p.1 

OAR Box 1190 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

31) IV-A-02 

Docket Number: 

A-90-28 

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:50 AM Sheet 31 of 106 
- -•.• -

7'v ; 

P.2 

,4 . 

California's On-Board 

Diagnostic II 

'Requirements 

Hearing on Request 

for Waiver of Preemption 

Ann Arbor, MI 

October 17,1995 
P.3 

num.Miieniyons uauiorniaMJI Resourcesooaro rax; le'itfja/a-oos:* voice: i» lb) 3«3<otuo 10: Mine lems rage^ous 1 nursoay,uctooer u, l»i» D:«e:»urM 

California's On-Board 

Diagnostic II 

Requirements 

Hearing on Request 

for Waiver of Preemption 

Ann Arbor, MI 

October 17,1995 

Outline 

Waiver Issues 

Description of OBD II 

Evaluation of Issues 

- Protectiveness 

- Compelling Need 

- Consistency with federal requirements 

- Feasibility 

Summary 
P.4 

i r\e*uui-e* OUOJU P«A. \p .Of 913«o» vuit-c. yo IOJ diao w >u.miK« i«li» royeguiw niui»i_oy, w-wuw »*, .:»;» a.w,__r.m 

faiiv@ir issy^s 

° Description of OBD II 

° Evaluation of Issues 

- Protectiveness 

- Compelling Need 

- Consistency with federal requirements 

- Feasibility 

° Summary 

Federal Clean Air Aet 

0

 S 209(a) 

Preempts state new motor vehicle 

standards 

• S 209(b) 

Directs EPA to waive preemption 

for California standards unless 

EPA makes one of three specified 

findings 

 
P.5 

. MiiCMLywn» WOIIIWHIIO/MI r\o»uuii*«a DUAI U r<« . ^o toy ao-ow w VUILC. loioja.a^Oi M iw.ivunc ICIII ; 

1 , -

First § 209(b) Finding 

- Protectiveness -

EPA can deny a waiver if it finds 

California has been arbitrary and 

capricious in determining our 

standards are, in the aggregate, 

as protective of the public health 

and welfare as applicable federal 

standards 

Protectiveness 

For waivers of enforcement provisions, the only 

relevant inquiry is: 

"[A]re the procedures so lax that they threaten the 

validity of California's determination that its standards 

are as protective of public health and welfare as 

applicable federal standards." 

MEMA V. EPA (1979) 
P.6 

rrom: Alien Lyons uaworniaMJi resources Doaro rax: IOIBJD/D-OOSU* voice; IOIOJ;»;>-OOIM ly.wime win* 

Second § 209(b) Finding 

Compelling & Extraordinary Conditions 

EPA can deny a waiver if California 

does not need the standards to 

meet compelling and extraordinary 

conditions 

Third § 209(b) Finding 

- Consistency -

EPA can deny a waiver if the 

California standards and 

accompanying enforcement 

procedures are inconsistent 

with § 202(a) 
P.7 

num. Mien iyun* v.<_uoniia>Mi resources Doara ra_. toiojojo-owa voice, loiojoja-oo** IU.WIIKC ieni» 

I -

Test Proced 

Federal and State Test Procedures 

should not preclude meeting both 

sets of requirements with the 

same test vehicle 

iT.si5tencyr1_.ead 

§ 202(a): Federal emission standards 

must take effect after the period 

necessary to permitdevelopment and 

application ofthe requisite technology, 

giving appropriate consideration to 

the cost of compliance 
nom Miien Lyon» ^aiiiorniaMir resources Doaro rax: toiojojo-oosa voice, toioja/doo^ lO.miRe iem» rayc* «i ^ utui»uay, w^-iuue. »._., U M «*.*(.,#«) tn 

EPA's consideration is limited 

to the three issues in statute 

, "The law makes it clear that the waiver 

requests cannot be denied unless the 

specific findings designated iri the statute 

can properly be made." 

== Administrator William Rukelshaus, 1971 

E PA must give substantial deference 

• ~' • to"California'spolicyjudgments 

" The structure and history of the 

California waiver provision clearly 

indicate a Congressional intent and 

an EPA practice of leaving the 

decision on ambiguous and controversial public policy.to California's 

judgment." 

