e.g., transmi ssion control unit) in a standardized

format. 53

4. Tracking Requirements

a. Section (h)(5.2.1)(B) and (D ): Engine Run Time Tracking Requirements

The regulation, as initially adopted, r equired manufacturers to track and report engine run time and identify engine operating conditions, including “idle run time,” that constitute engine run time. The amend ments clarified the definition of “idle run time,” and added engine operation while emission increasing auxiliary emission control devices (EI-AECDs) are ac tive to the conditions covered by the term engine run time.

b. Section (h)(5.2.2)(A): Numerical Value Specifications

The regulation, as originally adopted, det ailed the specifications for engine runtime values (e.g., four-byte values with a minimum value of zero, a resolution of one second per bit, etc.). These specif ications have since been incorporated into SAE J1979/J1939, so the amendments now reference the SAE documents instead of detailing the specifications.

c. Section (5.2.3): Spec ifications of EI-AECDs

The Board amended the regulation to require the tracking of EI-AECDs starting with the 2013 model year. The amendment s describe the actions, parameters,

and conditions of EI-AECDs that the HD OBD system must track. 54

6. Section (h)(6.4.2): Service Information – Alternative to Repair Procedure Requirements

The regulation had required engine manufacture rs to make readily available, at a fair and reasonable price to the automotive service repair industry, vehicle repair procedures which allow for effective emi ssion-related repairs to be made using the Society of Automotive Engine ers (SAE) J1978/J1939 scan tool and commonly available, non-microprocesso r based tools. The amendments allow

manufacturers to meet an alternative requirement based on what is presently required in title 13, CCR, section 1969, California’s Motor Vehicle Service Information rule. Specifically, manufactu rers could make ava ilable for purchase,

53 Id., at page 51.

54 Id., at pages 52-54.Waiver Request Support Document

26 at a fair and reasonable price, a m anufacturer-specific or enhanced tool to perform the repair procedures. 55

H. Certification Demonstration

1. Sections (i)(2.3.1), (2.3.2), (2.3.3), and (2 .4): Selection of Test Engines – Aging and data collection of diesel test engines and Aging of gasoline engines.

The regulation’s requirement s for aging and data collection of diesel engine

demonstration test vehicles were amended as they applied to 2013 and later model year vehicles. The amendments to section (j)(2.3.1) clarify that the original aging requirements apply only to 2010 through 2012 model-year diesel engines. The amendments also clar ify that for 2010 through 2012 model-year engines, the exhaust aftert reatment emission controls are to be aged by an accelerated aging process that is repr esentative of full useful life, that manufacturers are not requir ed to provide data validating their aging process for these engines, and that the aging require ments applicable to gasoline engines should be consistent with what gaso line engine manufacturers have been doing for medium-duty gasoline engines.

For 2013 to 2015 model year engines subj ect to 110,000 or 185,000 mile useful life periods, a manufacturer is now requi red to use the k nowledge gained from data collected on in-use engines prior to 2013 to modify (if necessary), validate, and obtain CARB approval of its acce lerated aging processes and use that improved aging process going forward. For engines subject to a 435,000 mile useful life period, a manufacturer must obtain similar approval as above but

would still use its best estimates for full useful life aging as the collected data would only allow validation of the aging process up to 185,000 miles and not to the full useful life of 435,000 miles. 56

For 2016 and subsequent model year engines subject to a 435,000 mile useful life period, the manufactu rer is required, among ot her things, to use the knowledge gained from data co llected on in-use engines prior to 2016 to similarly modify (if necessary), validate, and obt ain CARB approval of its accelerated aging process to full useful life and use that improved aging process going

forward. 57

2. Required Testing of Components

a. Sections (i)(3.1.3 ) and (3.1.4): EGR and Boost Pressure Control

55 Id. , at pages 54-56.

56 Id., at page 59-60.

57 Id.Waiver Request Support Document

27 The amendments require manufacture rs to use components that are aged consistent with the aging and monitoring pl ans that they have submitted per the monitoring requirements.

b. Sections (i)(3.1.5) and (3 .1.6): NMHC and NOx Catalysts

The regulation, as initially adopted, r equired testing of “each monitored NMHC catalyst(s)” and “each monitored NOx cata lyst(s).” The amendm ents clarify that this manufacturers must monitor each catalyst that is used for a different

purpose.

c. Section (i)(3.2.7): Exhaust Gas Sensors

The regulation, as originally adopt ed, set forth demonstration testing requirements that applied to “exhaust gas sensors” on gasoline engines. As mentioned above, amendments we re made to the gasolin e exhaust gas sensor monitoring requirements that included s pecific language requiring manufacturers to develop a monitoring plan for exhaust gas sensors other than oxygen sensors (e.g., hydrocarbon sensors), which CARB must approve. The amendments to section (i)(3.2.7) separat e out the requirements for oxygen sensors from other exhaust gas sensors. The original r equirements apply to oxygen sensors, while manufacturers are required to submit a demonstration test plan for other exhaust

gas sensors.

d. Section (i)(3.4): Gasoline E ngines – Electronic Simulation of Components

The regulation, as initially adopted, a llowed manufacturers to electronically simulate deteriorated components for demonstration testing purposes. The amendments clarify that this will only be allowed if the manufacturer can

demonstrate that the modifi cations produce test results equivalent to an induced

hardware malfunction.

The regulation also allowed manufacturers to electronically simulate (e.g., using an external simulator) malf unctions but did not allow them to make internal

modifications to the electronic control unit (on-board computer) except for a few

limited monitors. Given the wide variet y of technologies and complexity of strategies being implemented, the B oard amended the regulation to allow manufacturers to request Executive Office r approval to use internal computer

modifications to simulate additional faults for demonstration testing when

manufacturers can demonstrate that implanting a fault externally is technically infeasible, very difficult to impl ement, or too resource intensive. 58

e. Section (i)(3.5): Component s or Systems Used in Parallel

58 Id. , at page 61.Waiver Request Support Document

28 The regulation, as initially adopted, required all monitored components and systems to be tested. T he amendments clarify that components or systems used in parallel for the same purpose are to be simultaneously deteriorated to the

malfunction criteria limit for demonstration testing. The amendments also clarify that components or systems used for different purposes are not to be simultaneously deteriorated fo r demonstration testing.

