p.1 

OAR Box 1190 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

43) ll-A-35 

Docket Number: 

A-90-28 

Printed S/5/2008 9:13:51 AM Sheet 43 of 106 
P.2 

I 

TITLE 13. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TECHNICAL STATUS AND 

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO MALFUNCTION AND DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM 

REQUIREMENTS FOR 1994 MODEL-YEAR PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT-DUTY 

TRUCKS, AND MEDIUM DUTY VEHICLES AND ENGINES (OBD II) 

The Air Resources Board (the "Board" or "ARB") will conduct a public hearing at the time 

and place noted below to consider amendments to California's On-Board Diagnostic II 

(OBD II) requirements to clarify, ensure maximum effectiveness, and to address 

manufacturers' concerns regarding implementation of the regulation. 

DATE: December 8, 1994 

TIME: 9:30 a.m. 

PLACE: Air Resources Board 

Hearing Room, Lower Level 

2020 "L" Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

8 I? 0 W E 

51995 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

This item will be considered at a two-day meeting of the Board, which will commence at 

9:30 a.m., December 8, 1994, and may continue at 8:30 a.m., December 9, 1994. This item 

may not be considered until December 9, 1994. Please consult the agenda for the meeting, 

which will be available at least 10 days before December 8, 1994, to determine the day on 

which this item will be considered. 

TNFORMATTVF DTGFST OF PROPOSED ACTTON/PT ATN FNGT.TSFT POT TPY STATEMENT 

OVF.RVTF.W 

Sections Affected: Proposed amendments to sections 1968.1, 2030, and 2031, Title 13, California 

Code of Regulations (CCR), and the certification procedures referenced in the latter two sections, 

"California Certification and Installation Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems for 

Motor Vehicles Certified for 1994 and Subsequent Model Years," March 11, 1993. Section 

1968.1 was originally adopted by the Board on September 14, 1989. The Executive Officer has 

determined that the amendments may have an affect on some small businesses in the aftermarket 

parts industry. 

The regulation requires manufacturers to implement new on-board diagnostic systems starting with 

the 1994 model year. These OBD systems replace systems previously required by section 1968, 

known as OBD I. Applicability of the OBD II requirements extends to passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty vehicles and engines. The regulation specifically requires the 

implementation of monitoring strategies for catalyst efficiency, misfire detection, evaporative 

systems, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) systems, fuel systems, oxygen sensors, secondary air 

systems, electronic emission-related powertrain components, and others. It further requires that 
P.3 

diagnostic information be provided in a standardized format, and that the communication link used 

to transmit the information be standardized throughout the industry. 

In Resolution 89-77, which was adopted at the time the Board approved section 1968.1 for 

adoption, the Board instructed the ARB staff to provide an update within two years after the 

adoption of OBD II. Specifically, the staff was directed to advise the Board on the progress of 

manufacturers in complying with the requirements in the specified time frame and to propose 

amendments to the regulation deemed necessary based on industry progress and comments. 

In September 1991, the ARB held a hearing on the status of OBD II compliance. At that time, it 

was reported that manufacturers were making significant progress in developing complying 

monitoring systems. However, in response to concerns raised by manufacturers regarding 

reliability, and a desire by staff that the regulation be modified to enhance the effectiveness of the 

regulation and to make the state regulation more consistent with the on-board diagnostic system 

then being proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Board 

approved for adoption amendments to section 1968.1. In Resolution 91-42, the Board directed 

staff to continue monitoring research and development activities related to implementation of the 

on-board diagnostic system requirements for low-emission vehicles and to report back to the Board 

with a recommendation to modify any of the requirements if such requirements are found to be 

nonfeasible and/or impractical for a significant number of manufacturers, with such reports to 

include recommendations for further modification of the regulation. 

In August 1993, upon receipt of a Petition from Ford Motor Company, the ARB considered and 

adopted amendments to the regulations that offered compliance relief to manufacturers which in 

good faith have attempted to comply with the the regulations, but which have been unable to 

certify a fully compliant monitoring system. 

As of this date, although many manufacturers have been able to certify and have been offering for 

sale in California vehicles meeting the OBD II regulation, manufacturers continue to have problems 

in developing fully compliant monitoring systems. These problems generally are associated with 

implementation of enhanced monitoring requirements that are effective with the 1996 or later 

model years. Specifically, manufacturers have expressed concerns about the OBD II catalyst 

efficiency requirements for low-emission vehicle applications, and the enhanced monitoring 

conditions for misfire detection systems. Amendments to the regulation are proposed to address 

these implementation concerns while maintaining the effectiveness of the requirements. Further, 

additional lead time is proposed to facilitate any modifications that are necessary to ensure that the 

revised requirements will be met in-use. 

The staff has proposed amendments to address other OBD II implementation concerns as well. 