-•- Administrator Russell Train, 1975 

i 

i 

, mmmmMmm^yA^u^t^^mk^ammtmmmmmmmmmuaamtMmmmtmummmaamtmt^^u^KKtmmtAiMLUMi. 
P.9 

rrom. Alien Lyons cainornia «ir Kejourcos boaio cax: (»IBJ»/»«O» » voice: IB IB) s/o-ottw IO.MIKO lerris rageooijo inuikoay, utiuuei K, i« » a.a^.iarm 

"Even on the issue of technological feasibility, I would feel constrained 

to approve a California approach to the problem which I might also feel 

unable to adopt at the Federal level in my capacity as a regulator. The 

whole approach of the Clean Air Act is to force development of new 

types of emission control technology where that is needed by 

compelling the industry to 'catch up' to some degree with newly 

promulgated standards. Such an approach to automotive emission 

control might be attended with costs, in the shape of a reduced product 

offering, or price or fuel economy penalties/and by risks that a wider 

number of vehicle classes may not be able to complete their 

development work in time. Since a balancing of these risks and costs 

against the potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central 

policy decision for any regulatory agency .. . I believe I am required to 

give very substantial deference to California's judgment on that score." 

Administrator Russell Train, 1975 

The burden is on the opponents 

i waiver 

"The language ofthe statute and its legislative 

history indicate that California's regulations, and 

California's determination that they comply with the 

statute, when presented to the Administrator are 

presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and 

that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever 

attacks them." 

-- U.S. Federal Court of Appeals 

in MEMA v. EPA (1979) 

•! 
P.10 

rrom: Alien Lyons California Air Kesourcas board i>_t:iB'iB)o/&<oo£tt» voice: loioiafo-OMj lo.Mine terns r«ne5«i*( "W.M, , wvwuei •., iM * . 

Outline 

Waiver Issues 

Description of OBD II Requirements 

Evaluation of Issues 

- Protectiveness 

- Compelling Need 

- Consistency with Federal Requirements 

- Feasibility 

Summary 

On-Board Diagnostics 

Purpose 

Reduction of in-use emissions from 

vehicles with emission-related 

malfunctions 
p.11 

riwin. mien _.yun» uamoiluaHil r\«*ouico_. ooaiu r«*. \p\0)^i^oo^s voice, ^IO^JS-OO M IU. mine tenia raye IVUI M inui»uay, uv.wvei i*. I« J -.w,« 4 i m 

On-Board Diagnostics 

Concept 

Emission-related functions monitored by 

on-board computer 

Vehicle Operator alerted to malfunction 

Diagnostic information stored to help 

technicians fix detected problem 

First Generation OBD 

OBDI 

Waiver granted June, 1986 

Monitoring Requirements 

Fuel System 

EGR System 

Electronic Input Components 
P.12 

. iwioy *.--w« y^c.loioH<j^>wg iu. ttime iem» rage H oi oo inursoay, uciooei .*_., iwa o:94.W9 rw 

OBD II Requirements 

Adopted in 1989 for 1994 and Later Models 

Improvements upon OBD I 

- Scope of requirements expanded 

- Malfunction Criteria Enhanced 

Scope of OBD II Monitoring 

Requirements 

Catalyst HC Conversion Capability 

Catalyst Auxiliary Heating System Performance 

Engine Misfire Detection 

Evaporative System Leak Detection 

Exhaust Gas Recirculation Performance 

Fuel System Performance 

Oxygen Sensor Performance 

Secondary Air System Performance 

Electronic Input / Output Component Function 

Standardized Access to Diagnostic Information 
P.13 

_.,•_,.,,.. . ' " 

num. *iieinyuh* w—iioinidMii r\esou(ce& ooato ra*. IOIOJOJ04099 voice, to iojojo-oo*> lu.mme iem» ratfe i_ vi-w uiuiauoy, u.w« i >.., 

OBD II Malfunction Criteria 

• General Requirement 

Malfunctions causing emissions to exceed 1.5 times 

applicable standards are to be detected 

• Exceptions 

Evaporative Svstem Leak Detection 

System must detect leaks greater than a 0.040 inch hole 

(0.020 inches beginning with 2000 model year) 