3. Testing Protocol

a. Section (i)(4.1): Preconditioning

The regulation, as initially adopted, allo wed manufacturers to request the use of preconditioning cycles if they provide dat a showing that they are necessary to stabilize the emission control system . The amendments clarify these requirements.

b. Section (i)(4.2): Test Sequence

The emission test requirements in the HD OBD regulation were primarily copied from the test procedures used for testi ng light-duty vehicles; however, recent

discussions with manufacturers revealed some fundamental differences in how heavy-duty emission tests are run. Unlik e light-duty, the heavy-duty emissiontest procedure does not include a ‘pre conditioning’ cycle the day before the

emission test. To be consistent wit h the current heavy-duty emission-test procedures and to eliminate unnecessa ry extra testing, the amendments eliminate the preconditioning cycle and require manufacturers to implant the fault and immediately perform the emission test. Further, because the previous test procedures anticipated the use of a preconditioning cycle, the procedure expected that the HD OBD fault w ould be detected once during the preconditioning cycle and a second time during the first engine start of the emission test. In conjunction with elimin ating the precondition ing, the language of the HD OBD regulation was modified to expect the fault to be first detected on the first engine start of the emission te st and detected a second time during the second engine start of the emission test . The HD OBD regulat ion still allows a manufacturer to request approval to use preconditioning cycles if technically justified to stabilize the emission control system.

c. Section (i)(4.3): Test Data Collection

As initially adopted, t he provisions requiring manufacturers to collect specific fault information (i.e., time after start when the MIL illumi nated, fault code(s), freeze frame information, test results) were in section (j) covering certification

documentation. The amendments move the requirements to section (i), which

covers certification dem onstration testing.

d. Section (i)(5): Evaluation ProtocolWaiver Request Support Document

29 The amendments are intended to make cl earer the requirements for evaluating

the demonstration tests. S pecifically, the current regulation lists evaluation provisions for catalyst and PM filter systems. The amendments include section references to the specific catalyst and PM filter monitors for which the evaluation protocol applies.

I. Certification Documentation

1. Certificatio n Application

a. Section (j)(2.2): Summary Table

The regulation, as originally adopted, required the summary table for the OBD application to be reported in a “standardi zed electronic format” according to CARB Mail-Out #95-20, May 22, 1995. Staff has since developed an updated standardized template that applies specif ically to heavy-duty engines and sent it out to industry in a CARB mail-out, s pecifically CARB Mail-Out MSC#09-22, “Guidelines for Heavy-Duty On-Board Diagn ostic (HD OBD) Certification Data,” July 7, 2009. The amendments specif ically reference this document.

b. Section (j)(2.7): Data Suppor ting Fuel System Criteria

The regulation, as initially adopted, r equired manufacturers to adjust emission results for each applicable monitor with an adjustment factor when determining the malfunction criteria (section (d)(6 .2)). The amendm ents clarify that

manufacturers are to include this informa tion in the certification documentation provided to CARB.

c. Section (j)( 2.13): EI-AECDs

The regulation, as initially adopted, requi red manufacturers to provide, provide among other things, a written descripti on of each auxiliar y emission control device (AECD) used by a manufacturer, the need for the AECD, and the values used to invoke operation of the AECD. The regulation has been amended to require manufacturers to pr ovide information for each EI-AECD that is required to be tracked and reported.

d. Sections (j)(2.16) and (j)( 2.17): Cover Letter and Check List

Section (i)(2.16), as initially adopted, required manufacturers to provide any information, other than that listed in section (i)(2), that it determined was necessary to demonstrate compliance wit h the regulation. The amendments clarify that a cover letter should a ccompany each OBD appl ication and include information identifying the deficiencies and co ncerns (if any exist) that apply to the equivalent engine family or OBD group in the previous model year and theWaiver Request Support Document

30 changes and/or resolution of each concer n or deficiency as it applies to the current model year. The amendments also cl arify that the cert ification application

information should be summarized in a checklist of all the malfunction criteria for all monitors and the corresponding di agnostic noted by fault code for each

malfunction criterion in the standardized fo rmat to help speed up certification.

J. Deficiencies – Section (k)(6.1): Request for Retroactive Deficiencies

In response to questions from industry r egarding various possi ble interpretations of the language initially adopted, the amendments delete the reference to “normal production” and replace it wit h “start of engine production.” The amendments also modify the timeline in section (k) for when the Executive Officer may issue retroactive deficiencies so that it is consistent with the timeline for manufacturers to perform verifi cation of monitoring requirements under section (l)(2); specifically, during either the first six months after commencement of the start of engine producti on or the first three mont hs after commencement of the start of vehicle producti on, whichever ends later. This change is consistent with other parts of section (k), which alr eady provide that retroactive deficiencies may be granted for problems found during ve rification testing. Further, section (k) currently states that deficiencies would be “retroactive to the start of production.” The amendments also clar ify that identified deficiencies are retroactive to “all affected engi nes within the engine family.”

L. Production Engine/Vehi cle Evaluation Testing

1. Sections (l)(1.2.1) and (2.1): Verification of Standardized/Monitoring Requirements

The regulation, as originally adopted, stated that production engine/vehicle testing of standardized requirements and mo nitoring requirements is required to

be done “within” a number of months after the star t of engine or vehicle production. However, a manufacturer interp reted this to mean that testing could not be done on engines/vehicles built “before” the defined start of production (i.e., before the two percent mark), which was not staff’s intention. The amendments clarify that testing may be done at any point before the spec ified number of months since start of production.

2. Section (l)(1.3): Test Equipment

The regulation, as initially adopted, requi red manufacturers to request Executive Officer approval of the testing equipment us ed to conduct the verification of the standardization requirements. The amend ments specifically detail what is required now for vehicles that use the ISO 15765-4 protocol.

3. Section (l)(4): Agree to C onduct Self Testing of EnginesWaiver Request Support Document

31 As a condition for certification, manufac turers would be required to perform inuse compliance testing on their own engines pursuant to the newly adopted HDOBD enforcement procedures set fort h at title 13, Cal. Code Regs.,

section1971.5. 59

III. SUMMARY OF HD OBD ENFORCEMENT REGULATION

The HD OBD requirements, as initia lly adopted in 2005, included detailed certification requirements and production en gine/vehicle evaluatio n testing. To help ensure that post-production OBD- equipped vehicles meet the many monitoring and standardized requirem ents of section 1971.1, the amended regulation includes additional in-use enfor cement provisions as set forth in

section 1971.5.