Amendments are proposed to definemore specifically the OBD II tamper resistance requirements 

and the monitoring requirements for diesel vehicles and engines. Also, additional leadtime is 

proposed for full OBD II compliance on vehicles using alternate fuels. Regarding the latter, for 

purposes of consistency the staff has proposed an amendment to the certification procedures for 
P.4 

alternate fuel retrofit systems with respect to OBD II system performance. These test procedures 

are referenced by sections 2030 and 2031 of Title 13. 

Separately, an amendment is proposed that would increase the effectiveness of OBD II systems in 

detecting small evaporative system leaks, requiring the detection of leaks as small as the equivalent 

of a 0.020 inch diameter orifice. The improved requirement would be phased in beginning with 

the 1998 model year through the 2000 model year. 

Finally, a number of amendments are proposed to address minor implementation concerns that 

have been identified through the experience gained in bringing OBD II systems to production, and 

to further clarify the regulatory requirements. 

Cnmparisnn With Similar Fpderal RequirementsIn February 1993, the U.S. EPA promulgated final on-board diagnostic requirements for federally 

certified vehicles. (40 CFR Part 86, sections 86.094-2, 86.094-17, 86.094-18(a), 86.094-21(h), 

86.094-259(d), 86.094-30(0, 86.094-35(i), 86.095-30(0, 86.095-35(i); see 58 Fed.Reg 9468-9488 

(February 19, 1993).) The federal OBD requirements are comparable in concept and purpose with 

California's OBD II regulation; however, differences exist with respect to the scope and stringency 

of both sets of requirements. 

Under the OBD II requirements, manufacturers must implement monitoring strategies for 

essentially all emission control systems and emission-related components, as mentioned in the 

above summary. Generally, a malfunction must be indicated when component deterioration or 

failure causes emissions to exceed 1.5 times the vehicle's emission standards; however, even if the 

emission threshold would not be exceeded upon failure of an emission-related component, 

functional monitoring of the component is still required. The federal requirements specifically call 

for the monitoring of only the catalyst, the presence of engine misfire, and oxygen sensors. Other 

system or components need only be monitored if by malfunctioning, vehicle emissions would 

exceed specified tailpipe or evaporative emission thresholds. 

For vehicles certified to California standards identical to the federal Tier 1 standards (0.25 grams 

per mile (g/mi) hydrocarbons (HC), 3.4 g/mi carbon monoxide (CO), 0.4 g/mi oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx)), vehicle emission levels should not be significantly different at the time a malfunction is 

indicated using either a California certified or federally certified OBD monitoring system 

(assuming the component or system would be monitored under the federal requirements). 

However, as vehicle emission standards are significantly reduced under the California LowEmission Vehicle (LEV) program (Title 13, CCR, sections 1960.1), the fact that the OBD II 

regulation requires malfunction determinations relative to the lower standards will result in 

California's OBD II requirements being more stringent than those adopted by the U.S. EPA. The 

more stringent California regulations are authorized pursuant to the Legislature's directive in 

Health and Safety Code section 43018 that the ARB endeavor to achieve the maximum degree of 

emission reduction possible from vehicular sources in order to accomplish the attainment of the 
P.5 

state standards at the earliest practicable date. Specifically, section 43018 requires that the Board 

adopt, among other things, regulations that would result in reductions in motor vehicle exhaust and 

evaporative emissions, and reductions in motor vehicle in-use emissions through improvements in 

emission system durability and performance. The OBD II requirements have been adopted in an 

effort to meet this directive. 

In an effort to promote consistency between the California and federal OBD requirements and to 

minimize unnecessary duplication or conflicts between the two regulations, the Board, in the 

amendments approved for adoption in 1991 (and formally adopted in July 1992), modified the 

OBD II catalyst monitoring requirements to be almost identical to the federal requirements for 

vehicles meeting the Tier I federal standards. Further, the 1992 amendments to the OBD II 

regulation provide that after the 1998 model year, California will accept compliance with the 

federal OBD requirements for vehicles not certifying to the California LEV standards but rather to 

the California equivalent of the Tier 1 federal standards. 

Dnr.nments Incorporated hy Reference.1 

"California Certification and Installation Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems for 

Motor Vehicles Certified for 1994 and Subsequent Model Years," amended March 11, 1993. 

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J1850, "Class B Data 

Communication Network Interface," May, 1994 

SAE Recommended Practice J1930, "Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions, 

Abbreviations, and Acronyms," June 1993 

SAE Recommended Practice J1962, "Diagnostic Connector," June, 1992 

SAE Recommended Practice J1978, "OBD II Scan Tool," June, 1994 

SAE Recommended Practice J1979, "E/E Diagnostic Test Modes," June, 1994 

SAE Recommended Practice J2012, "Recommended Format and Messages for Diagnostic Trouble 

Codes," January, 1994 

AVATT.AP.TT.TTY OF nOPTTMFMT.S AND PONITAPT PF.R.9QN 

The Board staff has prepared a Staff Report which includes the initial statement of reasons for the 

proposed action and a summary of the environmental impacts of the proposal, if any. Copies of 

the Staff Report and the full text of the proposed regulatory language may be obtained from the 

Board's Public Information Office, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 322-2990. It 

has further determined that it is not feasible to draft the regulation in plain English due to the 
technical nature of the regulation; however, the Staff Report presents a summary of the regulation 

in plain English and is available as set forth above. 