Functional Checks 

Input components: proper signals to ECU 

Output components: response to computer commands 

OBD II Regulatory History 

Regulation originally adopted 

September, 1989 

Staff Directed to present periodic 

updates on manufacturers' progress 

and to propose modifications to 

regulation as necessary 
_P.1_4_ 

-•ri.n. I-UIBII _.yuna -.oiuuimaMII rvebuuite* DOdiu ra*. 4010,1 OJO-OO» voice, IOIO/OJO-OOM lO.Mme terns rage u oi .» 1 nursaay, uciooer u t i-»»» »:»»: ib rM 

ptember 1991 Upd 

Catalyst Monitoring: 

Steady State HC efficiency monitoring replaced: 

Low Emission Vehicles: 

Monitoring of front catalyst for 50-60% FTP HC 

efficiency 

Non-Low Emission Vehicles: 

HC emissions monitored for 1.5 X STD increase over 

4K value. 

ptember 1991 Update 

° Emp©F®Hw<B sysfcim Dissilk dl@fc@eftii©ini 

Applicable to 1996 and later models complying 

with high temp evaporative test procedures 

° Hosflr© D<g_(g(gi_i®n

 i 

Misfire over full operating range delayed until 

1997 

Detection of misfire only during FTP conditions 

for 1994 through 1996 vehicles 

^ _ 

n iim • __u._i__i_i__________. II I Hilll I I_I ll__iii _ _nlili i__mJ

 -
_______________^_ P.15 

nom./uienuyons uainorniaMirResourcesooaio ran:I»IOJ»/»-O<K(» voice:(bio)9j»*«*» io:Mine lams ragei4oij» Inursoay,uctooei iz, ia» »:oo:»«ri»i 

June 1993 Hearing 

Deficiency provisions adopted in 

response to petition by Ford Motor 

Company 

December 1994 Update 

Low Emission Vehicle Catalyst 

Monitoring 

- Front catalyst monitoring requirements revised to 

allow for system based determination 

- Phase-in from 1998 to 2000 model year (AAMA 

suggested phase-in percentages adopted) 

- Interim malfunction criteria adopted to allow for 

reasonable phase-in 

L_> 
P.16 

i win. Miieut.yvii» ^amwuiiaMii rve*uui(-e_ oumu ra* . \p .0) 3/9-0099 voice. (Q I0> OOOO M i V. mine l em * ray e iw wi w^ mui»uay, vwwuei i_., U M W.WW.AO r m 

December 1994 Update 

Misfire Detection 

- Full range misfire detection delayed with 

phase in from 1997 through 2000 model 

year 

- High speed, light load disablement region 

adopted 

December -1994-tlpdate-

• Evaporative Leak Detection 

- Detection of 0.020 inch leaks required 

- Phase-in from 2000 to 2002 model year 

• Deficiency provisions extended 

through 2000 model year 
P. 17 

riom. Hiten Lyons uaiilorniaMjf resources DOUO raa; loio/a/a-oow voice; leiejo/a-oe** IOIMIKB terns . rage 10 oi oa inursoay, uciouei i*. I»K> o-oj.w_.rm 

Outline 

Waiver Issues 

Description of OBD II Requirements 

Evaluation of Issues 

- Protectiveness 

- Compelling Need 

- Feasibility 

Summary 

Issues 

• Is protectiveness determination 

arbitrary and capricious? 

• Are standards not needed to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions? 

• Are standards and enforcement 

procedures inconsistent with § 202(a)? 
.£..18 

nwia.Miiein.yonk uamornidMH resources ooaro rax. toio/o.o<oo»9 voice. (oio>o/o-oc-w lo.mme terns r aye n wi ^w ntuityaji, WWMWCI >_, IM V W.W* -^ 

Protectivem 

Protectiveness has been established 

regardless of whether OBD II is 

considered an enforcement provision 

or a new standard 

Protective^ 

ora 

D D 

° The ARB, in adopting the OBD II regulation, 

has expressly found that the requirements will 

not undermine the protectiveness ofthe 

California vehicle emissions program. 