In section 1971.5, CARB adopted an HD- OBD specific in-use enforcement testing protocol and remedial provisions. The new provisions establish detailed in-use testing procedures for HD OBD systems installed on 2010 and subsequent model year vehicles. Among other things, the procedures provide that CARB can directly test or have manuf acturers self-test a limited number of in-use engines to ensure that engines remain in compliance with the requirements of section 1971.1 through their useful life. Manufacturers are not required to begin self-testing of 2010 model-year engines until 3013. 60

The enforcement regulation sets forth deta iled protocol for procuring, selecting and testing of engines for compliance enforcement. 61 The regulation also

includes the criteria that CARB wi ll consider in determining compliance and appropriate remedies for noncompliance. Finally, the regulation includes requirements and procedures to be fo llowed by engine manufacturers in implementing either a vol untary, influenced, or or dered remedial action if engines, as a class, are determined to be out of compliance. Among other things, the regulation contai ns specific provisions requiring manufacturers to establish remedial action plans, provide not ice to owners of vehicles and engines affected by the remedial action, and ma intain and make available specific information regarding the remedial action.

The proposed enforcement procedures are similar in comprehensiveness to those currently required for light-dut y and medium-duty OBD II systems. As under the OBD II enforcement protocol, HD OBD systems may be tested for a monitor’s compliance with the HD OBD em ission threshold requirements (i.e., does the MIL illuminate prior to the emi ssions exceeding a certain level above the malfunction threshold), the in-use per formance ratio requirements (i.e., the

59 Id.

, at page 62. For discussion of section

60 See title 13, CCR, section 1971.5(c)(3).

61 To a large extent, the proposed procurement and selection process parallels the recently established procedures that EPA, CARB, and manufacturers agreed to for manufacturer selftesting for tailpipe emission compliance using portable emission measurement systems.Waiver Request Support Document

32 ratio measuring the number of monito ring events compared to the number of driving events), and other requirements. However, because heavy-duty vehicles are typically manufactured in a hor izontally-integrat ed manner– heavy-duty engines are manufactured and certified by engine manufacturers; vehicle manufacturers subsequently purchase and in stall certified engines in heavy-duty vehicles – emission testing for HD OB D systems is necessarily different than emission testing for OBD II equipped passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and for some medium-duty vehicles, which ar e manufactured by vertically-integrated

manufacturers. 62 At this time, in-use compliance testing of HD OBD systems for emission threshold requirements entails testing the heavy-duty engine outside of the vehicle on an engine dynamom eter. In contrast, em ission testing of most OBD II systems can be done with the engine installed on the vehicle and tested on a chassis dynamometer.

The proposed regulation provides that CARB may conduct enforcement testing for emission threshold noncompliance by pr ocuring engines from in-use vehicles and testing them on an engine dynam ometer in accordance with the procurement, selection, and testing crit eria noted above. The regulation also provides that CARB may direct manufactu rers to perform self-testing on a limited number of engines each year to det ermine whether the engines’ HD OBD systems properly detect malfunctions of emission-related components before emissions exceed specified malfunction thres holds. Specifically, if so directed, manufacturers would be required to perfo rm enforcement test ing on one to three engine families per year, depending on the si ze of the manufacturer. For each engine family, they would be required to procure a single repr esentative in-use engine with approximately 75 percent of fu ll useful life mileage and remove it from the vehicle for engine dynamometer testing. For each tested engine, the manufacturer would run the same sequenc e of tests that CARB would run – testing each threshold component one after the other and determining the

emission level at which the fault is detec ted. Given the mileage for procurement, such testing would occur approximately three years after introduction of the engine into the marketplace so 2010 model year engines would first be tested in 2013 calendar year.

For both testing done by CARB and by m anufacturers, for each engine tested, if the faults are detected prio r to the prescribed emissi on levels being exceeded, the testing is completed. However, if one or more faults result in excessive

emissions before the fault is detected, four more engines from the same engine family must be procured and tested for that s pecific monitor. And, if two or more of the additional four engines fail, an additional five more engines are to be procured for testing of the failing monitor. At most, a manufacturer would have to test 10 engines from the same engine fa mily. The monitor would be judged noncompliant if five or mo re of the 10 tested engines failed to detect the fault before the appropriate emission threshold is exceeded.

62 The vehicle manufacturer also manufactures the engine and is the manufacturer responsible for certifying the vehicle with the engine installedWaiver Request Support Document

33 CARB staff intends to perform testing to determine compliance with the in-use performance monitoring ratios and other non- emission-threshold-related issues. This testing can be done with the engine inst alled in the vehicl e, and staff will be able to download needed data or implant malfunctions and add data loggers to determine noncompliance.

If the Executive Officer determines that a s ubstantial number of vehicles of an identified test-engine class are found not to be in nonconformance with engines as certified, he may order engine manuf acturers to recall the nonconforming engines or take other appropriate remedial action.

IV. WAIVER ANALYSIS

A. Introduction

Section 209(b) of t he CAA sets forth the protocol for granting California waivers to the general preemption of section 209( a), which prohibits the states from adopting and enforcing standar ds and other requirements relating to the control

of emissions from motor vehicles. Under section 209(b), the Administrator shall grant a waiver to Californi a if the state has determined that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, unless the Administ rator finds that (1) the state’s protectiveness determination is arbitrar y and capricious, (2) California does not need separate state standards to meet co mpelling and extraordinary conditions, or (3) the state standards and accompany ing enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the CAA. In granti ng the waiver for the HD OBD regulation in 2008, the Administrator c oncluded that the record was devoid of sufficient evidence to support denial of the waiver. 63

In considering whether to grant wa ivers for accompanying enforcement procedures tied to standards for which a waiver has already been granted, the Administrator will only address questions as to (1) whether the enforcement procedures are so lax that they threaten the va lidity of California’s determination that its standards are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards and (2) whether the enf orcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a). 64

The Administrator has applied a similar analysis in findi ng that amendments to a standard or regulation are within the scope of a previously granted waiver.