The Board staff has compiled a record which includes all information upon which the proposal is 

based. This material is available for inspection upon request to the contact person identified 

immediately below. Further inquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Allen Lyons, Air 

Resources Engineer Associate, at (818) 575-6833, 9528 Telstar Avenue, El Monte, CA 91731. 

POSTS TO PTTRT.TP AOF.NPTFS AND TO PJTSTNFSSF.S AND PFRSONS AFFECTED 

The determinations of the Board's Executive Officer concerning the costs or savings necessarily 

incurred in reasonable compliance with the proposed regulations are presented below. 

The Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action will not create costs or 

savings, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(6), to any state agency or in federal 

funding to the state, costs or mandate -to any local agency or school district whether or not 

reimbursable by the state pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with section 17500), Division 4, Title 2 

of the Government Code, or other nondiscretionary savings to local agencies. 

With respect to producers of aftermarket components for light- and medium-duty vehicles, the 

Executive Officer has determined that adoption of the proposed regulatory action may have a 

significant adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to 

compete with businesses in other states. Such businesses would be required to certify that 

components offered for sale in the state of California would not adversely impact the performance 

of vehicle diagnostic systems meeting the requirements of section 1968.1, Title 13, which could 

result in increased costs associated with the development and manufacture of aftermarket 

components. The Executive Officer has considered proposed alternatives that would lessen any 

adverse economic impact on business and invites you to submit proposals. Submissions may 

include the following considerations: 

'to 

(i) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables which 

take into account the resources available to businesses. 

(ii) Consolidation or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for businesses. 

(iii) The use of performance standards rather than prescriptive standards. 

(iv) Exemption or partial exemption from the regulatory requirements for businesses. 

Finally, the Executive Officer has determined that there will be no, or an insignificant, potential 

cost impact, as defined in Government Code section 11346.53(e), on private persons or businesses 

directly affected resulting from the proposed action. 
P.7 

In accordance with Government Code section 11346.54, the Executive Officer has determined that 

the proposed regulatory action should overall have a minor or positive impact on the creation or 

elimination of jobs within the State of California, the creation of new businesses or elimination of 

existing businesses within California, and on the expansion of businesses currently doing business 

within California. An assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed regulatory action can 

be found in the Staff Report. 

Before taking final action on the proposed regulatory action, the Board must determine that no 

alternative considered by the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which 

the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons 

than the proposed action. 

.STTRMTTTAT. OF POMMFNT.S 

The public may present comments relating to this matter orally or in writing. To be 

considered by the Board, written submissions must be addressed to and received by the Board 

Secretary, Air Resources Board, P. 0. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812, no later than 12:00 

noon, December 7, 1994, or received by the Board Secretary at the hearing. 

The Board requests but does not require that 20 copies of any written statement be submitted 

and that all written statements be filed at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The Board 

encourages members of the public to bring to the attention of staff in advance of the hearing 

any suggestions for modification of the proposed regulatory action. 

•STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND HF.AP.TNfi PROPFPTTRFS 

This regulatory action is proposed under that authority granted in sections 39515, 39600, 

39601, 43006, 43013, 43018, 43101, and 43104 of the Health and Safety Code, arid sections 

27156 and 38395 of the Vehicle Code. This action is proposed to implement, interpret and 

make specific sections 39002, 39003, 39667, 43000, 43004, 43006, 43008.6, 43013, 43018, 

43100, 43101, 43101.5, 43102, 43104, 43105, 43106, and 43204 of the Health and Safety 

Code, and sections 27156, 38391, and 38395 of the Vehicle Code. 

The public hearing will be conducted in accordance with the California Administrative 

Procedure Act, Title 2, Division 3, Part 1, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with section 11340) of 

the Government Code. 

Following the public hearing, the Board may adopt the regulatory language as originally 

proposed, or with nonsubstantial or grammatical modifications. The Board may also adopt the 

proposed regulatory language with other modifications if the text as modified is sufficiently 

related to the originally proposed text that the public was adequately placed on notice that the 

regulatory language as modified could result from the proposed regulatory action; in such 

event the full regulatory text, with the modifications clearly indicated, will be made available .. 
P.8 

' • 

to the public, for written comment, at least 15 days before it is adopted. The public may 

request a copy of the modified regulatory text from the Board's Public Information Office, 

2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 322-2990. 

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

^JlfW, CJXC^=*^ 

James D. Boyd 

Executive Officer 

Date: October 11, 1994