° OBD II will provide for greater emission 

reductions from motor vehicles through the 

prompt repair of emission-related malfunctions 

* . .._!___J_ . .I, l__Hii_iik_iiii__iiiimi___ii.ii_ i 
-_-_-_----__________, P. 19 

r i om. Miied _.yonb v#«inoiiuttMii r\e»ouicek DO«U U rd* . \o IOJ 0J3«e9_> vwice. IOIOJOJO-OOIM i w. mute i eiua • "w- •*-*.._- .,,»,»--,, , --.-_- . .. , ... . . ._ . ... 

Protectiveness 

OBD II as a New Standard 

OBD il requirements are more stringent 

than federal OBD requirements 

- OBD II requirements are more 

comprehensive 

- Malfunction thresholds are more stringent, 

particularly for low emission vehicles 

Second § 209(b) Finding 

Compelling & Extraordinary Conditions 

Issue: Do compelling and extraordinary 

conditions continue to justify California's 

need for its own motor vehicle control 

program? 

Whether any given standard is necessary 

to address the need is not an issue 
P.20 

noni.MiieiiLyons uaiuuirtidHii resources Doara rat; ioio>o.o«o» voice. (Oiojojo-ochM io. wni\e iem» r ay e i_> wi «*w iii-tt»way, 

Need 

Because of its unique geographical and 

»er and conce 

vehicles, California continues to h 

worst air quality in the 

?e the 

Test Procedure 

Federal and state test procedures 

do not preclude meeting both sets 

of requirements with the same test 

vehicle 

l-i l 

 
P.21 

rroni; Miien Lyons uajnornia air resources ooaro rax: ieid)»i&-©oy» voice; ieiejo.»-ot>M IO:MH_B terns rage<uoi*o inursuay, wciwuoi i_., iwo s.w.wr m 

Consistency 

One system will satisfy both California and 

federal requirements for non-low emission 

vehicles 

- California OBD II systems accepted federally through 

1998 

- Federal OBD systems accepted in California after 1998 

Consistency: Leadtime 

§ 202(a): Federal emission standards 

must take effect after the period 

necessary to permit development and 

application ofthe requisite technology, 

giving appropriate consideration to 

the cost of compliance 
P.22 

uuihstuww u rat . piUjvUMM J vuiwc. IOIO/^IU«O< M w. IVIIAC I eni» rdye^ioi^u inuisudy, utiooei i_., 1990 o.os.oorm 

Technological Feasibility 

0

 Technology is presently available for many 

monitoring requirements 

0

 Significant lead time has been provided and 

remains for other requirements 

0

 The regulations and directives from the Board 

have provided, and will continue to provide for 

compliance flexibility and "safety valves" 

Tec1 lical Feasil 

0

 NRDC and International Harvester cases: 

greater discretion for California 

standards 

0

 Appropriate to project future advances 

in technology; not limited to existing 

technology 

0

 Significance of substantial leadtime 

and ability to reevaluate progress 

• 
_______________________________________________________ P.23 

-m-.--y.-y — - - • . •-, — •• - - r . . , - • 

rrom: Allen Lyons California Air Kesources Board fsx: l81B)i?»-669» voice: (blB)b/»*b*j io:Mine i ems rage_coi.» inuikuoy, uwa u n., ISM o.w.*-rm 

"Safety Valves" 

"Considerations of fairness will 

support comprehensive and firm, even 

drastic, regulations, provided a "safety 

valve" is also provided - ordinarily a 

provision for waiver, exception or 

adjustment,..." 

International HarvesterV. EPA (1973) 

OBD II Safety Valves 

Deficiency provisions through the 2000 model 

year 

Specific provisions for consideration by the 

Executive Officer (e.g., section (b)(3.3.3)) 

Periodic reviews of manufacturers' progress 
. «ncti wywn» womwiiuaMM r\e»wuice» ooaiu r**. \o iojo;o-w»? voice, p iojojo-oo*a i o. mine i em* 

P.24_ 

rage 4001 JO inuisaay, wciooei i_, 1999 o.vi.nri* 

current OBDII 

minnitm 

(demonstration of current technology) 