If California acts to amend a previously waived standard or accompanying enforcement pr ocedure, the change may be

63 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996).

64 Motor and Equipment Manufacture rs Association v. EPA (MEMA) (D.C. Cir. 1979) 627 F.2.
1095, 1111, 1113.Waiver Request Support Document

34 included within the scope of the pr evious waiver if it does not

undermine California’s determinati on that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal standards, does not affect the consistency of California’s requirements with se ction 202(a) of the [CAA], and raises no new issues affecting the Administrator’s previous waiver

determination. 65

In considering a waiver or a within the scope waiver request, California’s regulations and protectiveness determination are presumed to satisfy the criteria for granting a waiver, and the burden to show otherwise is on those persons challenging the waiver request. 66 As held by the court in MEMA and long followed by U.S. EPA:

The language of the stat ute and its legislative hi story indicate that California’s regulations, and Calif ornia’ determination that they comply with the statute, when pr esented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them. 67

B. The Amendments to the OBD Moni toring Requirements Set Forth in Section 1968.2 Are within the Scope of the Previously Granted Waiver

1. The Amendments Do Not Require a New Waiver

As set forth above, if California acts to amend a previously waived standard or accompanying enforcement procedure, the change may be included within the scope of the previous waiver if it does not undermine California’s determination that its standards, in the aggr egate, are as protective of public health and welfare as comparable federal standar ds; does not affect the c onsistency of California’s requirements with section 202(a) of the C AA; and raises no new issues affecting the Administrator’s previous waiver determination. 68

The recently adopted amendments to t he HD OBD monitoring requirements should be found within the scope of the exis ting waiver for several reasons. As stated, the previously gr anted waiver permits Calif ornia to require HD OBD systems in all 2010 and s ubsequent model year heavy-duty engines certified for sale in California. The HD OBD require ments, taken as a whole, establish a single monitoring system, which, under Calif ornia law, may only be certified if it fully complies with all requirements. Thus, even though there are numerous

65 Decision Document accompanying scope of waiv er determination in 51 Fed.Reg. 12391 (April 10, 1986), at p. 2 (footnotes omitted); see also 46 Fed.Reg. 36742 (July 15, 1981).

66 Manufacturers Association v. EPA (MEMA) (D.C. Cir. 1979) 627 F.2d 1095, 1121

. 67 Id .; See also Decision Document accompanying OB D II Waiver Determination, 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996), at pages. 15-16.

68 See page 6, supra.Waiver Request Support Document

35 monitoring requirements and diagnostics t hat must be met, they should for purposes of a waiver effectively be considered as just one standard. EPA recognized this in granting its wa iver for OBD II systems in 1996:

[U.S.] EPA agrees . . . that CARB ’s OBD II regulation should be

treated as a standard under section 209 . . . . EPA believes that the

classification of CARB’s OBD II requirements as a standard for purposes of section 209 is consis tent with statutory language, case law, and with past waiver practice. 69 (Emphasis added.)

The most recent modifications to the HD OBD regulation were intended to adjust and upgrade the HD OBD systems, for whic h the waiver was granted in 2008. They do not mandate a new system or even appreciable hardware changes. Instead, the upgrades and modifications required under section 1971.1 for the most part require recalibration of software for some of the exis ting monitors and, in the case of new monitors, new diagnosti c strategies. To t he extent that new hardware is required, the amendments provide add itional lead time for manufacturer compliance.

Finally, it should be kept in mind, that the analysis for granting a new waiver and a within the scope waiver request are very similar. Under both, CARB must submit to the Admi nistrator its determination that it meets the protectiveness and consisten cy criteria of CAA section 209(b). The only difference being that California does not need to again demonstrate that compelling and extraor dinary conditions exist within the state when making a “within the scope” request. 70 This is really not an issue. It is beyond dispute that “c ompelling and extraordinary conditions”

continue to exist in California. 71

69 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996), waiver de cision document, p. 20. See also p. 20, in which the Administrator concludes that “OBD II requirements are indeed a standard.”

70 In issuing the October 11, 1996 waiver, the Administrator reaffirmed that U.S. EPA’s inquiry into the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” criterion “is limited to whether California needs its own motor vehicle program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions and not whether any given standards are necessary to meet such conditions. (Decision Document accompanying OBD II Waiv er Determination, at pp. 39-40.) In granting the waiver, the Administrator found that the ARB has repeatedly demonstrated the existence of compelling and extraordinar y conditions in California justifying its need for its own motor vehicle pollution control program. ( Id. , at p.42).

71 See 74 Fed.Reg. 32744, 32762 (July 8, 2009); s ee also 49 Fed.Reg. 18887, 18890, in which the Administrator determined that the phrase “c ompelling and extraordinary conditions” refers “primarily to the factors that tend to produce [h igh levels of pollution]: geographical and climatic conditions that, when combined with large num bers and high concentrations of automobiles, create serious air pollution problems.” These conditions continue to exist in California. The South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, in particular, continue to be plagued by the worst air quality in the nation.Waiver Request Support Document

36 2. Protectiveness

In adopting Resolution 09-37, the Board expr essly found that am endments to the HD OBD requirements set forth in sect ion 1971.1 do not undermine California’s previous determinations that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and we lfare as applicable federal standards. In reviewing California’s protectiveness finding accompanying the newly adopted amendments to the HD OBD regulation, those challenging the waiver, must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the protectiveness finding by California is arbitrary and capricious. 72 This standard is in accord with “Congressional intent to provide Califo rnia with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protecti ve of the public health and welfare”. 73

In adopting the initial HD OBD regulation in 2006, CARB resolved that its standards, in the aggregate, we re at least as protective of public health and welfare as the applicable federal standards, including federal OBD standards,

which at the time were nonexistent for heavy-duty engines used in vehicles over 14,000 pounds. In granting the 2008 waiver, the Administrator of U.S. EPA held

that he could not find that CARB’s dete rmination was arbitrary and capricious. 74

The amendments do not disturb this fi nding even though EPA has since adopted OBD requirements for heavy-duty engines greater than 14,000 pounds. 75 Even considering the provisions that we re relaxed for 2010-2012 model years, HD OBD requirements continue to be mo re stringent than EPA’s adopted requirements for those model-year engines. Similarly, the requirements for 2013 and subsequent model years continue to be more stringent than comparable federal regulations.

