p. 1



# OAR Box 1190 Prepped byCandice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 71 ) II-E- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

Printed 5/5/20089:13:51 AM

Sheet 71 of 106P. 2

J.-K

MEMORANDU M TO : And yBrooks/OB D I I Fil e FROM : Davi d Dickinso n \\V s DATE : 9/23/9 1 ^ ^ RE : Summaryo f 9/12/9 1 CARB publi c hearing fo r OB D statu s an

d propose d revision s technica l

Th e following notation s ar e specifi c point s mad e during th e hearin g whic heithe r wer e particularl ysignifican t i n relatio nt o th e prio r propose d OB D I I rul e o r coul d perhap s affec t EPA' s waive r consideration . I n genera l th e CARB staf f conclude d tha t mos t manufacturer s wer e o n schedul e t o implemen t OB D I I system s (a t leas t a portio n o f thei r vehicles ) b

yth e 199 4 mode l year—th e firs t yea r o f OB D I I implementation . Th e Boar d agree d wit hth e staf f conclusion , despit e manufacture r dispute , an d adopte d th e change s i n orde r t o ope n up a furthe r writte n commen t period . Th e CARB staf f state d i t mayconside r a schedule d implementatio npla n( a certai npercentag e o f flee t complianc e i n '94,'9 5 mode l year s wit hful l complianc e i n '96 ) i n respons e t o manufacture r claim s tha t the yar e stil l developing technology . CARB i s keeping thei r publi c commen t perio d ope n throughmid

Octobe r 1991 , an

d expect s t o submi t a waive r reques t t o EPA sometime betwee n Marc han d Jul y1992 , dependen t upo n th e numbe r o f comments , workshop , etc . CARB announce d tha t i n Septembe r 199 2 i t wil l hol d anothe r publi c hearing i n Sacrament o t o monito r manufacture r technica l statu s an d amen d OB D I I i f necessary . I t i s no t clea r ho wsuc hamendment s woul d b e treate d withi nth e contex t o f a waive r request . Th e following ar e th e notation s mentione d above , couple d wit h response s mad e b

ymanufacturer s (manufacturer s complaine d tha t they though t presen t meetin g wa s fo r sol e purpos e o f checking thei r technica l statu s wit hth e prio r OB D I I requirements . Manufacturer s claime d the ywer e onl ypu t o n notic e o f CARB' s change s t o OB D I I th e wee k prio r t o th e hearing an d wer e thu s no t prepare d t o giv e ful l commen t o n th e propose d changes) : 1 . Catalys t Monitoring

a . Evaluat e efficienc yove r FT P a s oppose d t o singl e stead y spee d driving condition . - manufacturer s wante d t o reserv e commen t o n this . b . Fo r lead time "stead yspeed " wil l b e allowe d fo r '9 4 an d '9 5 Mys .P. 3 /

2 . Evaporativ e Monitoring

a . Ne wproposa l seek s a mor e effectiv e monitorin g systemt o detec t a system

leak equivalen t t o a 0.0 4 inc hdiamete r orifice . Manufacturer s commente d tha t technolog ywa s no t currentl yavailabl e t o d o thi s an

d theywer e no t sur e wha t siz e orific e coul d b e detected , Boar d suggeste d t o look a t thi s agai n i n Sept . 199 2 whe n ne wevaporativ e emissio n regulation s ar e i nplace . b . Thi s requiremen t woul d become effectiv e concurren t wit hne w standards/tes t procedure s fo r evap . emissions , whic hsome though t t o b e afte r 1994 . 3 . Fue l Cap Monitoring

a . I f manufacturer' s systemi s capabl e o f detecting whe nfue l cap i s no t fastened , faul t cod e woul d b e erase d an d MI L extinguishe d (i f n o othe r malfunctions ) upo n fastening . Manufacturer s though t thi s feasible . 4 . OB D I I vs . Federa l OB D a . Propose d tha t non-LEV s (whichwil l b e 48 % o f flee t i n 1998 , 23 % i n 1999 , 0 % thereafter-according t o implementatio nrate s Tabl e fo r flee t averag e standard s fo r passenge r cars ) designe d t o mee t federa l OB D woul d b e accepte d i nCaliforni a afte r 199 8 mode l year , i n orde r t o employa singl e OB D design . Manufacturer s state d tha t theythough t CARB polic ywa s t o allo wmanufacturer s t o develo p on e OB D systemfo r bot hCaliforni a an d EPArequirements . Implementatio n o f fed OB D requirement s shoul d g o int o effec t i n 199 4 according t o NPRMpublishe d 9/24/91 . Sinc e CARB plan s t o mak e MI L illuminatio n optiona l i n certai n circumstance s (se e 5 f below ) i t i s unclea r whethe r CARB wil l allo wcar s t o mee t onl yEPArequirement s o r whethe r EPAwil l allo wCARB car s fo r th e '9 4 an d '9 5 mode l years . 5 . Othe r modifications