° Most 1996 models have alrea 

received OBD II certification 

approval from ARB 

° Only one model (extremely low 

volume) is subject to fines for excess 

deficiencies 

1996 Honda LEV 

° 1996 Model Year LEV Civic recently 

announced 

° Successfully calibrated to meet 1.5 X Std 

malfunction thresholds (uses interim 

catalyst monitoring malfunction 

threshold) 
P.25 

•IB mn I\B»UUI-_» Dwaiw r«_*. \p .of w* v-ww^ vwt»-o. ^ IP/ a* 9-OOM I W. wiih« lenib rage_:4 or JO inursoay, uctooer .4.. 1330 o:ui:4o rwi 

Low Emission Vehicle 

Catalyst Monitoring 

Requirement: Detect catalyst system deterioration 

before emissions exceed 1.5 times HC standard 

Requirement phase-in 

- 1998 - 30 % of low emission vehicles 

- 1999 - 60 % 

- 2000-100% 

Manufacturers may choose portion of catalyst system 

to monitor provided correlation with emissions can be 

made 

Feasibility Using Oxygen 

Storage Method 

Front portion of catalyst system monitored 

(overall system performance inferred) 

Dual Oxygen Sensors 

__l^^j_____^ __Z______^Or^C> 

oooo Front Catalyst Downstream Catalyst 
P.26 

num . Miien Lyon* waiiiurnidMii r\e*ouice» DOAI U rd* . ioio)oto-oo99 voice. IOIOJO*O-OO* > tw.mine lein * raycAOwi«w iiiwiawoy, wvwwei »_., >**•* «.«*..*-_. ... 

1996 Examples 

Front Catalyst Monitoring 

Ford - T-Bird* 

Mitsubishi - Sw__mit*/Mirage*/Expo* 

Mazda - Protege*, Millenia 

Nissan - Altima* 

Subaru - Legacy* 

Toyota - Camry*, GS300 

* TLEVs 

Catalyst Monitoring 

Manufacturers should be able to meet 1998 

phase-in percentage with TLEVs 

1995/96 production vehicles establish 

feasibility for TLEVs 
P.27 

riuin.Miieii_.yunh u-uiiornittMir net our ces ooaro ru . IOIOJOOOO M voice, IOIOJOO-OOOO io:miHe terns rage^ooiw inur&aay, uciuoei u, 1999 o.w.w rm 

Leadtime 

• 4 years of leadtime given to meet 1999 

phase-in percentage 

• The OBD II regulation has specified front 

catalyst monitoring on low emission vehicles 

since 1991 

Technological Feasibility 

Significant Leadtime 

• NRDC Case 

- Have theoretical objections been 

answered? 

- Have the major steps needed to 

refine the technology been identified? 

- Have plausible reasons been offered 

for believing steps can be completed 

in time? 
P.28 

-IBM _.ywiia ^OIIIUMIIOMI I rve»wuii.ea DUOI U ra*. \p io/ o*9-ows vwit c 40 IOJ =»*0-<XK>W lu.nrime lein * rage ^.t oi J O inuisody, uciwuet i_,t is » O.WO.AS r m 

ARB's Prototype ULEV 

1990 Buick LeSabre - 3.8 Liter V6 

Equipped with small volume EHC + Light 

Off Catalyst Ahead of OEM Catalyst 

Baseline HC Emissions: 0.035 g/mi NMHC 

Oxygen Sensor Measurements 

Normally Performing Catalyst 

(HC Emissions 0.035 g/mi) 

Front sensor 

o 

00 

00 OO 00 3 

• t 

i n 

00 

T 

^D 

00 

•<r 

r00 

^r 

00 

00 

•^r 

o\ 00 

^r 

Time (sees) 
P.29 

twin, mien Lywus ^ainuilliaMII rve»vulie» OVdlu ra* . to IOJ3J3<OCKKf VOICe. \p I0J3J9-0OM io: MIKG i ems KageiBorjs inursaay,ucioosr u,isss o:uo:uorM 

1 T 

0) 

O) 

| 0.8 + 

Simulated Deteriorated Catalyst 

(HC emissions 0.060 g/mi) 