3. Consistency

For the reasons set forth in the St aff Report, 15-Day Notice, and FSOR, 76 the HD OBD requirements, as amended, remain c onsistent with secti on 202(a) of the CAA. The U.S. EPA has historically inte rpreted consistency with section 202(a) under a two-prong test: (1) t hat there is sufficient lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet the sta ndards and other requirements, giving appropriate considerat ion to the cost of compliance in the time frame provided and (2) that the Ca lifornia and federal test procedures are

72 MEMA, 627 F.2d at 1122, Decision Document accom panying OBD II Waiver Determination, at p. 14.

73 Id.

74 73 Fed.Reg. 52042 (September 8, 2008), Deci sion Document accompanying HD OBD Waiver Determination, at page 7.

75 74 Fed.Reg. 8310 (February 24, 2009).

76 See Section II. above summarizing the amended requirements and the and the references to the Staff Report and 15-Day Notice; see also FSOR (a copy of which is enclosed), at pages 9-35.Waiver Request Support Document

37 sufficiently compatible to pe rmit manufacturers to meet both the state and federal test requirements with one test vehicle or engine. 77

a. Technical Feasibility of Amended Monitoring Requirements

In the short term – the 2010 through 2012 m odel years – to the extent that the Board has amended requirements that have been previously waived, the amendments only relax the r equirements, providing m anufacturers with greater compliance flexibility. Fo r example, section (e)(6.2.1)(A) increases the NOx

malfunction emission threshold for 2010- 2012 model-year diesel NOx converting catalysts; sections (e)(1. 3.4), and (e)(4.3.4) respective ly allow manufacturers to disable continuous monitoring of fuel and boost control systems; section (d)(6.2.3) allows manufac turers to use alternat e compliance options for calculating adjustment fa ctors; and sections (e)(8.2.4) and (g)(3.2.2)(C) respectively allow manufacturers to delay compliance until the 2013 model year. This is not to say that CARB provided engine manufacturers with insufficient lead time when initially adopting the regulatio n. Rather, as stated in the FSOR:

[T]hese changes were not made becaus e the initially adopted requirements were technically infeasible. In all ca ses, at least one or two manufacturers appeared to be on track to meet the exis ting requirement without the need for relaxation. However, staff recommended interim relief due to the complexity

of the 2010 emission control solu tions being pursued by several manufacturers—including some configur ations that appear to be negatively impacting OBD monitoring capability. 78

With regard to amended requirements that manufacturers must meet in 2013 and subsequent model years, manufacturers have been provided with at least three years of lead time. In some cases, like those identified above, in which compliance has been delayed from model year 2010 to 2013, manufacturers have been provided with up to seven years of lead time. As stated, during the course of the rulemaking, CARB pr ovided reasoned explanations and responses to objections raised by industry to support the basis for development and application of the requisite technol ogical in the lead time provided. 79

b. Test Procedures

California and federal test procedures fo r HD OBD systems are not incompatible. In fact, federal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s HD OBD regulation are deemed to comp ly with federal standards.

77 See 61 Fed.Reg. 53371, 53372 (October 11, 1996); Decision Document at p.2 ( OBD II Waiver

Decision ).

78 FSOR, at pages 10-11.

79 See National Resource Defense Council v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 1981) 655 F.2d 318, 328; see Staff Report and FSOR.Waiver Request Support Document

38 4. No New Issues

CARB is not aware of any new issues a ffecting the previously granted waiver

determination for the HD OBD r egulation. The regulation continues to apply to all 2010 and subsequent model year heavy-dut y engines and addresses the same pollutants covered in the init ially granted waiver.

For the above reasons, EPA should find that the HD OBD amendments fall within the scope of the 2008 waiver.

C. Alternatively, the Amendments that Relax and Clarify the HD OBD Monitoring Requirements Are Within t he Scope of the Previously Granted

Waiver

If EPA cannot find that the full spec trum of amendments fall within the scope of the previously granted HD OBD waiver, ARB respectfully requests that EPA confirm that at leas t those changes that either relax the regulation’s requirements, and thereby provide engine manufacturers with greater compliance flexibilit y, or clarify previously existing provisions be found to be within the scope of the 2008 waiver. A listing of amendments that relax or clarify previously waiv ed provisions of t he HD OBD regulation

is attached hereto.

1. Protectiveness

The amendments that relax and clarify the requirement s previously waived in 2008 do not undermine California’s previous determination that its motor vehicle standards, in the aggregate, ar e at least as protective of public health and welfare as the comparable federal standards. The amended regulation, considered as a whole, continues to be more stringent than the federal OBD regulation for vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds. The Board affirmed this determination in Resolution 09-37, a c opy of which is enclosed herewith.

2. Consistency with CAA Section 202(a)

a. Lead Time

The first prong of the two-part consist ency criteria requires those opposed to California obtaining a favorable within- the-scope determination to show that the regulation, as amended, provides insufficient lead ti me to permit the development of technology to meet thos e requirements, giving appropri ate consideration to the cost of compliance within the time provided for compliance. 80 It is incontrovertible that amendments providi ng for greater compliance flexibility and clarifying the requirements that manufacturers must follow make the regulation

more feasible.

80 See pp. 21-22, supra

.Waiver Request Support Document

39 The HD OBD regulation, as initially adopted by CARB and subsequently waived by EPA, required engines m anufacturers to meet certain requirements staring with the 2010 model year. To the extent that these requirements have been amended and still require compliance in 2010 through 2012 model years, the amendments have relaxed the requirements by, among other things, providing for higher emission malfunction thresholds and changing many of the continuous monitoring requirements to either once-per-tri p monitoring or disablement of continuous monitoring under certain driving conditions. 81 Other amendments delayed initial compliance scheduled for the 2010 model year to the 2013 model year; 82 while still others provi ded greater flexibility for compliance with the in-use perf ormance ratio requirements (e.g., providing additional crit eria that must be met before incrementing the number of driving trips – the denominator used in the ratio.) 83

The amendments that cl arify existing provisions have not added any new requirements and have not affected the lead time initially provided when the regulation was first adopted. In granting the 2008 waiver, EPA found the provided lead time not to be inconsis tent with CAA section 202(a).

b. Test Procedures

California and federal test procedures fo r HD OBD systems are not incompatible. In fact, federal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s HD OBD regulation are deemed to comp ly with federal standards.