a . MI L woul d no t blink unles s misfir e wa s a t leve l t o caus e actua l catalys t damage

- i nthi s contex t ahadditiona l tri p woul d b e allowe d t o verif ypresenc e o f misfire . b . Amonitoring systemwoul d b e require d o n al l vehicle s using CF C refrigerant s i n orde r t o detec t leaking

- mos t manufacturer s state d tha t the yhope d t o avoi d thi s requiremen t wit hth e us e o f substitute s o r tha t CFC s wer e t o b e phase d ou t b ylawanywayan

d thu s the ythough t researc han d technolog

yt o monito r suc hleak s wa s no t cos t effective , CARB staf f maintaine d tha t thi s monitorin g wa s stil l necessaryunti l ba n o nCFC s became law . c . Storag e o f "freez e frame " condition s woul d b e require d fo r malfunction s othe r tha n misfire/fue l systemproblem s i n orde r t o determin e exac t conditions(speed,HP , coolan t temperature , etc. ) o f vehicl e whe n malfunctio n occurred . Manufacturer s wer e i n genera l consensu s tha t th e technologyt o recor d freez e frame condition sP. 4

doe s no t currentl yexis t an d tha t the ywer e no t sur e ho wman y "sets " o f condition s th e OB D mus t recor d i nrelatio nt o th e numbe r o f malfunctioning occurrences . I n othe r word s MI L illuminatio ni s no t require d i n some instance s unti l a malfunctio noccur s severa l times , thu s manufacturer s wer e concerne d tha t freez e frame recording woul d b e require d fo r eac hmalfunctio n an d wer e unsur e ho wlong suc hinformatio n shoul d b e stored . I naddition , manufacturer s state d tha t i t woul d b e impossibl e fo r mechanic s t o reproduc e freez e frame condition s i n orde r t o chec k th e validit yo f thei r repairs . d . Propose d tha t MI L woul d b e illuminate d whe n ke yi s turne d bu t extinguishe d afte r ca r ha s started . Manufacturer s though t tha t the ycoul d compl ywit hsome universa l MI L languag e o nth e vehicl e instrumen t panel . e . Starting i n 199 4 CARB want s t o recal l th e OBD s i f the yar e malfunctioning themselves , regardles s o f whethe r vehicl e i s meetin g emissio n standards . Severa l manufacturer s worrie d tha t thi s migh t b e a n incentiv e t o no t instal l OBD s unti l require d t o d o so , thu s discouraging manufacturer s t o "test " o r experimen t wit hthei r OB D technologywit hcar s i n use . f . 199 4 an

d 199 5 mode l year s wil l no t requir e (optional ) MI L illuminatio n fo r EVAP , misfir e an d catalys t malfunctions

- theoryi s tha t manufacturer s wil l b e experimenting wit htechnologyan d d o no t wan t custome r dissatisfaction/distrus t o f OBD system . (Compute r wil l nevertheles s recor d applicabl e malfunctio ncodes ) Ther e wa s verylittl e discussio no f actua l cost-per-vehicl e fo r th e OB D system thoughsevera l member s o f th e CARB boar d expresse d concer n wit hth e CARB staff' s figur e o f approximatel y $20.00 . Manufacturer s wer e als o doubtfu l od thi s lowfigur e bu t wer e unabl e t o suppl ya cos t estimat e sinc e technologyi s no t completel ydeveloped . I a mcurrentl yreviewing EPA' s NPRMfo r OBD an d comparing i t wit hCARB' s proposa l t o determin e consistenc yan d whethe r ther e ar e an ygap s betwee nwhe n bot hcom e int o effec t o r allo wth e othe r system t o mee t it s ow

nstandards .



# - • £