Front sensor 

— Rea r sensor 

O ~ 

00 00 00 

<3-

00 s 

•<fr 

m 00 

-<* 

0v0 o 

TT 

r00 -

•<t 

00 

00 

TT 

ON 

00 

Tf 

Time (sees) 

Misfire Detection 

Full range misfire detection phase-in: 

-1997-50% -1998-75% 

-1999-90% -2000-100% 

Manufacturers appear capable of meeting 

requirements with existing crankshaft speed 

technology or by phasing-in high data rate 

technology 

Alternate technologies also show promise for 

more difficult engines 

Pressure Sensors 

Torque Sensors 
rrom: Alien Lyons uaworma Air Resources Board rax: idiojo/o-owa voice: (oio> or o-ot^w io;wui\e terns royo MUI« M 

) Detecti© 

° The OBD II regulation permits acceptance of 

strategies with minor detection limitations 

Section (b)(3.3.3): 

... [W]ith Executive Officer approval, the 

manufacturer may disable misfire monitoring 

when misfire cannot be distinguished from 

other effects (e.g., rough roads, transmission 

shifts, etc.) when using the best available 

monitoring technology." 

i Detec 

Lead 

° Misfire detection regardless of operating 

conditions was part of OBD II regulation as 

adopted in 1989 

° The ARB has twice modified requirements to 

facilitate compliance 

° "Safety valve" in place for near term feasibility 

issues 

•HH  
P.31 

nuiii.Miien Lyons ^auiornia Mir resources ooaro rax: (Big)0/0.009:* voice: i,eiejo/o.oaM io:MiKe terns KageJUorid I nursoay, uctooer "U, u«*o o:uo:^jrM 

Evaporative System 

Leak Detection 

Current Requirement: 

Detection of 0.040 inch leaks 

Future Requirement: 

Detection of 0.020 inch leaks 

Phase In 

-2000-50% 

-2001-75% 

-2002-100% 

Evap Leak Detection 

Examples of Current Vehicles Meeting 0.040 

Inch Leak Detection Requirements: 

Nissan Maxima 

Mazda Protege 

GM S/T Truck 

Mercedes S420 
P.32 

_»• * * «• 

IIO^MI r\c»wwi-c» DWCUW ro*. \oioi »'»-w9 9 vune. 1010/OJOOO^> 1 w, miite leillb rdyeo i wi oo muikuoy, i_>ciwuet IA, 1990 o.wo.oorwi 

Evaporative System 

Leak Detection 

• ARB data indicate 0.020 inch leaks 

can be detected with present 

vacuum-based technology 

• Pressure-based technologies 

appear even more capable 

Ford F150 - Phase II - 60 % Fill - Fuel Temp 71 -88 F 

o 

a 

c 

3 

> 

No Leak 

0.020 in 

Leak 

0.040 in 

Leak 

30 - 40 50 

Time (s) 
P.33 

nom.Miien Lyons caaiiornia Air resources eoaro rax: ^010/0/0-0099 voice; 1,010)0/0-00*) 10: Mine terns rage oz oioo inursoay, uciouei »_., 1999 o.w.jvrw 

Lead 

0

 Manufacturers have 5 years leadtime to 

improve vacuum based systems or 

phase-in pressure based monitoring 

strategies, or an alternate technology 

° Manufacturers have already confirmed 

that 0.020 inch detection requirement is 

feasible with pressure based strategy 

Waiver Issues 

Description of LEV Program 

Evaluation of Issues 

- Protectiveness 

- Compelling Need 

- Feasibility 

SymminfijUiry 

 
P.34 

riwiii.Miinii-.ywuk ^amuiniaMii r\e»uuite» ©w_ju ra*. \p.of Of 0-0099 voice, ^o 10/ 3/3«o<M tw.mine iein» rdys^wi** i uut_way, wm 

Summary 

California OBD II regulation satisfies waiver 

requirements 

- Protectiveness - clearly established 

- Compelling need - unquestionable 

- Technological Feasibility - demonstrated feasible within 

leadtime given. Feasibility based on manufacturers 

current systems, and testing of prototype vehicles 

ARB remains committed to working with 

industry as OBD II implementation continues 

(1996 review already planned) 

Need for Prompt 

Action by EPA 

OBD II systems are already in 

production