3. No New Issues

CARB is not aware of any new issues affecting the previously granted waiver

determination for the HD OBD r egulation. The regulation c ontinues to apply to all 2010 and subsequent model year heavy-dut y vehicles and addresses the same pollutants covered in the in itially granted waiver.

For the above reasons, EPA must find that the HD OBD amendments that relax or clarify the HD OBD require ments fall within the scope of the 2008

waiver.

C. Alternatively, EPA Must Grant a New Waiver for Amendments Creating New, More Stringent HD OBD Requirements

If EPA determines that it cannot confirm that any of the amendments

summarized above in Section II fall within the scope of the August 2008 waiver, EPA must grant California a new waiver fo r those amendments. As set forth

81 See e.g., sections (e)(6.2.1( A), (e)(6.2.2)(A), (e)(8.2.1)(A ), (e)(1.3.2), and (e)(1.3.4).

82 See e.g., sections (e)(5.2.3)(B) and (e)(8.2.4).

83 See e.g., sections (d)(4.3.2)(F) and (H)Waiver Request Support Document

40 above, the Board’s determination that t he regulation, as amended, continues to be more protective of public health and we lfare as applicable federal regulations is neither arbitrary nor capricious, Cali fornia continues to need its motor vehicle program to meet and compelling a nd extraordinary conditions, and the

amendments are consistent with CAA section 202(a). 84

D. The Administrator Should Grant California’s Request that HD OBD Enforcement Regulations Be Grant ed a Waiver as an Accompanying

Enforcement Provisions

As stated, the U.S. EPA has previously granted a waiver for the HD OBD regulation. 85 Sections 1971.1 (i), certificat ion demonstration testing, and (l), production engine/vehicle evaluation testi ng, were initiall y adopted in 2006 and covered by the 2008 HD OBD waiver. To the extent that the amendments to these sections merely clarify the previ ously waived provisions, they should be found to be within the scope of the prev iously granted waiver. Although the amendment to section 1971.1(l)(4), r equiring manufacturers to conduct compliance testing under section 1971.5 as a condition precedent to certification, is a new provision, such a requirement does not require a new waiver separate and apart from consideration of the a ccompanying enforcement provision of section 1971.5, to which the conditi on precedent specifically refers. 86

Although codified in a different location of title 13, CCR, the HD OBD enforcement provisions of section 1971.5, like those previously adopted for OBD II at title 13, CCR, section 1968.5, ar e in point of fact amendments to the general in-use enforcement requirement s of section 2100 et seq., which have previously been granted waiv ers or found to be within the scope of existing

waivers. 87 The amendments establishing section 1971.5 are necessary to address the uniqueness of HD OBD system s and the special circumstances surrounding in-use compliance testing of such systems.

For the reasons set forth above and those that follow, the Administrator should

find that the amendments to sections 1971.1(i) and (l) and section 1971.5 fall within the scope of the previ ously granted HD OBD waiver . To the extent that

the Administrator cannot make such a determination, the Administrator must grant California a waiver for the accom panying enforcement provision.

1. Protectiveness

As stated, in adopting Resolution 09- 37, the Board resolved that the

amendments to sections 1971.1 and 1971. 5 do not undermine its previous

84 See Staff Report and 15-Day Notice, at the pages identified in Section II and FSOR.

85 See 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996).

86 See 43 Fed.Reg. 36679 (August 18, 1978).

87 43 Fed.Reg. 9344 (March 7, 1978); 43 Fed.Re g. 25729 (June 14, 1978), 49 Fed.Reg. 43502 (October 29, 1984).Waiver Request Support Document

41 determinations that the HD OBD regulati on, in the aggregate, is at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal regulations. Indeed, the enforcement provisions are intended to ensure gr eater compliance with the adopted HD OBD monitoring, standardization, and certification requirements by establishing defined and HD OBD-specific protocols for manufacturer verification and in-use compliance testing. As stat ed the requirements t hat manufacturers conduct testing to verify that the HD OBD system in post-production vehicles properly communicates with scan tools, evaluate proper performance of HD OBD monitoring systems, and collect and r eport data on frequency of in-use monitoring performance were all adopt ed in 2006 and covered by the 2008 waiver. The amendments merely clarify several of the requirements and do not negatively impact the stringency of the requirements.

With adoption of section 1971.5 and an HD OBD-specific in-use compliancetesting protocol, CARB has helped ens ure that HD OBD syst ems operate as certified throughout their useful life, and, if found to be out of compliance, that the non-compliance will be quickly remedied. As more fully set fo rth in the Staff Report, the new in-use compliance-enforce ment procedures establish specific provisions for testing HD OBD system r equirements and criteria for determining compliance. Additionally, the enforcement regulation sets forth specific criteria that the ARB will follow in determining app ropriate remedies for those vehicles found to be nonconforming. The regul ation has been drafted to provide

manufacturers with clear notice of what the ARB considers to be a compliant system. This will ensure t hat manufacturers design an d manufacture complying, more durable HD OBD systems and emi ssion-related components and that

emission reductions forecasted to be achi eved by new engines will, in fact, be

achieved.

. Based on the foregoing, CARB reconf irms the Board’s protectiveness determination. Far from undermining the Bo ard’s previous determination that the HD OBD regulation, in the aggr egate, is more protective than applicable federal regulations, the adopted enforcem ent provisions bolster the previous findings.

2. Consistency

(a) Technical Feasibility

No technical feasibility issues ex ist for the adopted HD OBD enforcement provisions independent of the technica l feasibility of the underlying HD OBD monitoring requirements. 88 Regarding the issue of manufacturer self-testing –

88 1996 Waiver Decision, 61 Fed.Reg. 53371. in granting the 1996 OBD II waiver, the Administrator said the primary aspect of consiste ncy with CAA section 202(a) that is applicable to accompanying enforcement procedures is whet her there is test procedure consistency. 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996), decision document at p.3, fn. 5. 88 61 Fed.Reg. 53371 (October 11, 1996).

88 Id. , at 53372Waiver Request Support Document

42 probably the most contentious issue – t here is no question that manufacturers

have the technical know how and the resour ces to conduct the limited self-testing required by the regulation. Manufacturers are required to do no more than what they must do when initially conducting demons tration testing to certify engines. It is expected that manufactu rers continue to have in their possession all necessary facilities and components that they used for certification testing and that will be used in conducting compliance testing. 89 Staff has determined that the

incremental cost to manufac turers for testing a limited number of engines – when spread out over all engines sold in Calif ornia for a specific model year – to be minimal, approximatel y $1.97 per engine sold. 90

(b) Compatible Test Procedures

For the reasons stated above, California and federal test procedures for HD OBD systems are not incompatible. In fact, f ederal regulations provide that engines certified to California’s HD OBD regul ation are deemed to comply with federal standards. Additionally, in granting Ca lifornia a waiver for OBD II, the

Administrator found that California’s OBD II certification test procedures to be compatible with the federal OBD test procedures for light-duty vehicle

certification. 91 The same should be held for HD OBD. The adopted enforcement provisions do not establish any new test ing requirements that would affect the Administrator’s previous determination. Accordingly, manufacturers should be able to continue to use only one test to ce rtify an engine family to both the federal and California requirements.

2. New Issues

As stated, the ARB is not aware of any new issues affecting the previously granted authorization det ermination for the HD OBD regulation.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Californ ia respectfully requests that EPA in the

first instance confirm that all of th e above HD OBD amendments fall within the scope of the previously issued waiver gr anted in August 2008. Alternatively, ARB requests that if EPA is unable to find the full array of amendments to fall within the scope of the August 8, 2008 waiver that it co nfirm that all amendments

that either relax or clar ify requirements be found to be within the scope of the initial HD OBD waiver. Finally, to the extent that EPA cannot make a within the scope determination for certain amendments, ARB requests that a new waiver be granted.

89 Staff Report, at page 70.

90 Id. , at page 72.

91 Id. , at 53372.Waiver Request Support Document

43 To assist you in reviewing the regul ation, ARB is enclo sing the following documents that it is incorporating into t he record of this wa iver proceeding.

1. Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy Duty Engines (HD OBD), issued April 10, 2009.

2. Staff Report: Initial Stat ement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, issued April 10, 2009, with Appendices.

3. Resolution 09-37, dated May 28, 2009.

4. Notice of Availability of M odified Text, issued October 20, 2009

5. Executive Order R-10 -005, dated April 5, 2010.

6. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response, issued April 9, 2010 .

7. Final Regulation Order for title 13, Californi a Code of Regulations,

section 1971.1.

8. Final Regulation Order for title 13, Californi a Code of Regulations,

section 1971.5.

If you should require additional technica l information on this item, please have your staff contact Mike McCarthy, M anager, Advanced Engineering Section, Engineering Studies Branch, Mobile Sour ce Control Divisi on, at (626) 771-3614 or by email at mmccarth@arb.ca.gov. They should address legal questions to Michael L Terris, at (916) 445-9815, or by email at mterris@arb.ca.gov

.Waiver Request Support Document

44 ATTACHMENT

Relaxed Requirements

A. Section (c): Definitions. 1. “Continuously” 2. “Diagnostic or Emission Crit ical Electronic Control Unit B. General Requirements 1. Sections (d)(2.2.1)(E) and (d)(2 .2.2)(E): MIL Illumination and Fault Code Storage Protocol. 2. 2. Sections (d)(4.3.2)( B)(iii), (E), (F), (G), an d (H): Tracking In-Use

Monitor Ratio – Increm enting the Denominator. 3. Section (d)(6.2.3): Malfunction Crit eria Determination, Alternatives for Calculating Infrequent Regenerati on Adjustment Factors (IRAFs) C. Monitoring Requirements for Diesel/Compression-Ignition Engines. 1. Fuel System Monitoring a. Section (e)(1.2.7): Determining Malfunction Criteria b. Section (e)(1.3.2): Monitoring F uel Injectors that Build Pressure Internally. c. Section (e)(1.3.4): Disabli ng of Continuous Monitoring 2. Section (e)(2.2.4): Misfire Mo nitoring – Multi-cylinder Misfire 3. Section (e)(4.3.4): Boost Pre ssure Control System Monitoring – Disablement of Continuous Monitoring. 4. Section (e)(5.2.3)(B): NMHC Conv erting Catalyst Monitoring – Delay Implementation Start Date to 2013. 5. NOx Converting Catalyst Monitoring a. Section (e)(6.2.1)(A): Conversi on Efficiency Monitoring - Increase

NOx Threshold b. Section (e)(6.2.2)(A): SCR or Other Active/Intrusive Reductant Injection System Performanc e Monitoring – Increase NOx

Threshold c. Section (e)(6.3.1): Moni toring for Improper Reductant d. Section (e)(6.3.3): Disablem ent of Continuous Monitoring 6. Section (e)(7.3.3): NOx Adsor ber Monitoring – Disablement of Continuous Monitoring 7. PM Filter Monitoring a. Section (e)(8.2.1)(A): Filtering Performance Monitoring – Increase

PM Threshold b. Section (e)(8.2.4): NMHC Conversion Monitoring – Delay Implementation Start Date to 2013 c. Section (e)(8.3.3): Disablem ent of Continuous Monitoring 8. Section (e)(9.2.2): Ex haust Gas Sensor Monitoring D. Monitoring Requirements for Gasoline/Spark-Ignited Engines 1. Fuel System Monitoring a. Section (f)(1.3.5): Disablement of Continuous MonitoringWaiver Request Support Document

45 b. Section (f)(1.4.5)(B): Similar Conditions Definition for Secondary

Feedback Control Faults 2. Misfire Monitoring – Multi-cylinder Misfire c. Section (f)(2.2.1)(C): Multi-cylinder Misfire d. Section (f)(2.3.1)(B): Monitoring Conditions 3. Section (f)(5.1.2): Secondary Air S ystem Monitoring – Exemption from Monitoring E. Monitoring Requirem ents for All Engines 1. Section (g)(1.2.1)(D): Engine Cooling System 2. Section (g)(2.2.3) – Crankcase Vent ilation (CV) System Monitoring – Exemption from Monitoring 3. Comprehensive Component Monitoring c. Sections (g)(3.1.3) and (g)(3.1.4 ): Exemptions from Monitoring d. Section (g)(3.1.6): Vehicl e Speed Information Monitoring e. Section (g)(3.2.2)(B)(ii): Diesel Id le Fuel Control Monitoring - Delay Implementation Start Date to 2013 f. Section (g)(3.2.2)(C): Glow Plug Monitoring - Delay Fault Code Implementation Start Date to 2013 g. Section (g)(3.2.2)(D): MIL Circu it Monitoring – Delete Monitoring Requirement F. Standardization Requirements 1. Section (h)(4.6.3): Software Calib ration Identification: Allow Multiple CAL ID per Control Unit 2. Section (h)(6.4.2): Service Info rmation – Alternative to Repair Procedure Requirements G. Monitoring System Demonstrati on Requirements fo r Certification 1. Section (i)(3.4): Required Testing Fault SimulationWaiver Request Support Document

46 Technical Clarifications to Pre-Existing Requirements

A. Definitions 1. Section (c) “Calcu lated load value” 2. Section (c) “Response rate” 3. Section (c) “Weighted sales number” B. General Requirements 1. Section (d)(2.3.2)(A): MIL Exti nguishing and Fault Code Erasure

Protocol 2. Section (d)(2.4.1)(A): Exc eptions to MIL and Fault Code Requirements 3. Section (d)(3.1.3): Monitoring Conditions 4. Section (d)(4.2.2)(F): In-Use Moni tor Performance Ratio Definition 5. Section (d)(4.3.2)(G) : In-Use Monitor Perfor mance Ratio Definition 6. Section (d)(4.5.3): Disablement of Numerators and Denominators 7. Section (d)(5.1.2): Standardized tracking and reporting of monitor performance C. Monitoring Requirements for Diese l/Compression-Ignition Engines 1. Sections (e)(1.2.4), (e)(3.2.4), (e )(4.2.5), (e)(6.2.2 )(D), (e)(7.2.3), (e)(8.2.7), (e)(9.2.1)(A)(iii),(B)( iii), (e)(9.2.2)(C): Feed-forward

control 2. Sections (e)(3.1.2), (e)(4.1. 2): Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) System Monitoring and Boost Pre ssure Control System Monitoring 3. Sections (e)(3.2.1) and (3.2.2): EGR System Monitoring 4. Section (e)(3.2.3): EGR System Monitoring 5. Section (e)(3.2.9): EGR System Monitoring 6. Section (e)(3.3.4): EGR System Monitoring 7. Sections (e)(4.2.1) and (4.2.2): Boost Pressure System Monitoring 8. Section (e)(4.2.8): Boost Pressure System Monitoring 9. Section (e)(5.2.3): NMHC Converting Catalyst Monitoring 10. Section (e)(5.2.4)(A),(B) and (e )(6.2.3)(A),(B): NMHC Converting Catalyst Monitoring and NOx Co nverting Catalyst Monitoring 11. Section (e)(7.2.6): NO x Adsorber Monitoring 12. Section (e)(8.3.2): Particulat e Matter (PM) Filter Monitoring 13. Section (e)(9.2.2): Ex haust Gas Sensor Monitoring D. Monitoring Requirements for Gasoline/Spark-Ignited Engines 1. Section (f)(1.2.1)(B): Fuel System Monitoring 2. Sections (f)(1.2.5) ,(1.3.3),(1.3.4) : Fuel System Monitoring 3. Section (f)(2.3.5) : Misfire Monitoring 4. Section (f)(7.1): Evapor ative System Monitoring 5. Section (f)(7.2.5): Eva porative System Monitoring 6. Section (f)(8.1.4): Exhaust Gas Sensor Monitoring 7. Section (f)(8.2.1)(A): Ex haust Gas Sensor Monitoring 8. Section (f)(8.2.2)(C): Ex haust Gas Sensor Monitoring E. Monitoring Requirem ents for All Engines 1. Section (g)(1.3.1)(E): Engi ne Cooling System MonitoringWaiver Request Support Document

47 2. Section (g)(2.2.7): Crankcase Ve ntilation (CV) Syst em Monitoring 3. Section (g)(3.1.5): Comprehensive Component Monitoring 4. Sections (g)(3.2.1)(D), (g)(3 .2.2)(E), (g)(4.3): Comprehensive Component Monitoring and Other Emission Controls System Monitoring 5. Section (g)(3.4.3): Comprehensive Component Monitoring 6. Section (g)(5.7): Excepti ons to Monitoring Requirements F. Standardization Requirements 1. Section (h)(1): Reference Documents 2. Section (h)(4.1), (4.1.4): Readiness Status 3. Section (h)(4.3.1): Required Emission Related Functions 4. Sections (h)(4.4.1)(D), (4.4 .2)(D): Required Emission Related

Functions 5. Sections (h)(4.4.1)(F)(iv), (4.4 .2)(F)(iv): Required Emission Related

Functions 6. Section (h)(4.5): Requir ed Emission Related Functions 7. Section (h)(4.7.2): Required Emission Related Functions 8. Section (h)(4.7.5): Requ ired Emission Related Functions 9. Section (h)(5.2.1)(B): Tracking Requirements 10. Section (h)(5.2.2)(A): Tracking Requirements G. Monitoring System Demonstrati on Requirements fo r Certification 1. Section (i)(2.3.1),(2.4): Aging and data collection of diesel test engines and Aging of gasoline engines. 2. Section (i)(3.1.3),(3 .1.4): Required Testing 3. Section (i)(3.1.5),(3 .1.6): Required Testing 4. Section (i)(3.2.7): Required Testing 5. Section (i)(3.4): Required Testing 6. Section (i)(3.5): Required Testing 7. Section (i)(4.1): Testing Protocol 8. Section (i)(4.2): Test Sequence 9. Section (i)(4.3): Test Data Collection 10. Section (i)(5): Evaluation Protocol

H. Certification Documentation 1. Section (j)(2.2) 2. Section (j)(2.7) 3. Section (j)(2.16), (2.17) I. Deficiencies – Section (k)(6.1) : Request for Retroactive Deficiencies J. Production Engine/Vehi cle Evaluation Testing 1. Sections (l)(1.2.1), (2.1) 2. Section (l)(1.3): Test Equipment